>>575905
>But that is not true at all, the "Thirty Years War" alone, fought between christian brothers over religious interpretations, killed 40% of the German population. The "Gallic Wars", for instance, the most violent recorded conflict in pre-christian and destruction of "law of the jungle" times "only" killed or enslaved about 20% of Gaul, with the Romans openly looting and genociding entire peoples out of hatred.
<our violence wasn't as bad as yours, so it is ok!
>If you look at the ancient sources, rape was not a common practice among germanic tribes, who had strong family and marriage institutions, only marrying people of common age, that took no one before or later
>adultery was seen as absent.
Tacitus disagrees, who says that adultresses are stripped and driven from their homes by whips.
>You can't say christianity things improved in that regard, especially when you had such social inequality and institutions like "Prima Noctae" where the nobility could take it's peasants wife on it's first night of marriage.
>He unironically believes in "Prima Noctae"!
>Not to mention the many abuses who would be covered up, simply because of how powerful the nobility and clergy were - they were the ones who wrote the records in the end too.
Kek yeah because muh innocent pagans never did any wrong since they all believed in honour and virtue!
>And if you also look at it, tribal assemblies and "things", and how norse warlords assembled their armies - by prestige and oaths, comitatus, richly rewarding it's followers who partaked in their feats of arms - they were fighting for their tribe, certainly not forcefully drafted into the armies of some petty lord. You have to remember that institutions like the English Navy would simply "impress" sailors, local countryman whom they dragged out of taverns and even their homes in times of war, and sent to far places like China - many dying, becoming castaways and such. No similar thing in viking ships and expeditions to be sure.
Vikings make not have had many slaves going to places, but returningthey certainly did. This is the reason that in Iceland, for example, the male population is genetically Nordic, but the female population is largely Irish/Scottish.
I really don't know why you keep referring to Germanics alone when what you are talking about was also common currency in the Mediterranean powers. Even then, you are at best comparing 9th century maennerbunds with 19th century military power, neither of which have anything to do with Christianity.
>And it must be added that, in medieval times, you had wars as silly as between literal brothers, competing for some throne - because of such "legality" you praise.
Yeah it's almost like human nature is corrupt or something!
>The "Hundred Years War" was a conflict between different french noble houses, because they couldn't agree who the "rightfull ruler" of the kingdom was. It costed millions of lives and distracted christians from efforts like the Crusade.
Like the Northern crusades against nordic, baltic and slavic pagans? Or just against those undesirable sand people?
>It's not utopic to claim that the tribal societies under germanic law had less state-sanctioned suffering than the trials by ordeal and abuses perpertrated by instituted nobility.
Roman and Greek laws concerning the "pecking order" for homosexual behaviour beg to differ, where it was seen as disgraceful for an aristocrat to receive from a servant, but not vice versa.
Germanic law was based mostly on honour, blood-feuds and wergild
At least in the Middle Ages the Church set itself up as a counterweight to secular authority. What was this in the pre-Christian era, where often the religious and royal leadership was often the same person?
>And you should look on the practice of giving child as "tithes"…