February 17, 2020
  • 2:51 pm BREAKING Obama Training Army & DHS To Kill Christians!
  • 12:51 pm Box of Toys Military Toys Toy Guns for Kids Toy Weapons Army
  • 10:51 am Who Can Keep The Soldier Alive The Longest? (PROS Vs. AMATEURS Ghost Recon)
  • 8:51 am Military Kids Get a Christmas Surprise While Dad is Away
  • 7:51 am Chinese soldiers assassinate Japanese experts to seize classified information!Jagged soldier 12
The Norse: Fighters All, Soldiers Few

Tony wyaad



  1. JennPipp Posted on April 27, 2019 at 1:09 pm

    Currently melting in Malaysia and that background has me extremely jealous!

  2. Forndrome Posted on April 27, 2019 at 1:13 pm

    Wouldn't huskarls/members of a Hird be considered professional soldiers? The kind of guys who became members of the Jomsvikings or the Varangian Guard?

  3. colin Paterson Posted on April 27, 2019 at 1:14 pm

    What about the Viking mercenaries that served in Turkey and Iberia?

  4. Nathan Midgett Posted on April 27, 2019 at 1:17 pm

    I found this channel a week ago and I absolutely love it. Keep up the good work, man!!

  5. Sunshine&SilverArrow Posted on April 27, 2019 at 1:19 pm

    Thank you, a good one.
    ✨🎉🎶 Big Congratulations on +80 000 subscribers..well deserved! 🎶🎉✨
    Hugs & sunshine 🌞 N

  6. John Doe Posted on April 27, 2019 at 1:35 pm

    A jaeger can be either a hunter or soldier in German. 😐😐😐😐

  7. ivan55599 Posted on April 27, 2019 at 1:36 pm

    Soldier is rather a term that describes men in armies from 1500s onwards. What you may mean is "warrior cultures" instead of "soldier cultures", which I heard for the first time now.

  8. Petra Meyer Posted on April 27, 2019 at 1:45 pm

    Are Huscarls more a Saxon thing? I was under the impression that Huscarls did mainly fight in the employ of a master?

  9. Nate Marx Posted on April 27, 2019 at 1:50 pm

    Saturday's with Dr. Crawford.

  10. Rens Gervers Posted on April 27, 2019 at 1:57 pm

    On the other hand… although most "vikings" weren't proffessional soldiers, proffessional soldiers did exist.
    The first example being the "Berserker" which is plainly just a champion for either physical rituals like walking through fire and for duels.
    And then there's what the Romans described as "commitatus", the group of soldiers/friends surrounding a lord that are willing to commit their life and loyalty to their leader; in a way making them professional soldiers.

  11. S. Kennedy Posted on April 27, 2019 at 2:36 pm

    The Norse were not an overly masculine society, yet they were still a patriarchy. However, please do not discount the historical remains and evidence of female warrior and/or noble skeletons alongside male bodies.

  12. Quinn Rosenvold Posted on April 27, 2019 at 2:37 pm

    No magpies today? 🙂
    Thanks for the info!

  13. cheezy sauce Posted on April 27, 2019 at 2:44 pm

    I feel like there is a misunderstanding amongst some viewers and commentors that he means the Norse did not have soldiers. What he is saying is that not every Norse was a soldier, but that most Norse men and women knew how to defend themselves from death. They still had people who specialized in taking orders and fighting. Its like calling the people Vikings when that was more of a professional title.

  14. Ed walmsley Posted on April 27, 2019 at 2:48 pm

    You just got a mention on in range TV

  15. Rob Torres Posted on April 27, 2019 at 2:52 pm

    Hollywood always distorts history.

  16. Margo Maloney Posted on April 27, 2019 at 2:54 pm

    Good discussion

  17. Azymut Posted on April 27, 2019 at 3:10 pm

    Bladdur Crawford ^^

  18. Kalle Birgersson Posted on April 27, 2019 at 3:21 pm

    And that is how we still are here, up north

  19. Radiyas 13 Posted on April 27, 2019 at 3:27 pm

    Thx for making that distinction, Jackson. Elucidation is the heart of knowledge . . . .

  20. Oliver Neukum Posted on April 27, 2019 at 3:27 pm

    Did they have professional merchants and mariners? It looks to me that to be a farmer, you need to physically reside on land?
    And speaking of free men, how many slaves did people have?

  21. Jim Mahey Posted on April 27, 2019 at 3:38 pm

    Really appreciate the shorter vid, allowing me to sneak it in between errands. Shout out from BV.

  22. Dttkku Posted on April 27, 2019 at 3:41 pm

    hey hey from Scandinavia 🙂

  23. MrPeterKJ Posted on April 27, 2019 at 3:59 pm

    apart from smiths, shipwrights too would be professionals / specialists, right ?

  24. Wheresmyeyebrow Posted on April 27, 2019 at 4:03 pm

    I’d like to know why Professor Crawford is dressed like a disco cowboy

  25. Radimkiller Posted on April 27, 2019 at 4:55 pm

    "Hey Harald, are you free tonight? I've heard the village in next fjord had pretty good harvest…"

  26. Tezcax Posted on April 27, 2019 at 6:12 pm

    Did they have something akin to a Knightly class? And what about the sailors(vikings if we may call it that) were they professional sailors? Also, how did these amateurs fought so well(or didn't?) against professional soldiers?
    I guess the other Europeans at the time didn't have much in the way of organized armies either but at least they had professional knights.

  27. Ae Norist Posted on April 27, 2019 at 6:33 pm

    Great mentioning the Spartans for contrast.
    Because Spartans were quite professional soldiers, and that was only possible because of the overwhelming part of the society being made up from slaves and helots, that did the farming work.

  28. Sarah Gray Posted on April 27, 2019 at 6:57 pm

    You make a good point. The Vikings were fierce fighters but not professional soldiers until some of them went to Constantinople and became the Varengian Guard.

  29. animist channel Posted on April 28, 2019 at 1:34 am

    A truly free man cannot keep slaves; and to the extent he does, he isn't. The word you're looking for is "militia" meaning all the potentially battle-capable civilians who aren't currently serving in active duty. This concept of an indomitable, armed populace is still retained in Switzerland and parts of Scandinavia, and aspired to in the United States — thus the 2nd amendment calling for "a well regulated militia" (i.e. well-trained, like army regulars).

    The roman and greek "citizen-soldiers" were slavemongers who couldn't even feed themselves by their own hands. In the north, a person was expected to be able to meet their own basic needs first, not just be a professional parasite on others — and this made them tougher and more flexible and more opportunistic, weighing each deal or engagement according to their own wisdom and profit.

    History demonstrates which profile and philosophy wins out. Slavery is a structure of failure and collapse. Freedom is a network of responsibility and opportunity. As modern military theory has discovered: "A structure cannot overcome a network."

  30. Deane Phillips Posted on April 28, 2019 at 8:57 am

    Ever seen Friday night at the local pub in a rural community? No soldiers, but plenty of fighters. Farming must just make people violent.

  31. Virginia Posted on April 28, 2019 at 11:56 am

    Nice talk Dr. Crawford! Formative and interesting as always. I'm not an expert at all, but it's a fascinating object of study, and just a couple of days ago I was reading something about this aspect in a historical document. In particular, there was an interesting link between a strong individualistic attitude, that seems to be very present in vikings society, and they indentity as warriors interested in adventure and personal glory (sometimes of course mercenaries), more than soldiers characterized by a strong sense of collectivity. Have a nice sunday.

  32. Lisa A Johnson Posted on April 28, 2019 at 5:11 pm

    That type of mentality still resonates today in rural areas. People are independent, they protect what is “their property”, which includes family and friends. However they rarely band together to fight as unit, but probably could if really needed.

  33. Mark Cash Posted on April 28, 2019 at 6:52 pm

    Fighting is very drengr! That almost looks like Laramie Peak behind you this time.

  34. Turner Jensen Posted on April 29, 2019 at 3:04 am

    The northmen failed to take Wessex because the majority of their armies consisted of men who wanted easy loot, and when Alfred introduced burhs it gave the saxons a place to store their treasures behind a wall. Most of the warriors in the heathen armies would abandon the campaign if they had to lay sieges for every raid

  35. Livia Lautenschlager Posted on April 29, 2019 at 6:20 am

    The title for the video was well chosen.

  36. I am Craig Grant's bitcoin wallet Posted on April 29, 2019 at 9:11 am

    Boy howdy

  37. Nordic_Viking95 Posted on April 29, 2019 at 6:41 pm

    hello there. i know this doesnt have to do anything with the video but im trying to translate this sentence: a tree does not fall with the first blow into old norse…
    i found this:

    Eigi fellr tré við it fyrsta högg.

    this sentence is from the njal saga chapter 103. but im not sure about the ö rune…
    can you help me out?
    what does the njal saga say? how is it written there?
    it would really help me out..

    thanks in advance

  38. nirfz Posted on April 29, 2019 at 8:03 pm

    I am missing something here: in my opinion a soldier doesn't have to be someone who has this as a profession.
    My definition would be that a soldier is someone who is trained to fight in a coordinated group with a form of command structure.
    Didn't in almost all periods of human history people get "drafted" from their normal "jobs and professions" to fight in conflict/battles/wars?
    I would call them soldiers while they had to do so, even though that was not their profession and they didn't do it their entire life.
    (The modern day eqivalent would be conscript service: I was a soldier for 10 months, but not before or after and it wasn't my profession).
    The question is, did those norsemen have some sort of "conscription service" that made sure they would be able to fight in some coordinated form, or not. Because from what i understand from your video it seems that they did not, and anyone was responsible for his/her own learning how to fight.

  39. Patrick Fleming Posted on April 30, 2019 at 2:11 am

    I think what dr. Crawford is saying here is absolutely correct for Freeman’s caste, commoners so to speak, who made up the majority of the population. They were mostly farmers yet they knew how to fight and make war if they needed too. Jarls caste, the nobility were pretty much professional warriors from my understanding however. They were trained in the use of swords and bows from a young age, well versed in the art of war. As rulers they would become preoccupied with organizing raids and conquest

  40. Vincent Enlund Posted on May 2, 2019 at 10:34 pm

    Absolutely Loved this one. and I like that you identified the difference between a Martial culture and a Soldiers culture. excellent video

  41. TheFireBurnings Posted on June 20, 2019 at 3:21 pm

    I hope your still teaching when I get out of the military, I really
    Want to take your class

  42. Tracie Holladay Posted on July 1, 2019 at 7:50 pm

    My husband is a veteran. You are so right.