But for whatever benefits Denmark and the North received in this manner from England, they did not fail to yield a full equivalent. It cannot reasonably be reproached to the Danes exclusively that, in order to obtain settlements in England, they made their way with fire and sword, for this was no more than all other conquerors, and particularly the Romans and Anglo-Saxons, had done before them. With regard to bloodshed, and acts of violence and destruction, the Anglo-Saxon conquest of England exceeded rather than fell short of the Danish. It annihilated the civilization which had been so widely disseminated there by the Romans, and subjugated or expelled the older inhabitants in the most frightful manner. It is the circumstance of the Danish expeditions having taken place at a far later time, when the monks wrote chronicles, and when on the whole history was more circumstantial, that has alone contributed to place the Danish expeditions in so prominent and so hateful a light. But even the present age, with its severe views, is scarcely justified in condemning unconditionally the Scandinavian sea-king, who was not instigated solely, or even chiefly, by a savage desire of plunder or murder, but who valued deeds of arms, a glorious name, and the joys of Valhalla, more than his life, and who therefore “went to death with a laugh.” Even with him religion was a spur to his achievements in Christian lands. He was combating for his own gods, in whom in general he certainly believed as firmly as most of the Christians of that time did in Christ. The ideas, too, which then prevailed respecting conquest, slaughter, and rapine, were altogether different from ours. If the heathen Viking regarded it as an honour to acquire lands and booty by his sword, the same thought was also cherished not only by the early Christians, but throughout the middle ages; when Christian citizens, noblemen, and princes contended in mortal combat, with fire and sword, for the possession of estates and lands. The Christian Anglo-Saxons of those times felt no hesitation in secretly massacring the Danes who had settled in England; and as many of these had been converted, one Christian thus murdered another! To dismember general history into a number of unconnected events, and then to pass judgment upon these separately according to our moral feelings, would be an infamous act, and more difficult to defend before the tribunal of morality than perhaps all the expeditions of the heathen Danish Vikings put together. Such a method of proceeding would lead to the most confined views of history that can possibly be imagined. No correct conception can be formed of any part of the history of the world if it be not examined in its due connection, whereby both causes and effects become perceptible. Many events, which the moralist would otherwise condemn, find in this manner both excuse and defence in the superior historical necessity that produced them.