.. all those hunter gatherers don't know about rule of law and boundaries, all those ancients were tribal goat-fuckers with no perspective for greatness and size, all those roman emperors were vile, cruel, decadent mad-men. All romans were heathens, all christians were primitive religious nut-cases, all renaissance men were clueless, all people back then were imperialistic racists, all the ancestors were decadent, wasteful vandals, ruining a world the mindless thugs they were, worshipping the process that would kill them, because it allowed them to patch there blood-thirsty nature for the moment, all those hunter gatherers..

I don't know why you're getting downvoted, you're right.

The Anglo-Saxon Chronicle is the primary source for documentation of both the Saxon invasion of Roman Britain, and the Viking invasion of Saxon England (about 500 years apart).

The Saxons were very much a similar culture - same use of (very similar) ships for raiding, same weaponry, same battlefield tactics, same civil organisation and even similar languages. The respective invasions were remarkably similar - raiding, mercenary work, followed by progressive occupation. The Viking invasion got complicated - the Danelaw failed and the Saxons beat them off, but then the Normans (Vikings who'd invaded France a couple generations ago) won.

In the Chronicle the Saxon invasion is portrayed very much as a "we were invited here!". The Viking invasion as a brutal series of raids.

No such thing as bad press I guess - Vikings are cool and Saxons are a bit uncool now ;)

> think we should be careful trusting the sources on Viking brutality all that much as they are almost exclusively from the Christian side.

Why would Christians have lied about the ferocity of their invaders knowing that they actually ravaged and pilled the whole of Western Europe later on? If anything History has proven they were right.