After the attack on Lindisfarne, Alcuin of York advised the English to stop getting trendy haircuts as a way to appease God, and prevent future Viking raids. Is this the worst piece of advice in history? 🤔
@@seximexi5820 semi-legendary means there is not conclusive evidence he truly existed, as all the accounts of his existence were recorded hundreds of years after his death in highly fantasized oral mythologies that are sometimes based on real fact.
If you visit Lindisfarne, keep in mind that it is a real village on the island and it's not like Port Merrion. My folks lived there and the amount of tourists who would just wander into people's gardens and back yards was staggering. It was always a relief for them when the tide would come in and all the visiting tour coaches and cars would leave. (edit: typo)
@local bod we stayed in a hotel on the mainland. We thought that hotels always got rid of used towels and put out new ones. So we took the ones we had home. Then we got an email saying we were blacklisted from the whole area for stealing towels haha. The vikings are allowed back these days. But I'm not. We sent them back down to them anyway.
I spent a few summers staying at the St Vincent de Paul camp site in the 60's. Great holidays, I loved being there. It never would have occurred to me to trespass in people's gardens, though.
Season 1 of that show was amazing. It kind of went off the rails, but I liked the concept of telling the whole Viking age through the lives of a few characters.
Re watched the entire series and it ended today, it's so damn good. Don't dare to say it went off rails. You wont find any better series about Vikings than Vikings. Appreciate they made that show instead of overthinking and get salty about things.
Re: the advice on avoiding future Viking attacks....perhaps "cut your hair" was a useless idea, but "stop hoarding so much wealth" was a GREAT plan. The Vikings wanted "stuff", and knew that the churchmen were greedy accumulators of other people's stuff. If they'd actually espoused in truth, the monasteries would have been safe(r).
Monasteries and churches were used by people to keep their valuables in a time before banks. The monks weren’t necessarily greedy, but I get it most people are anti Christian these days. To a point were people look more fondly of murderous pagan raiders than peaceful monks.
@@margaretlumley1648The Christian God’s wrath and Odin’s happiness. I find it odd, the number of people who discount potential Viking heritage, and remove themselves, because the Vikings were PAGAN (THE HORROR, pagans). Let us not pretend that Pagan, Christian, Islamic, Jewish, the torture of human beings is something of human nature. All religions are guilty of this.
There were raids all the time, also internal raids in Scandinavia - Frisians raided the Danish West Coast, The Venti raided Aarhus in Denmark way before Viking times - vice versa. Basically, for people who lived along a coastline and could sail in ancient times, raiding was always an option. The real story of Lindisfarne is why people - even at the time - made such a fuss about it. It speaks to a clash between a solidifying Christian, medieval culture, where slavery was slowly being abolished and the Church had established a safe position, and the Scandinavian raiders, who just hadn't gotten the memo yet on the new rules. Oh, and the 'Vikings' episode is great drama, but also reinforced the old false trope that people from these cultures didn't know each other. The Scandinavians who traded and travelled would have seen plenty of monks. And they knew where Lindisfarne were, how to get there and what to expect - why the hell else risk going over the North Atlantic? They might easily have visited before as traders and staked out the place. Or gotten word from relatives who has settled (peacefully, largely) on the British mainland nearby. The idea that these people were like aliens from space to each other is just ridiculous.
Make sense when you think about it considering how far the Romans and Alexander got from Rome/Greece. To think that Scandinavians and the people of the British isles didn't know of each other is ridiculous.
Norwegian settlers in the today’s Scottish Islands would also often raid mainland Norway in the summer. It got so bad that after Harald Fairhair consolidated south, west and north-west of Today’s Norway he conquered the islands to subjugate the pirates
The same is true of the first anglo settlers in North America in 1605 ( Jamestown) and again in 1620 (the Pilgrims). The myth is that the natives didn't know what they were, when the truth is that Portugese fishing ships had been harvesting in those waters for a hundred years before the English landed. There was a lot of shore landings to refgesh supplies and to trade with the locals. The natives be-friended the Pilgrims because they understood that an alliance with people who possessed guns would be a benefit. Some even spoke english and portugese.
Often there are several meanings in the writings of this time and others. The previous centuries in this area have documented interactions of these same itinerant 'Norsemen' traveling from the Nordic countries and Baltic area in the summers on trading expeditions that were very regular and seasonal. These mercantile trips show the Vikings were armed, but primarily for defense of themselves and their trading stocks on board their vessels. Traders also knew the local peninsulas and islands near the shore that were isolated enough to fortify temporarily as they beached their vessels and set up camp. Trading was done in a indirect way (due to language differences and mutual distrust) The Viking traders would set out lots of trade goods they'd brought, 'piles' of a set value, then retreat off shore to observe the locals. Then the locals would walk around the trade goods and appraise their value to them. If a purchase/trade was desired, the locals would set their own 'pile' of trade goods, often leather, pottery, woven goods, furniture or metal goods -- next to the pile of Viking goods, as an 'offer' to trade, this for that. Then the locals retreated to observe the Vikings who returned to assess the offered 'swaps', taking the goods offered, if the value was sufficient, and leaving their goods in return. This sort of trading was commonplace in both Scotland, and along both coasts of Great Britain, especially in the Irish sea between Ireland and England. Trading ships sailed out of the Nordic lands in the summer, down between England and Ireland (to avoid stormy waters and to trade with two areas simultaneously). The Norsemen would sail down to Northern Spain and the Southern coast of France, known for its wine and other finished goods. Then, as summer waned, these Norsemen would sail back home, again trading along the way with the people of England and Ireland (as well as offering a sort of 'bus service', documented in a book I read from 500 AD, a note from a monk who recorded taking the 'returning ship' from Spain back to England). So the Vikings were well known and traders, not often raiders as they became in time for a variety of reasons. As for the incident the contemporary writer said incited the Vikings to attack and loot Lindisfarne, it more logically came from discontent or outright aggression during the regular trading trips each summer. Trust had built up and perhaps the local people chose a single Viking ship with a small crew to loot and maim or murder. Just as the exposed Lindisfarne monastery, located, by choice, on an isolated promontory, was 'easy pickin's' for the Vikings, so too would have a Norse trading vessel have been easy to attack and overcome by an organized mass of locals. A proud people and outstanding sailors and raiders, a cry for revenge (and loot) would have raced through the Viking lands, turning their normal summer trade fleets into a large, angry fleet (at first), which their devastating attack on Lindisfarne demonstrated. Something triggered this major change that became the norm, ending the peaceful trading of centuries, by the Norsemen and the people of Scotland, England and Ireland (and further out). It is a story yet to be researched properly and told.
@@Relic.form-info I really hope this is sarcasm. If not, it’s not wonder so many are grossly misinformed. Google and Wiki are tools, not necessary facts. If fact, they are usually completely wrong.
You don’t just sail across a vast sea on a whim. The raiders must have had prior knowledge of the treasures within. It makes me wonder if they had not visited the site before, perhaps as peaceful traders and may have been invited inside at one point either to meet Christ or to deliver their wares.
Yes these churches must have been famous for their wealth, the vikings definitely knew their targets and had scouted or had inside information before they hit. You can imagine a viking spy feigning interest in The Lord and Savior, while taking note of the value of all the objects within the church.
It has a central position in viking history if you are british. It is not the central event when the history of the vikings is writen by historians in Denmark.
It seems the Christian people of Britain at that time had lived in relative peace with little strife from serious invaders, and so were holy unprepared. I would be interested to hear what the kings of Britain said after hearing of this and whether they simply doubled down on the religious sentiment.
It was an attempt to stop it from happening again. If you can point out ways that it's the victims fault then those things can be rectified. There's no use in just crying about the perpetrator. It's a very useful way of looking at things and is the only way we ever *will* learn.
@@Heuhegeygeygeheu "There's no use in just crying about the perpetrator." I don't disagree, but we (in our modern perspective) should be recognizing the relative amorality of everyone involved. Still, though, talking about events like Lindisfarne sometimes gets weird because of people incorrectly asserting that all Viking/Norsemen were peaceful (despite evidence to the contrary) and neo-pagan fascination which holds up Viking/Norse culture as an apparent model for humanity.
I am born & bred in Northumberland! So pretty sure, I’ll have Viking blood in me! Even today you can see the impact of those times in our local words. Child= bairn, home= hyem!
My Grandfather was born there at the Snook. (Maybe someone would figure out who I am from that...) Anyway it is about 15 years since I was there but I did grow up hearing all of the stories and legends. Still always interesting to see another take on it. Although I think it always makes more sense in the context of why it was so important in not just English or British history but as a pivotal point and place in Western History. Along with Iona and Jarrow (World's oldest Bible, Bede etc.). That little corner of Northumberland is where the light of learning flickered when the western world went dark.
The first known account of a Viking raid in Anglo-Saxon England comes from 789, when three ships from Hordaland (in modern Norway) landed in the Isle of Portland on the southern coast of Wessex.
There has been some new findings that prove the raiding or going " Viking" was already going on. It just seems there is not so much scholarship on them.
I watched this video and the only item that sticks out to me is the narrator Matt Lewis using the word "hoved" in minute 0:22. Dear Mr Lewis, is this a Southern England dialect or am I grammatically incorrect?
Great video however "England" was referred to a number of times. What is now England was a number of different kingdoms in 793. A unified "England" came later under Ælfred The Great.
this is factually untrue. Alfred died long before his great grandson unified the 4 kingdoms of Wessex, Mercia, East Aglia, and Northumbria. Scotland and Wales took centuries for the Anglo Saxons to pacify, and they gained Northumbria through marriage. All of this was rendered null when Knut the Great (the ONLY Monarch of a unified England to earn that moniker, and was a Dane) and a Vikingr. Alfreds line died out before the Norman Invasions, either through war, assasinations, or plain fate. The war between Knuts sons paved the way for the Norman invasion.
The Anglo-Saxons were raiding Britain in Longships during the 4thC while it was still under Roman rule. They were being Vikings before it was fashionable.
I think more research needs to be done on the build up to Lindisfarne. Charlemagne was trying to Christianise Saxony and had destroyed sacred artifacts and most importantly used Anglo-Saxon missionaries as translators. I dare say Lindisfarne was a response to this and the desecration of the monastry was revenge. I think it's possible that the Viking wars were a religious/cultural war more akin to the antagonisms between Christendom and the Muslim world...
It is probable that the wealth of the Lindisfarne that attracted the Vikings. The attack was probably not a reaction to Christian attacks on pagans. Are there any accounts of Vikings attacking those parts of Great Britain that were still pagan?
I've read somewhere that St Cuthbert's Folk were "marrying monks and nuns", not celibates, such as the orders established by Pope Gregory. The image of them as something like Franciscans of a later time might be a bit inaccurate. The story I heard ends with them wandering for years with the remains of St Cuthbert, and finally coming to rest at Huby, in Yorkshire, if I remember correctly. You might find that the imputation of sin to them was due to a clash between Southern (with Roman origins) Christians, and Northern ones - with roots going back to the hermitages in the Irish Sea, and Iona, in Scotland. I think Lindisfarne was within the Northern tradition, rather than the Southern one. (Again, this is digging around inside the place I send facts to be forgotten, for information I came across many years ago.) As I had it, the monks and nuns of Iona's churches were only celibate by personal choice, if they were so, and would often marry, and have children, too. Celibacy was quite a new fangled thing in the early 800's.
Update: Looks like celibacy wasn't so newfangled in the 800's after all. Pope Gregory lived in around 590. I do still recall that the Northern churches had their own ways, including married clergy.
Celibacy was only introduced in the 1200's from memory. And it was only brought in so that the Church could inherit the assets compared to them being left to a wife/family. It was never about sin etc.
@@Modellers-Workbench Thanks. I went and checked a bit Gregory VII (in the 11th century) was the one who made celibacy of all priests mandatory, and then Gregory 1 (around 600 AD) was the founder of some monasteries - probably celibate ones. So I think the 11th century rule was a final step in a long process (involving a confusing number of Gregories). Before that, I suppose you might've found a married parish priest, but only celibate monks in any celibate monastery - but with monasteries going back to the times _before_ Gregory I having their own "celibacy policies". In the Dark Ages, the Irish church was independent of the church of Rome (and it's from the Irish church that the monasteries that led to the one at Holy Isle arise). At the time of the Vikings the South of England had become "Roman", but the North was still "Irish", roughly speaking.
From 771 to 800 ad. Charlemagne had been on a Crusade to conquer and forcefully chistianize Saxony and Frisia who had strong connections to Scandinavian pagans. Thousands were summarily executed refusing to convert. An attack on Pagans way of life. A timeline of events offers an explaination why raids on Lindisfarne 793 and other Christian holdings took place in the immediate aftermath, yet it's never mentioned. Greed, opulence and oppression tend to have repercussions. As then so today.
Writing after the event, a churchman blamed the monks on Lindesfarne for not being holy enough, therefore being at fault for the attack. Like so often today, even in those days the victims were being blamed for the crimes they suffered. Nothing changes, does it ?
Why are you walking around in the ruins from the monastery from around 1100, pointing and talking about the viking attack? The monastery at the time was a Long house.
@@robertlukacs4954 "innocent" and the church? Nah. The Christian religion is one of the most violent organizations to have ever existed. Responsible for millions of deaths over millennia.
@@robertlukacs4954 Innocent my arse! The Catholic church ruled every aspect of daily life and was as brutal and vengeful in the name of their Nailed God as the other 2 faiths of Abraham. Every aspect of Christianity was stolen from pagan rituals, rites, and displays. The very crucifix Christians wear was blasphemous before they saw the Danes wearing Thor's hammer. Christmas appropriated Yuletide, Easter appropriated beltine/Mayday.
They managed a brief occupancy in tiny areas of North Wales, but were sent packing, so not really that much Viking history in the land of the native indigenous Briton's. When the Norman conquest swept away the Saxon's in a blink of an eye, it took another 250 years, and the most extensive and expensive castle building programs ever seen in Western Europe... And all this to subdue a tiny nation of sheep shaggin hill tribes. This perspective of indigenous native history is strangely ignored, given the Welsh have been in a perpetual state of foreign aggressive oppression since Roman times.
records don't mention vikings or Norsemen-they say pagans came from the North which could be the direction they approached Lindisfarne. Charlemagne was campaigning against the Saxons and Frisians and destroying their temples. Lindisfarne was a sacred site to the Christian missionaries who had destroyed the sacred sites in Frisia and of the Saxons and therefore a target, it could have been payback.
@@elessartelcontar9415 I"m referring to the Lindisfarne raid -in 793 called pagans in the original text or from the North (the direction they attacked as much as their origin). The Frisians fought back against the Franks and seized their ships. The Northumbrian missionaries were very violent in destroying the shrines of the Frisians-Btw can you source your quote-it's apocryphal.
If you knew how much time and effort they put in in making those books, you might understand why they went for them first. They couldn't just go down to the local library or bookstore and get another copy. They were painstakingly written and illustrated by monks gifted in that kind of artistry. They were great treasures to the Christian world and to the monks in general. Gold, etc., could be gotten again, likely without a lot of hard work if you had local patrons trying to buy their way into heaven. But the books would have to be recreated from scratch, or copied from extant works. As a writer, if someone gave me a choice between stealing my one and only manuscript and taking my gold, they could have my gold. Likewise, if I were an artist, I'd make the same decision. Even if there was another copy to be duplicated, that's a dang awful lot of work.
This can hardly be regarded as a valid telling of history. As the man says "What do we really know about that day?"I it should also be said that by his own admission Mat Lewis is not by any stretch a trained historian. Simply reading the account as presented by the Anglo Saxon Chronicle gives as much an objective view as would Jimmy Saville talking about his charity work. There is repeated reference to "pagans" and "heathens" as opposed to the "saintly" monks. This is illogical judgement on the basis of emotive words. The main source of monks was sons of families that had no inheritance to pass on once the eldest son had been seen to. Chastity did not become a qualification for the job of being a monk for another few hundred years so many would have had female (or male) companions. The Vikings may have come to pinch the bling off the altar but where did the monks get it from in the first place? Much of the wealth of the church came from local kings and chiefs trying to buy their way into heaven after having thought about the bad stuff (like rape and pillage) that they had done. A genuine attempt at a "true" story would give the story from the Viking side as well. Do we know where the raiding party actually came from? There must have been communication before hand for the Vikings to know where to find the stuff. Did they have inside information? Actually stealing the stuff is pointless unless they have a market. Do we know where the treasures finished up afterwards? I think it highly unlikely that the story is as simple and one dimensional as the presenter makes out.
I also don’t understand why the presenters pronounce fairly common words wrong; for example ‘celts’ or the name ‘Cillian’ with a soft c? Takes you out of it and makes you feel less trusting of the content.
@@softlylolalunar1192 I totally agree. I am a teacher of physics (retired) and regularly had to deal with students who said "AH yes but I have seen a youtube video that says you are wrong". I am not sure what the answer is but the way that youtube is becoming the reference library for so many is worrying especially when it is so easy to put out "learning" that is biased, not reviewed and even malicious with little in the way of checks on the content.
I agree with 90% of your comment, however you don’t have to be a ‘trained historian’ to be well versed and knowledgeable on a subject. I have no degree or piece of paper that says I’m an historian but that didn’t stop from sharing the same viewpoint as you that this was very one sided. If anything, trained historians are the ones who are the most dogmatic and politically correct, as they are taught that trusting ‘experts’ and regurgitating certain view points is the way to be a good researcher. Stop fetishising qualifications
The Angles were Suebi and most likely Arians. Two Roman emperors, Constantius II and Valens, became Arians or Semi-Arians, as did prominent Gothic, Vandal, and Lombard warlords both before and after the fall of the Western Roman Empire. The Catholics were squatters and got shown the door.
True, the first recorded raid was at Portland. The first monastery raid was at Lindisfarne. Probably that is one of the reason it became more well known, also because the Anglo - Saxon Chronicle and the Norse Sagas often back up each other historical facts of the raids and interactions , so there's much more to tell.
Spent many pleasant day trips to 'Holy Island,' over the years. It's really nice to catch it on a day, when not rammed with touristi. Certainly check those tides and times thereof. The more I hear and read about this attack on St Cuthbert's Priory, the more it smells like and 'inside job.' All those works of art, gold & silver just ready to be plundered, guarded over by a few pious & effete monks? What happens to 'God helps them, who help themselves?' Those Vikings were just on a speculative raid, as they passed by? Although in the modern context, based on the way certain folk have behaved during recent shortages of toilet paper & pasta ect, not hard to imagine, how this raid kicked off. "Oooh look Olaf, those monks have just unpacked a few pallets of Prime Energy drink." Are you ready? 🙂👍
More likely the Vikings had heard about their hoard, or had seen it for themselves on some kind of trading expedition. Or just knew that monasteries were great places to find gold, etc., and knew there was one there (maybe knew it was of extreme importance). I find the "effete" comment insulting to any male in holy orders. Ridiculous stereotype. Also, "God helps those who help themselves" is NOT in the Bible. It's a man-made saying that is contrary to the Bible.
So you aren't going to treat the A.Saxon Chronicle skeptically and in context, but actually read it as if the omens of doom weren't added in hindsight. This bodes poorly.
A wrong picture of it. Yes, they could be brutal. but not as close to the ones they told you about. They were masters of trade. They are buiding ships, not to mention the all of the counting of trading. many people dont get this
@@skepticalbadger This raid dosent represent the entire Norse population. Could also mention the Angles and Saxons invaded Britain as well. And Charlemagne murdered thousands of non Christians in Central Europe
@@stc3145 Exactly. Yes, they were brutal, but so were basically all of the people around them. Look up some sources in Bysatines. If all, they were great at cooperation and trading. You could not survive in Norway and Scandinavia without working along with the ones beside you.
@@stc3145 For real, it’s like people forget things like the crusades which shows how brutal and barbaric Christians can be. Especially in the 4th crusades where Catholics destroyed, burned, pillaged, raped (especially nuns of all things) and looted their Orthodox Christian brothers and sisters in Constantinople. The Vikings really do get a bad rep but mainly by their Anglo-Saxon historical writers.
That's not what the video is about, it's about the raid on Lindisfarne so it talks about the people inhabiting lindesfarn and trying to find a clearer picture of what there.
Viking is an adjective. It means pirate or raider. They never called themselves " Vikings". So tired of the historical ignorance of people. Before you flame me. I'm Ukrainian, therefore my ancestors were of Kievan Rus stock. You know those early Northmen that came down the Dniepro.
Actually from todays Sweden. In the beginning of the 9th century people from todays Scandinavia, mostly Sweden, came and had activities around the rivers. They were called Rhos. Their base were around the area of Novgorod. Later in abouth the year 900 they moved it to Kyiv. Very interesting history!
After the attack on Lindisfarne, Alcuin of York advised the English to stop getting trendy haircuts as a way to appease God, and prevent future Viking raids. Is this the worst piece of advice in history? 🤔
But I have always had short hair and I have never (yet) been attacked by viking hordes.
Just so you know Ragnar isn't "Semi" legendary. He's literally the most famous Viking to ever live.
No. I’ve never had a trendy haircut and I’ve never been attacked by a Viking.
@@seximexi5820 semi-legendary means there is not conclusive evidence he truly existed, as all the accounts of his existence were recorded hundreds of years after his death in highly fantasized oral mythologies that are sometimes based on real fact.
No, it's obvious that Alcuin of York had inside information about gods favourite hairstyles for men.
If you visit Lindisfarne, keep in mind that it is a real village on the island and it's not like Port Merrion. My folks lived there and the amount of tourists who would just wander into people's gardens and back yards was staggering. It was always a relief for them when the tide would come in and all the visiting tour coaches and cars would leave.
(edit: typo)
I was there a couple years ago. I can't imagine why anyone would think those houses gardens were free to walk in to.
@@eddiebear34 I know. As they say; there's nothing stranger than people.
@local bod we stayed in a hotel on the mainland. We thought that hotels always got rid of used towels and put out new ones. So we took the ones we had home. Then we got an email saying we were blacklisted from the whole area for stealing towels haha. The vikings are allowed back these days. But I'm not.
We sent them back down to them anyway.
I spent a few summers staying at the St Vincent de Paul camp site in the 60's. Great holidays, I loved being there. It never would have occurred to me to trespass in people's gardens, though.
@@eddiebear34hotels don’t get rid of used towels . You flat out stole those towels
Even a Hilton rewashes towels !
Season 1 of that show was amazing. It kind of went off the rails, but I liked the concept of telling the whole Viking age through the lives of a few characters.
It could have used real costumes and armor. Vikings looked nothing like historical raiders.
@@UkrainianPaulie Ya… it was the history channel so, obviously it had to be ridiculous.
They didn’t even give Ragnar his magic pants!
The end scene was brilliant thpugh, with Floki and Uber sitting on the shore.
@@stephenquinn4826 Ya… That was definitely a feel good moment, which was rare for that show.
Re watched the entire series and it ended today, it's so damn good. Don't dare to say it went off rails. You wont find any better series about Vikings than Vikings. Appreciate they made that show instead of overthinking and get salty about things.
Re: the advice on avoiding future Viking attacks....perhaps "cut your hair" was a useless idea, but "stop hoarding so much wealth" was a GREAT plan. The Vikings wanted "stuff", and knew that the churchmen were greedy accumulators of other people's stuff. If they'd actually espoused in truth, the monasteries would have been safe(r).
Oooh, this is true!
I find the attribution details fascinating. Vikings embodied God's wrath! Who knew?
Monasteries and churches were used by people to keep their valuables in a time before banks. The monks weren’t necessarily greedy, but I get it most people are anti Christian these days. To a point were people look more fondly of murderous pagan raiders than peaceful monks.
The plundering could only happen if the had mega things of value.
@@margaretlumley1648The Christian God’s wrath and Odin’s happiness.
I find it odd, the number of people who discount potential Viking heritage, and remove themselves, because the Vikings were PAGAN (THE HORROR, pagans).
Let us not pretend that Pagan, Christian, Islamic, Jewish, the torture of human beings is something of human nature. All religions are guilty of this.
There were raids all the time, also internal raids in Scandinavia - Frisians raided the Danish West Coast, The Venti raided Aarhus in Denmark way before Viking times - vice versa. Basically, for people who lived along a coastline and could sail in ancient times, raiding was always an option. The real story of Lindisfarne is why people - even at the time - made such a fuss about it. It speaks to a clash between a solidifying Christian, medieval culture, where slavery was slowly being abolished and the Church had established a safe position, and the Scandinavian raiders, who just hadn't gotten the memo yet on the new rules.
Oh, and the 'Vikings' episode is great drama, but also reinforced the old false trope that people from these cultures didn't know each other. The Scandinavians who traded and travelled would have seen plenty of monks. And they knew where Lindisfarne were, how to get there and what to expect - why the hell else risk going over the North Atlantic? They might easily have visited before as traders and staked out the place. Or gotten word from relatives who has settled (peacefully, largely) on the British mainland nearby. The idea that these people were like aliens from space to each other is just ridiculous.
Make sense when you think about it considering how far the Romans and Alexander got from Rome/Greece. To think that Scandinavians and the people of the British isles didn't know of each other is ridiculous.
Norwegian settlers in the today’s Scottish Islands would also often raid mainland Norway in the summer. It got so bad that after Harald Fairhair consolidated south, west and north-west of Today’s Norway he conquered the islands to subjugate the pirates
The same is true of the first anglo settlers in North America in 1605 ( Jamestown) and again in 1620 (the Pilgrims). The myth is that the natives didn't know what they were, when the truth is that Portugese fishing ships had been harvesting in those waters for a hundred years before the English landed. There was a lot of shore landings to refgesh supplies and to trade with the locals. The natives be-friended the Pilgrims because they understood that an alliance with people who possessed guns would be a benefit. Some even spoke english and portugese.
Slavery being slowly abolished? Yeah it took over 1000 more years for that to happen.
@@pranc236 Yes. Slowly abolished. You have a problem with that?
I bet a pound to a penny that monks wrote those predictions long after the event.
100% 😂😂
@@brittk3881I will check with leofric
🎯
John of Patmos intensifies
Well,,I'll bet they didn't write it while it was actually happening...
Often there are several meanings in the writings of this time and others. The previous centuries in this area have documented interactions of these same itinerant 'Norsemen' traveling from the Nordic countries and Baltic area in the summers on trading expeditions that were very regular and seasonal. These mercantile trips show the Vikings were armed, but primarily for defense of themselves and their trading stocks on board their vessels.
Traders also knew the local peninsulas and islands near the shore that were isolated enough to fortify temporarily as they beached their vessels and set up camp. Trading was done in a indirect way (due to language differences and mutual distrust) The Viking traders would set out lots of trade goods they'd brought, 'piles' of a set value, then retreat off shore to observe the locals. Then the locals would walk around the trade goods and appraise their value to them. If a purchase/trade was desired, the locals would set their own 'pile' of trade goods, often leather, pottery, woven goods, furniture or metal goods -- next to the pile of Viking goods, as an 'offer' to trade, this for that. Then the locals retreated to observe the Vikings who returned to assess the offered 'swaps', taking the goods offered, if the value was sufficient, and leaving their goods in return.
This sort of trading was commonplace in both Scotland, and along both coasts of Great Britain, especially in the Irish sea between Ireland and England. Trading ships sailed out of the Nordic lands in the summer, down between England and Ireland (to avoid stormy waters and to trade with two areas simultaneously). The Norsemen would sail down to Northern Spain and the Southern coast of France, known for its wine and other finished goods. Then, as summer waned, these Norsemen would sail back home, again trading along the way with the people of England and Ireland (as well as offering a sort of 'bus service', documented in a book I read from 500 AD, a note from a monk who recorded taking the 'returning ship' from Spain back to England).
So the Vikings were well known and traders, not often raiders as they became in time for a variety of reasons.
As for the incident the contemporary writer said incited the Vikings to attack and loot Lindisfarne, it more logically came from discontent or outright aggression during the regular trading trips each summer. Trust had built up and perhaps the local people chose a single Viking ship with a small crew to loot and maim or murder. Just as the exposed Lindisfarne monastery, located, by choice, on an isolated promontory, was 'easy pickin's' for the Vikings, so too would have a Norse trading vessel have been easy to attack and overcome by an organized mass of locals.
A proud people and outstanding sailors and raiders, a cry for revenge (and loot) would have raced through the Viking lands, turning their normal summer trade fleets into a large, angry fleet (at first), which their devastating attack on Lindisfarne demonstrated.
Something triggered this major change that became the norm, ending the peaceful trading of centuries, by the Norsemen and the people of Scotland, England and Ireland (and further out).
It is a story yet to be researched properly and told.
They had ' mommy issues '
You are a clown 🤣
Another brilliant video from History Hit. Thankyou.
Those Vikings that attacked Lindisfarne were without shields. That's how certain they were of meeting no resistance.
Ragnar and vikings make me feel so lazy , just laying on the couch under blankets in January
I mean they only killed the defenseless so you’re not that much lazier than them.
@@StIstvanKingofHungary lol nah they took over england
Excellent video 👍 ! Thanks for sharing this ! First time hearing about cutting your hair as a defense against the Vikings ! If only it was that easy !
Aaahhhh.... The good ol' days
The Anglo Saxon chronicle for 793 AD was written in Alfred the greats time. It wasn’t contemporary at all.
Someone had indeed deserved that: the church and its habit of amassing gold and precious stones attracted the vikings
This interests me. I read about the raid on Lindisfarne decades ago in a fantasy novel.
Great history! Thanks.
Well presented
The earliest raid was actually on Portland in Dorset around 790 in the reign of Beortrhic of Wessex.
789 according to the video and wikipedia
@@Leadfoot_P71 Ken obviously knows better
How do we know what is fact and what is fiction?
@@GudieveNing google
@@Relic.form-info I really hope this is sarcasm. If not, it’s not wonder so many are grossly misinformed. Google and Wiki are tools, not necessary facts. If fact, they are usually completely wrong.
lovely video i have been filming there :) people love that place
Very good work
You don’t just sail across a vast sea on a whim. The raiders must have had prior knowledge of the treasures within. It makes me wonder if they had not visited the site before, perhaps as peaceful traders and may have been invited inside at one point either to meet Christ or to deliver their wares.
Isn’t that kinda what the vikings did tho? And if we’re talking accuracy England wasn’t officially formed until like 150 years after this event
@@dylmassey9395 It's "brought" not "bought" if we're talking accuracy 2:45. Shocking lol.
Yes these churches must have been famous for their wealth, the vikings definitely knew their targets and had scouted or had inside information before they hit. You can imagine a viking spy feigning interest in The Lord and Savior, while taking note of the value of all the objects within the church.
Great vid. Make more.
Love seeing Bamburgh in the back
Awesome story, loved It
This event is so damn central to the history of the Vikings. You pretty much CAN'T do a documentary on them and NOT mention Lindisfarne.
It has a central position in viking history if you are british. It is not the central event when the history of the vikings is writen by historians in Denmark.
Alcuin of York is not entirely wrong. Ostentatious showing of great wealth without security generally leads to trouble.
It seems the Christian people of Britain at that time had lived in relative peace with little strife from serious invaders, and so were holy unprepared. I would be interested to hear what the kings of Britain said after hearing of this and whether they simply doubled down on the religious sentiment.
That must have been a day of complete horror.So many defencless men slaughtered Not good days.🏴👎
I think 'Run for Home' was their best song :)
Mankind is still prone to blaming the victim for their misfortune than blaming the perpetrator. We will never learn.
It was an attempt to stop it from happening again. If you can point out ways that it's the victims fault then those things can be rectified. There's no use in just crying about the perpetrator. It's a very useful way of looking at things and is the only way we ever *will* learn.
@@Heuhegeygeygeheu "There's no use in just crying about the perpetrator."
I don't disagree, but we (in our modern perspective) should be recognizing the relative amorality of everyone involved. Still, though, talking about events like Lindisfarne sometimes gets weird because of people incorrectly asserting that all Viking/Norsemen were peaceful (despite evidence to the contrary) and neo-pagan fascination which holds up Viking/Norse culture as an apparent model for humanity.
The courage it took to kill a bunch of defenseless monks and priests. So brave of them.
Money is money
U must know back then fighting is a daily thing lol
Countries do the same shit today and its justified apparently
The munks where armed. Dont bellive everything writen down by the munks. People not converting to Christianity was killed these times.
How did they ever think they could live in peace on a coast
I am born & bred in Northumberland! So pretty sure, I’ll have Viking blood in me! Even today you can see the impact of those times in our local words. Child= bairn, home= hyem!
Born in the US, 23 and me says I'm 3% Scandinavian and 68% British and the rest is continental Europe.
hadaway n shite
What’s this hype of having Viking ancestry
Northumberland born and bred now living in Canada couldn't agree more.
@M L why not!? It's great to know your ancestry past!
My Grandfather was born there at the Snook. (Maybe someone would figure out who I am from that...) Anyway it is about 15 years since I was there but I did grow up hearing all of the stories and legends. Still always interesting to see another take on it. Although I think it always makes more sense in the context of why it was so important in not just English or British history but as a pivotal point and place in Western History. Along with Iona and Jarrow (World's oldest Bible, Bede etc.). That little corner of Northumberland is where the light of learning flickered when the western world went dark.
You might like to read a book by Thomas Cahill, “How the Irish Saved Civilization”, exactly to your point. 🙏
The oldest illustrated bible still intact is found in Tigray. It's written in 500 AD
I can imagine the panic…. Of the people
Pfft! I’ve cut my hair many times and it hasn’t protected me against Viking attacks at all.
The first known account of a Viking raid in Anglo-Saxon England comes from 789, when three ships from Hordaland (in modern Norway) landed in the Isle of Portland on the southern coast of Wessex.
Yea it was in the video.. even had a nice lil graphic!
@@sickbugz Yes but was the video “The True Story of the First Viking Attack on England” about the Portland raid?
@@lelleeriks8241 Partly yes, they cover it in detailed description. Did you not watch this?
I saw a doggie, so now this is my favourite history hit videos.
Yay! Vikings! ❤️❤️🔥❤️❤️🔥❤️❤️🔥❤️❤️🔥❤️
Svensk?
Godt gået, vikinger.
Wow! Those Chainsaws they are holding looked huge
I have never understood why middle-ages churches had so much treasure: gold, silver and jewel studded items?
There has been some new findings that prove the raiding or going " Viking" was already going on. It just seems there is not so much scholarship on them.
Ive always kept my hair tidy and have never been attacked by any vikings so... Just an observation from an academic.
I, on the other hand, have very untidy hair and have been raided at least 7 times by vikings. Really makes you think🤔
@@Heuhegeygeygeheu An eye opener...
The priory he was walking around in the video wasn't there in 793, that building was built in the twelfth century.
Which he literally says in the video 5:32
Yeah, I watched the video too.
Somehow when listening to the story, I came to think of the part in Startrek Enterprise where the Andorians raid the Vulcan monastry.
I watched this video and the only item that sticks out to me is the narrator Matt Lewis using the word "hoved" in minute 0:22. Dear Mr Lewis, is this a Southern England dialect or am I grammatically incorrect?
Been there, a magical place in northern england
Did the Vikings really sail all the way from Scandinavia to Lindisfarne ? or did they sail down the east coast from their bases in Orkney ?
how do they know
Did it hurt?..but now we have many good thoughts on ya!!
Very gud programmes the last kingdom and vikings
Great video however "England" was referred to a number of times. What is now England was a number of different kingdoms in 793. A unified "England" came later under Ælfred The Great.
this is factually untrue. Alfred died long before his great grandson unified the 4 kingdoms of Wessex, Mercia, East Aglia, and Northumbria. Scotland and Wales took centuries for the Anglo Saxons to pacify, and they gained Northumbria through marriage. All of this was rendered null when Knut the Great (the ONLY Monarch of a unified England to earn that moniker, and was a Dane) and a Vikingr. Alfreds line died out before the Norman Invasions, either through war, assasinations, or plain fate. The war between Knuts sons paved the way for the Norman invasion.
@@robertperrotto870 it is very strange to say that the line died out when, for example, Queen Elisabeth 2 was a descendant of Alfred the Great
It's for simplicity. Unless they're British, most people won't know what "Wessex" or "East Anglia" is, much less where they are.
The Anglo-Saxons were raiding Britain in Longships during the 4thC while it was still under Roman rule. They were being Vikings before it was fashionable.
That crackpot monk lol, "They were probably sinners, and they had bad hair. They had it coming".
I can confirm that whenever I cut my hair, I suffer a Viking attack right after that.
God: *sees dope haircut*
God: Send the Vikings!
I think more research needs to be done on the build up to Lindisfarne. Charlemagne was trying to Christianise Saxony and had destroyed sacred artifacts and most importantly used Anglo-Saxon missionaries as translators. I dare say Lindisfarne was a response to this and the desecration of the monastry was revenge. I think it's possible that the Viking wars were a religious/cultural war more akin to the antagonisms between Christendom and the Muslim world...
This holy war between the Norse and the Christians was mentioned in the TV series Vikings
It is probable that the wealth of the Lindisfarne that attracted the Vikings. The attack was probably not a reaction to Christian attacks on pagans. Are there any accounts of Vikings attacking those parts of Great Britain that were still pagan?
I've read somewhere that St Cuthbert's Folk were "marrying monks and nuns", not celibates, such as the orders established by Pope Gregory. The image of them as something like Franciscans of a later time might be a bit inaccurate. The story I heard ends with them wandering for years with the remains of St Cuthbert, and finally coming to rest at Huby, in Yorkshire, if I remember correctly.
You might find that the imputation of sin to them was due to a clash between Southern (with Roman origins) Christians, and Northern ones - with roots going back to the hermitages in the Irish Sea, and Iona, in Scotland. I think Lindisfarne was within the Northern tradition, rather than the Southern one. (Again, this is digging around inside the place I send facts to be forgotten, for information I came across many years ago.) As I had it, the monks and nuns of Iona's churches were only celibate by personal choice, if they were so, and would often marry, and have children, too. Celibacy was quite a new fangled thing in the early 800's.
Update: Looks like celibacy wasn't so newfangled in the 800's after all. Pope Gregory lived in around 590. I do still recall that the Northern churches had their own ways, including married clergy.
Celibacy was only introduced in the 1200's from memory. And it was only brought in so that the Church could inherit the assets compared to them being left to a wife/family. It was never about sin etc.
@@Modellers-Workbench Thanks. I went and checked a bit Gregory VII (in the 11th century) was the one who made celibacy of all priests mandatory, and then Gregory 1 (around 600 AD) was the founder of some monasteries - probably celibate ones.
So I think the 11th century rule was a final step in a long process (involving a confusing number of Gregories). Before that, I suppose you might've found a married parish priest, but only celibate monks in any celibate monastery - but with monasteries going back to the times _before_ Gregory I having their own "celibacy policies".
In the Dark Ages, the Irish church was independent of the church of Rome (and it's from the Irish church that the monasteries that led to the one at Holy Isle arise).
At the time of the Vikings the South of England had become "Roman", but the North was still "Irish", roughly speaking.
0:16 Viking indeed...
Perhaps we should demand reparations from Norway.
From 771 to 800 ad. Charlemagne had been on a Crusade to conquer and forcefully chistianize Saxony and Frisia who had strong connections to Scandinavian pagans. Thousands were summarily executed refusing to convert. An attack on Pagans way of life. A timeline of events offers an explaination why raids on Lindisfarne 793 and other Christian holdings took place in the immediate aftermath, yet it's never mentioned. Greed, opulence and oppression tend to have repercussions. As then so today.
Maybe it was time to wake them up and show them there is a whole wide world with different views out there.
Writing after the event, a churchman blamed the monks on Lindesfarne for not being holy enough, therefore being at fault for the attack. Like so often today, even in those days the victims were being blamed for the crimes they suffered. Nothing changes, does it ?
Maye the monks should not have been sitting on all of that gold.
Why did we not attack the danes later
Early start
Was up there last year its nice
Poor monks 😢
Why are you walking around in the ruins from the monastery from around 1100, pointing and talking about the viking attack? The monastery at the time was a Long house.
Do we have the vikings point of view of this event?
Who's to blame if they couldn't write and record events?
It's actually hard to be sympathetic when the Catholic Church is separated from some of it's gold and silver.
Somehow, they managed to survive. God bless those pagans.
It's not hard to be sympathetic when Innocent monks were slaughtered.
@@robertlukacs4954 “Innocent” monks taking from the poor?
@@robertlukacs4954 "innocent" and the church? Nah. The Christian religion is one of the most violent organizations to have ever existed. Responsible for millions of deaths over millennia.
@@robertlukacs4954 Innocent my arse! The Catholic church ruled every aspect of daily life and was as brutal and vengeful in the name of their Nailed God as the other 2 faiths of Abraham. Every aspect of Christianity was stolen from pagan rituals, rites, and displays. The very crucifix Christians wear was blasphemous before they saw the Danes wearing Thor's hammer. Christmas appropriated Yuletide, Easter appropriated beltine/Mayday.
forefathers of those nordic black metal artists that burned churches in the 90s
It still is Northumbria
They managed a brief occupancy in tiny areas of North Wales, but were sent packing, so not really that much Viking history in the land of the native indigenous Briton's. When the Norman conquest swept away the Saxon's in a blink of an eye, it took another 250 years, and the most extensive and expensive castle building programs ever seen in Western Europe... And all this to subdue a tiny nation of sheep shaggin hill tribes. This perspective of indigenous native history is strangely ignored, given the Welsh have been in a perpetual state of foreign aggressive oppression since Roman times.
records don't mention vikings or Norsemen-they say pagans came from the North which could be the direction they approached Lindisfarne. Charlemagne was campaigning against the Saxons and Frisians and destroying their temples. Lindisfarne was a sacred site to the Christian missionaries who had destroyed the sacred sites in Frisia and of the Saxons and therefore a target, it could have been payback.
@@elessartelcontar9415 I"m referring to the Lindisfarne raid -in 793 called pagans in the original text or from the North (the direction they attacked as much as their origin). The Frisians fought back against the Franks and seized their ships. The Northumbrian missionaries were very violent in destroying the shrines of the Frisians-Btw can you source your quote-it's apocryphal.
I don't understand why they did not attack Scotland where it is easier to reach. Possibly they were too scared.
Basically it was an olden day smash and grab!
"Out of all this treasure, you saved a book"
If you knew how much time and effort they put in in making those books, you might understand why they went for them first. They couldn't just go down to the local library or bookstore and get another copy. They were painstakingly written and illustrated by monks gifted in that kind of artistry. They were great treasures to the Christian world and to the monks in general. Gold, etc., could be gotten again, likely without a lot of hard work if you had local patrons trying to buy their way into heaven. But the books would have to be recreated from scratch, or copied from extant works. As a writer, if someone gave me a choice between stealing my one and only manuscript and taking my gold, they could have my gold. Likewise, if I were an artist, I'd make the same decision. Even if there was another copy to be duplicated, that's a dang awful lot of work.
@@the_real_littlepinkhousefly I know, that was a quote from the Vikings TV show.
@@jacebohannon9308 Ah. Haven't seen it, wouldn't know.
Odin, Thor, and Freyr tried to warn the monks they didn't listen 🤣
This can hardly be regarded as a valid telling of history. As the man says "What do we really know about that day?"I it should also be said that by his own admission Mat Lewis is not by any stretch a trained historian. Simply reading the account as presented by the Anglo Saxon Chronicle gives as much an objective view as would Jimmy Saville talking about his charity work.
There is repeated reference to "pagans" and "heathens" as opposed to the "saintly" monks. This is illogical judgement on the basis of emotive words.
The main source of monks was sons of families that had no inheritance to pass on once the eldest son had been seen to. Chastity did not become a qualification for the job of being a monk for another few hundred years so many would have had female (or male) companions. The Vikings may have come to pinch the bling off the altar but where did the monks get it from in the first place? Much of the wealth of the church came from local kings and chiefs trying to buy their way into heaven after having thought about the bad stuff (like rape and pillage) that they had done.
A genuine attempt at a "true" story would give the story from the Viking side as well. Do we know where the raiding party actually came from? There must have been communication before hand for the Vikings to know where to find the stuff. Did they have inside information? Actually stealing the stuff is pointless unless they have a market. Do we know where the treasures finished up afterwards?
I think it highly unlikely that the story is as simple and one dimensional as the presenter makes out.
Well said.
I also don’t understand why the presenters pronounce fairly common words wrong; for example ‘celts’ or the name ‘Cillian’ with a soft c? Takes you out of it and makes you feel less trusting of the content.
@@softlylolalunar1192 I totally agree. I am a teacher of physics (retired) and regularly had to deal with students who said "AH yes but I have seen a youtube video that says you are wrong". I am not sure what the answer is but the way that youtube is becoming the reference library for so many is worrying especially when it is so easy to put out "learning" that is biased, not reviewed and even malicious with little in the way of checks on the content.
I agree with 90% of your comment, however you don’t have to be a ‘trained historian’ to be well versed and knowledgeable on a subject. I have no degree or piece of paper that says I’m an historian but that didn’t stop from sharing the same viewpoint as you that this was very one sided. If anything, trained historians are the ones who are the most dogmatic and politically correct, as they are taught that trusting ‘experts’ and regurgitating certain view points is the way to be a good researcher. Stop fetishising qualifications
"00 years too early for England.
The Angles were Suebi and most likely Arians. Two Roman emperors, Constantius II and Valens, became Arians or Semi-Arians, as did prominent Gothic, Vandal, and Lombard warlords both before and after the fall of the Western Roman Empire. The Catholics were squatters and got shown the door.
Didn't the church wonder where was God during all this raiding, looting and killing in God's Holy house? 🤔
Well there is no god
First recorded raid was chesil beach on Portland in Dorset a few years before. They killed the local royal official.
...as said in the video ;)
True, the first recorded raid was at Portland. The first monastery raid was at Lindisfarne. Probably that is one of the reason it became more well known, also because the Anglo - Saxon Chronicle and the Norse Sagas often back up each other historical facts of the raids and interactions , so there's much more to tell.
@@Renard380 Indeed it does
Not far from my house
Yeah when is Norway going to pay to get that Priory rebuilt.
some of the video (when matt lewis is on screen) is very stuttery. noticed it on some other videos on history hit too
Lindisfarne was not the first viking raid in England
People in the past we're really stupid
Vast army. Probably 40 men.
Spent many pleasant day trips to 'Holy Island,' over the years.
It's really nice to catch it on a day, when not rammed with touristi.
Certainly check those tides and times thereof.
The more I hear and read about this attack on St Cuthbert's Priory, the more it smells like and 'inside job.'
All those works of art, gold & silver just ready to be plundered, guarded over by a few pious & effete monks?
What happens to 'God helps them, who help themselves?'
Those Vikings were just on a speculative raid, as they passed by?
Although in the modern context, based on the way certain folk have behaved during recent shortages of toilet paper & pasta ect, not hard to imagine, how this raid kicked off.
"Oooh look Olaf, those monks have just unpacked a few pallets of Prime Energy drink."
Are you ready? 🙂👍
More likely the Vikings had heard about their hoard, or had seen it for themselves on some kind of trading expedition. Or just knew that monasteries were great places to find gold, etc., and knew there was one there (maybe knew it was of extreme importance).
I find the "effete" comment insulting to any male in holy orders. Ridiculous stereotype.
Also, "God helps those who help themselves" is NOT in the Bible. It's a man-made saying that is contrary to the Bible.
Tourists like yourself you mean? Yeah wouldn't want to bump into any of them.
"They seemed nice".🤔
not true, I was there
Shock and oar.
So you aren't going to treat the A.Saxon Chronicle skeptically and in context, but actually read it as if the omens of doom weren't added in hindsight. This bodes poorly.
A wrong picture of it.
Yes, they could be brutal. but not as close to the ones they told you about.
They were masters of trade. They are buiding ships, not to mention the all of the counting of trading. many people dont get this
How is it wrong? Are you denying that they attacked Lindisfarne?
@@skepticalbadger This raid dosent represent the entire Norse population. Could also mention the Angles and Saxons invaded Britain as well. And Charlemagne murdered thousands of non Christians in Central Europe
@@stc3145 Exactly. Yes, they were brutal, but so were basically all of the people around them. Look up some sources in Bysatines. If all, they were great at cooperation and trading. You could not survive in Norway and Scandinavia without working along with the ones beside you.
@@stc3145 For real, it’s like people forget things like the crusades which shows how brutal and barbaric Christians can be. Especially in the 4th crusades where Catholics destroyed, burned, pillaged, raped (especially nuns of all things) and looted their Orthodox Christian brothers and sisters in Constantinople. The Vikings really do get a bad rep but mainly by their Anglo-Saxon historical writers.
That's not what the video is about, it's about the raid on Lindisfarne so it talks about the people inhabiting lindesfarn and trying to find a clearer picture of what there.
This must be the absolute true roman catholic church account of what happened here
?The Romans had long gone from Britain by the time of the Lindisfarne raid.!
@@royfearn4345 So who did Alcuin of York report to?
@@The123eh Charlemagne and the Catholic Church. The roman empire fell in the year 476
@@lovelightjoy1868 You are right, updated my original comment
Actually this was when Orthodox and Catholics were still as one, before the Great Schism when Roman Catholics separated and became corrupted.
Viking is an adjective. It means pirate or raider. They never called themselves " Vikings". So tired of the historical ignorance of people. Before you flame me. I'm Ukrainian, therefore my ancestors were of Kievan Rus stock. You know those early Northmen that came down the Dniepro.
Actually from todays Sweden. In the beginning of the 9th century people from todays Scandinavia, mostly Sweden, came and had activities around the rivers. They were called Rhos. Their base were around the area of Novgorod. Later in abouth the year 900 they moved it to Kyiv.
Very interesting history!
I can't lie these videos really don't need all the slow motion shots of you walking on the beach... That's not what we're here for😂😒