True, but things like fighting through debilitating or lethal wounds is still possible. Given the fact that we have a mtn of evidence showing that people can accomplish superhuman feats that break all of rules when it comes to what the human body and mind should be capable of doing. Such as a mother being able to pick up her car and push it over when her child becomes trapped under it. Or people being able to survive a fall from a height that should have killed them. Or a hunter being able to fight off a bear with their bare hands when attacked.
Possibly. Look, I dunno about any of those things specifically, so I can't talk about their veracity. But the stories told about the skills of the
berserkr are basically all legendary or couched in comically absurd terms. Attempting to explain them by watering them down into lesser and theoretically more plausible versions of the same thing - "maybe it was like that time one woman lifted a car all by herself" - misses the point, and assumes that there is some necessary core of a story that is 'true' even if embellished. That's simply wrong; apart from the legendary nature of many of these sagas, many actual historians of the period told stories about things that completely did not happen and cannot have happened. The stories about the
berserkr do not say that they got mad enough to fight through pain and severe injury; they talk about warriors who tore through hordes of opponents, and on whose skin neither fire nor iron could make an impression. The only comparison to that is Superman, and he isn't real.
That doesn't mean that the
berserkr wasn't real; they probably were, because from what I understand not all references to their
existence are legendary. But the references to these
capabilities are, and that's the problem.