Jack said:
I understand that actions of mass organized violence is sometimes necessary but rape is just disgusting ,utterly vile and despicable.
The punishment of those who were rapists even in WW2 and the Roman Empire or the Greek Empire, was basically all the way from being killed to removal of office.
Any Roman general or soldier that was proven to do this, the cases of which were marginal and few, was stripped of all commands and in some cases imprisoned or killed. The reason for this is that politically speaking, invading armies, have to show a specific set of behavioral traits so that the people accept them. Unless that is done, eternal civil warfare takes place, and it is a fully time waste counterproductive thing.
Still, the bestial situation of wars causes these things, and it has been unavoidable. The strong morals on the time of war were thought to be a display of justified rule over ruled territories.
I think in the case of Vikings, probably rather inflated. For one, the Vikings practiced strict eugenic laws. It's also known the Vikings carried their own women whenever they went, exactly to avoid rape or similar things and keep themselves occupied with their own women.
I think there was also a punishment of amputation if anyone raped in a foreign land during an invasion. Other armies like the Mongolian or whatever, they took these measures far less lightly. This was because this is an animal act that evoked enmity of the local people, while even "War" in the past had specific sets of morals.
For all we know, maybe the claims of "raping vikings" were a fad. Maybe some people did this here and there, we don't know.
On the other hand, love or similar things can be possible to happen. When the US troops were in Italy after the end of the war, many women started marrying US personnel, but this has nothing got to do with this example.
Destruction, bloodshed, rape and whatever other atrocity is unavoidable in wars. But the idea of moral warfare is an Aryan thing that extends a lot in the past. The reasons for this are both political, cultural and of a spiritual notion. That is why also strangely in history many Aryans, even when they theoretically "Invaded" places in war like in India, they were not hated, but rather developed a form of peace with the local population.
The "Invasion" theory in India went even further to the point that they also gave them religious tenets, knowledge etc. This went both ways. Then the Aryans for whatever reason left, but they left leaving the locals in a better state than even their invasion.
It may come as shock, but even the "Art of War" was seen as a necessary evil, but the important idea was to do this properly and without destroying other Gentiles. There were certain morals of war, such as not touching civilians, leaving property intact, not instating heavy taxation [or even less taxation than the previous leaders], teaching people new morals, allowing people to have their own Pagan cultural heritage intact, never assaulting holy places, and many other rules around wars.
There were also absolute limits to how many people you would kill, and in even more noble times of warfare, sometimes wars were decided by the commanders going 1 vs 1 like you might have seen in the movie "Troy", to avoid mutual bloodshed of the rest of the army. The armies, being obedient, would then comply and go under the new rule, which for all intents, was just a new political government.
Alexander the Great instated many of these, and that's why even though he conquered all the known war at the time, he ended up being loved by most people who greatly lamented after his loss. The Roman Empire tried to emulate the same situation. Many of these events took place in the otherwise "Bloody" times of Era of Aries, and Era of Taurus.
The difference is, that even back then, many people were better off mentally, spiritually and closer to the Gods, so the amount of dirty warfare that took place, was far less than usual. WW1 was one of the dirtiest wars there has ever been.