Comments | peppermintyrose: Vampire Supermen Party

peppermintyrose

Vampire Supermen Party

Apr 30, 2011 06:51

I think maybe this one might be a little more advanced than my usual, but the issue is something I'm curious about, as a sociological issue, and through the prism of my studies. This won't be an exhaustive explanation, but hopefully my ideas will communicate enough - I tend to keep some vital information in my head at times, which is a ( Read more... )

you know shit about sookie, travails of the svm fandom, pmr resident philosoraptor, the psychology of violence, vampire politics = drama, vamps=dangerous liaisons, tb - the other white meat, run like the wind sookie!, always vampires first, happily ever afters 'n' such, sookie stackhouse - 28, i thinked about svm today, andre's beloved blood bond

Leave a comment

Back to all threads

thyradane April 30 2011, 09:04:01 UTC

My comment was too long for LJ so I divided it in two - here is part two ( ... )

peppermintyrose April 30 2011, 15:51:23 UTC

Well, the Viking people would have been a collection of fiefdoms, and while they met at moot courts, it wasn't until later that there was the sort of central authority grouping we see now.

It's fascinating to me that they would take vampires' words for it. Obviously, this fandom shouldn't be split on this idea, because ain't none of us vampires.

thyradane April 30 2011, 16:15:28 UTC

Denmark was made one country by Gorm the Old in the late 900s
Norway is said to have been one country by Harald Hårfagre (means beautiful hair - he refused to cut his hair before he had all of Norway) though it wasn`t what Norway is today. He was considered the first king of Norway from 872
Eric the Victorious was the first king of Sweden and he also lived in the late 900s.

Those kings were more like "foremost among likemen" (is that a term in English?) - and their sovereignty had to be constantly proven and fought for. Their oldest sons were *usually* made kings after them but it wasn`t until much later that was a certain thing. The new king would usually have to swear to and promise a whole lot of things to be named king.

peppermintyrose April 30 2011, 21:47:14 UTC

No central authority though - that's what I mean. I can go into the city and find central authority for my city, my state and my federal government.

thyradane April 30 2011, 22:54:19 UTC

I meant that as underlining what you said - not contradicting it. It wasn`t until we had autocracy that we had a true central authority in the king. Well, the authority may have been established before but as long as they depended so much on the "nobility" (it wasn`t a true nobility in the beginning), it wasn`t a true authority either.

peppermintyrose April 30 2011, 23:06:08 UTC

Ah - well then. :D

I don't know if it was similar in the Viking period as to Celtic rights of succession - but the people had to have confidence in the leader. In the Celtic world, they sort of chose the King - and there was no right of succession. I must admit I know more about Celtic stuff than I do Viking stuff (not having any shade of Viking heritage).

Back to all threads