Last time i checked what experts say, there's at least an underlying story that predates Christianization.We do not know if Ragnarök only became a thing after Christianity intruded - if so, it might emerge ITTL, too, but it doesn't have to.
Last time i checked what experts say, there's at least an underlying story that predates Christianization.We do not know if Ragnarök only became a thing after Christianity intruded - if so, it might emerge ITTL, too, but it doesn't have to.
Remember any sources?Last time i checked what experts say, there's at least an underlying story that predates Christianization.
My bad, I got them mixed up.That was already happening in norse paganism...with Ođinn. Þor was the common man's god, and not associated with ruling. Theres a reason some of the anglo-saxon kings claim woden for an ancestor, but non claimed þunor
We do not know if Ragnarök only became a thing after Christianity intruded - if so, it might emerge ITTL, too, but it doesn't have to.
Thanks! Yeah, it makes sense that poetry like the Gylfaginning is less prone to open wholesale manipulation than prose, although I'm not so sure this is as clear-cut a boundary, for Snurri was undoubtedly a skilled poet himself, entirely able to compose and not just collect. Also, what this argument entails is that there were likely oral skaldic precursors from the 10th century. But I wasn't saying that Snurri Sturlesson in the 1220s had made it all up - I was implying that Christian influence is mirrored in the emerge of such eschatology from the beginning. And the 10th century is certainly a time in whch Norse pagan culture had absorbed a lot of Christian influence already.
That, too, is an interesting hypothesis. What makes you think so?We're starting to believe Ragnarok was the 530 to early 540s period. The myths are suspected to basically be an account of how that period felt.
That, too, is an interesting hypothesis. What makes you think so?
We're starting to believe Ragnarok was the 530 to early 540s period. The myths are suspected to basically be an account of how that period felt.
There is a claim that Ragnarök was in part based on the stories of the Trojan war, perhaps considered by Snorri himself, due to the similarities of names - Aku-Thor/Hector, Frey/Paris and so on, and the as/aesir coming from Asia/Troy.
He might have believed in it. It was the normal chronicler method (before source criticism), to take all known foreign stuff and combine with your local stuff and there you have it. Some people still believe in it.Its complete codswallop, as was snorri's aesir=tojan connection.
Remember any sources?
Why that time? Rome had perished earlier.
And those people are moronsSome people still believe in it
Are you sure that nothing in the Ragnarök story has been taken from abroad?