It was my understanding that the History channel hasn't had much to do with history for a long time. Kind of like Discovery's been devolving for some years now.
Until this show came along (and, like, that Kevin Costner Hattfield/McCoy thing that came out of fucking nowhere?) I used to joke that the History Channel was six months away from producing a documentary about back when people used to watch the History Channel.
My only big problem with the show is how much they fucked up Ragnar's timeline by making him present at the attack on Lindesfarne, and making the rest of the Vikings look like idiots for not knowing that they could sail west to find new plunder.
Everyone in this show is just a little bit off in a way that I can't tell if it's weird acting/writing or an accurate presentation of people back then being different.
While racing light mechs, your Urbanmech comes in second place, but only because it ran out of ammo.
0
Options
HacksawJ. Duggan Esq.Wrestler at LawRegistered Userregular
I would imagine people back then were indeed a bit different that people these days.
WRT History Channel no longer making documentaries... even back when they did do documentaries, they were so rife with historical inaccuracies and outright false information, they may just as well have been fictional TV shows. The show they did on Kursk back in 2002 or so was so full of shit that I actually wrote an angry letter to them (which is something I've never done to a TV station before or since). All of the silliness that came later just seemed like a natural progression from what they had already done...
So, after watching the three first episodes, I'd like to outline some facts about the things that pop up, locations that are spoken about and various other historical sidenotes. I'll be using Avclub's reviews to remind myself about what happened. If there's any questions regarding the show's historical accuracy, feel free to ask.
Background info: Taken some university courses on the period 750-1150, Norwegian background, always liked the period.
Episode 1: "Rites of passage"
First thing that stands out, is that the story is about Ragnar Lotbrok* who was a real historical person, reshaped into a hero of severeal sagas. His most noted accomplishment was frequent raids into France, including the capture of Paris. Charles the Bald had to pay 7000 pounds of silver for Ragnar not to destroy his city. His death was between 840 - 865. This means that it is quite unlikely that history channel put in this famous saga hero in order to use his known name. The wife's name is Lathgertha, an myth construct but was according to the Sagas Ragnar's wife.
*His death is entailed here, which History channel will most likely use, so read wiki articles at your own peril.
The second obvious thing, is the location of Ragnar's life and the village of the jarl Haraldsson (most likely made up person). Although they state the village of the Jarl is Kattegatt. Kattegatt is the a sea strait between Denmark and Sweden, placing according to logic their geographic location somewhere around there. However, the location of the village and other places is clearly in a fjord (high mountains, fog, etc) which places it more in the region of eastern Norway (primarily Rogaland, Hordaland and Sogn og fjordande). This is a conscious choice by History channel since most people's perception of Vikings are violence and fjords, and other use would entail people just turning off the show.
The ship idea was already in effect since 600 (using bendable wood, etc), but at the end of the 700s the journey overseas travel were made easier due to better bottom of the ship (harder to overturn the ship, etc). I did enjoy the description Floki does, it was fairly accurate.
The most glaring fault is at the notion of there being nothing to the west. Traders have had long contact with both the west (England, France) and the east (Russia, Finland). We have proof of that due to having found several western or eastern coins in viking graves dated prior to 700. Again this is to serve as a general storyline conflict between Ragnar and the Jarl. Instead however, they could have focused on the high deathrate for traveling to the west overseas and not next to the coast.
The costumes look correct (not my most knowledgeable field), the customs look correct as well as the gender roles. There was very little difference in the sexes in work/war matters. The most important part of being a male in this society was being the active part of sexual matters. Being passive was viewed as womanly (interestingly enough, very alike the Roman and Greek sexual tradition). A woman had inheritor rights to her husband (1/3 of the value of the property) and could own and run a farm until either her sons came of age or if she was a widow to her death. A man technically had more of a public face to lose if he behaved "unmanly" compared to a woman behaving "unwomenly". Remember this is a culture where Odin (head god) is the god of battle and poetry. Shield-maidens are a myth, none is quite sure if they existed at all so here it is set to put Ragnar and his wife on "equal" terms.
On the spiritual nature; there are discussions if viking religion was treated a public matter (formal setting, procedures) or a private matter (every farm had a shrine, personal sacrifices). If one sacrificed something to the Gods, one would expect something back. The seer that they show of could be likely (but most definitely looking as he/she does). There were seers who would be "possessed" and rant various meanings to those who paid them. Christians were known of, but treated as magicians. If one was killed there wasn't much about it.
The court room drama, was viewed as a very important matter for freemen. One of the core things about most sagas are matters around law and court, and this ensues here. It's good to view the matters of court, but the rapid rate of court room drama is unlikely. It was far more common to do court meetings every six months or more in view of several other jarls.
I think that's it for this episode, found it interesting but faults is faults. I enjoy increased attention to this period, but again it is quite hard to have accurate information.
Episode 2: "Wrath of the Northmen"
The most famous viking raid of all, Lindisfarne (793) does not quite match the historical accuracy of Ragnar. If his death was in the 840-865, it would not fit. So the mythological version of Ragnar will be used.
Two things however quite clearly stand out in this episode. It's the professional killings and the latin spoken. One is quite well portrayed, one is not. I leave it to you to decide.*
*No, I won't
The professional and pathos-less killing is most likely how most raids happened. As I wrote above, the vikings most likely knew about Lindisfarne and the lands to the west. As an increased frequency of raids occurred after Lindisfarne, you could view it as the rapid way the raiders gain wealth from a relative safe method, the stories spread and more and more raiding bands ensued. Trading continued at the same rate as before (maybe more due to popularity of going to the sea) so it didn't stop, but the stories about raiding overshadowed the stories about trade. The prior does look like it could from the era, as well as the nature of people living there. The weaponry used (shields, axes, swords) are also correct.
The latin spoken was pretty bad. For monks who should be speaking in Latin, Greek and whatever they've learnt, several of the pronunciations be more cleared (one of the things that set of my alarms was "Spirit Sancti" (Holy ghost). The fact that our main monk is versed in old Norse isn't that surprising due to their missionary nature of monks. It's a good excuse that's probable during this period Christianity wouldn't be fully accepted in Norse countries until the latter part of the 900s so any dealings with christian missionaries would be with suspicions. The prior also looked good, with the common idea of parchment, illustration and animal keeping being accurate from what is known.
The raping of a Slave girl is sad, but slaves during this period had very few rights (used as property). If you were not a freeman you couldn't stand at court (unless the one who owned you wanted the offender to pay for the damages). Northumbria is one of the most well known areas in Saxon England. However, the name of the king does not fit the timeline (rather choosing to take the myth of Ragnar instead).
Most of this episode concerned itself about the journey and the raid which was good. As there was very little to highlight, I'd like to explain why the raids were so successful.
The new technology of shipwright (the bottom of the dragonship) made landing at beaches quite fast and easy. The raids themselves would often happen fast and in a short amount of time. This is due to most men at arms assigned to larger cities and taking a long time to mobilize and move out to counter the threat. Since during this period the standard strategy of ruining the enemy's farmlands and never fight army versus army, this tactic was quite effective. The rapid rate of deployment and retreat of the vikings made them quite effective (with their new ships highly so). When the local defense force came about, the vikings were most likely gone.
I enjoyed this episode and for those who find Ragnar's eyes quite bewitching, don't go to Scandinavia. More blue eyes then you can spend your time staring into.
Episode 3: "Dispossessed"
Most likely, the common chief or Jarl would be very happy about the treasure found. However, an unlawful departure of men, weapons and ship would be quite bad. If this was during the viking age, most likely the Jarl would have revived around half and the rest to the men. However since this is in the realm of creating a narrative, it's quite effective. Indeed, most of the court proceeding forgoes the typical gathering of most local jarls/chiefs for a more higher paced drama. If the Jarl accused Ragnar, he would have to wait until a ting and announce that he was accusing Ragnar. An arrest wouldn't be viewed as right action (If Ragnar didn't show up for such a trail, his guilt would be apparent).
Killing someone to watch over a treasure horde is as well not commonly proven nor is part of the faith in the gods I've learnt about. Again, this is to serve the narrative.
Taking slaves was very common in the viking age. Our monk friend was very lucky however to have arrived at the Ragnar household. Most other holds would not give him a bed (more likely a corner), give him beer and give him so much free time. The invitation of a threesome isn't proven, but most likely the fact that our monk refuses makes him unmanly in the eyes of common viking culture. Again setting him at edge versus the viking culture.
Shield maidens again, are not quite proven. It could be likely that women helped in raids, but there is very little proof in the stories one can find. There are of course legends and myths but, I cannot validate any of these stories.
The most enjoyable part of the episode however was the communication part at the latter end the episode. Even though the deployment of the local militia was quite swift (unlikely so), how they tried to remain peaceful through offerings is a very good moment. The language spoken, I cannot authenticate (have neither learnt old Norse nor Saxon), but I could recognize several words (primarily Kopmen). Hopefully more moments such as these will happen.
Overall impressions: Good at costumes, weaponry and general culture stuff. Bad at most other timeline, geography and matters of importance. Things are being ignored/changed due to the narrative. This is alright as long the tale being told is good and brings interest in the period. We'll have to see if this continues or tries to go full "game of thrones" mode.
Although they state the village of the Jarl is Kattegatt. Kattegatt is the a sea strait between Denmark and Sweden, placing according to logic their geographic location somewhere around there. However, the location of the village and other places is clearly in a fjord (high mountains, fog, etc) which places it more in the region of eastern Norway (primarily Rogaland, Hordaland and Sogn og fjordande). This is a conscious choice by History channel since most people's perception of Vikings are violence and fjords, and other use would entail people just turning off the show.
I think the area around Gothenburg might fit the closest with what we have seen and that they are still suppose to be right next to Kattegat. But yeah, I agree that the goal was to make a genuinely stereotypical Viking landscape rather than an historically and geographically accurate one.
No but it does have bays, rivers and some mountains (google image it), although probably not quite that size. Not sure, haven't exactly seen the entire coastline. Further south, in both Denmark and Sweden, it's much flatter
*edit* Oooh it's on now! Episode 4 --->
That was not exactly a drunken brawl there at the end where they can all pretend to still be friends. It was an ambush followed by a bloody fight and quite a few dead. No sweeping all of that under the rug and pretend nothing happened. Wonder if it's just gonna be more sneak attacks or an outright face to face war.
No need for GIS. I've been there. It hardly matters though, since fjords are cooler anyway than the stereotypical nordic terrain(i.e. most of Sweden and Finland. Norway got most of the cool stuff.) This discussion has reminded me that I should go see the fjords in Norway's western coast one of these days. Denmark is super flat though, yeah. It's the pancake country.
Because if you're going to attempt to squeeze that big black monster into your slot you will need to be able to take at least 12 inches or else you're going to have a bad time...
I love this show. The production values are great, the actor playing Ragnar is great, his wife is really hot, and Gabriel Byrne does a good job with a shitty character. One thing about the most recent episode, though.
Killing off Vladimir Kulich was lame, I guess he only wanted to work on a few episodes because I can't imagine why any writer wouldn't want him on for the long haul in a show about Vikings.
Thanks Erlec for your analysis. The same thing inside me that makes me an annoying pedant is very interested to hear about how this matches with the stories proper.
I just wonder now if they are going to make the Gods an actual part of the world on this show, especially now that Christianity is in the mix.
now plotting to have the Earl killed so she can keep her daughter? Also, kissing Rollo like they have been doing it forever. Is it real or is it just another twisted game she and her husband cooked up to manipulate events? I wonder how fair this duel is going to turn out.
The wife immediately stabbing her daughter's husband in the heart as soon as her own husband drew his last breath was just about my favorite thing ever.
Good. This show is helping with my feelings of loss over Spartacus coming to an end. Even if the amount of gore etc. isn't comparable, it's still scratching the same itch.
I loved the whole duel scene, especially the aftermath. Henchmen calls for Ragnar to be killed, Rollo grabs an axe and buries it into his chest, then Siggy stabs the husband of her daughter.
Because if you're going to attempt to squeeze that big black monster into your slot you will need to be able to take at least 12 inches or else you're going to have a bad time...
It sure picked up the pace in the last episode. Lots of things happened (awesome duel) and there was even a several months time skip at the end. Also, glad to hear it's getting another season! With so much happening it once, I was worried they were in a hurry to (permanently) wrap things up.
WRT History Channel no longer making documentaries... even back when they did do documentaries, they were so rife with historical inaccuracies and outright false information, they may just as well have been fictional TV shows. The show they did on Kursk back in 2002 or so was so full of shit that I actually wrote an angry letter to them (which is something I've never done to a TV station before or since). All of the silliness that came later just seemed like a natural progression from what they had already done...
(Note, I haven't seen the Kursk documentary @Kongo described.)
Certain....politicized topics....that are sufficiently distantly removed (or not) tend to be particularly common victims of this. And, to be honest, it's not just the History Channel, they just happen to be a very obvious, very prevalent perpetrator of it. For example, if you've ever seen a documentary about the Second World War in Europe (particularly the eastern front), it's shaped by the fact that, in NATO countries, there was a tendency of historical orthodoxy that claimed crimes like anti-partisan village annihilation in occupied countries were perpetrated by just a few bad apples in infamous groups like the SS and the German Army itself was actually an exemplary group given its behavior in the environment it was in. The causes are obvious: the military and political academics for the last few decades have a very good reason to encourage warm admiration of that group in light of a standoff in Europe (and West Germany being ~4 times the size of East Germany) and they were overwhelming shaped post-war narratives from intellectual, intelligent German high officers who wanted to cover their asses and be paid for giving lectures.
In actuality, a lot of evidence already existed--and since the mid-90s, has once again been given appropriate weight--that violence was incredibly persuasive throughout the regular German Army, not just paramilitary units or the SS, and the sheer size of the army meant it had a huge part to play in those particular crimes. The History Channel didn't get the memo.
Of course, that's just one example. I've heard that some of the History Channel's documentaries on the U.S. Civil War (specifically, POW treatment) are also bad, and I could definitely explain how some of their documentaries on, for example, the city of Pripyat and the nuclear power disaster are extremely sketchy, if not deliberately malicious. The programs I'v seen about the early years of the US occupation of Japan are also...really bad in a "Jesus, talk about rose-colored lenses" kind of way, but given that pretty much all of those seem to suck, and there's not really a decent counterpart, I'm reluctant to blame them too much.
EDIT: This series, though, looks pretty good, from what little I've seen. But I know next to nothing about Vikings, besides that they liked to travel around by boat, burn stuff, pillage and rape, and that this gets romanticized a lot.
It sure picked up the pace in the last episode. Lots of things happened (awesome duel) and there was even a several months time skip at the end. Also, glad to hear it's getting another season! With so much happening it once, I was worried they were in a hurry to (permanently) wrap things up.
Threw mine in spoilers although there are spoilers in 2 of the comments just above mine.
Because if you're going to attempt to squeeze that big black monster into your slot you will need to be able to take at least 12 inches or else you're going to have a bad time...
I loved the whole duel scene, especially the aftermath. Henchmen calls for Ragnar to be killed, Rollo grabs an axe and buries it into his chest, then Siggy stabs the husband of her daughter.
Agreed. This show is awesome. The unbelievably brisk pace already puts it in the ranks of HBO and FX. What most shows would drag on for a season or two, Vikings deals with in one episode.
Well, that was weird. Some dudes were speaking Finnish in the background for the latest episode towards the end. I guess it'd be possible, since some people got picked up from the coasts back then, but they probably just put some Nordic background speech. I was more surprised by it having apparently correct meaning for the situation.
I'm surprised this show isn't getting more attention here on PA. I started watching it this week and just caught up with the last episode.
It's pretty much one of the best new shows on TV, if you're reading this and haven't seen it, go watch it. The lead actor and his viking bros are awesome and the peek into viking culture is fascinating. The sets are beautiful as well
The only weak part for me was the Earl, at least early on. He was a bit too one dimensional. The editing and pacing is a bit rough sometimes as well but man, the rest of it makes up for it
Yeah, my wife and I have been pretty hooked on this show from the first teaser commercial. It's very entertaining and does pique my previous interest in the era and geographical areas. I'd love to see a true documentary running alongside the show though. But I always wish for those sorts of things. Maybe an extra bit for the BluRays?
Well, that was weird. Some dudes were speaking Finnish in the background for the latest episode towards the end. I guess it'd be possible, since some people got picked up from the coasts back then, but they probably just put some Nordic background speech. I was more surprised by it having apparently correct meaning for the situation.
I heard that too and wondered. What was more odd about it was that it sounded more modern finnish than what you would have expected for that period. It might have been estonian though, it sounds very similar.
Cynicism is a great help when trying to be sarcastic.
Well, that was weird. Some dudes were speaking Finnish in the background for the latest episode towards the end. I guess it'd be possible, since some people got picked up from the coasts back then, but they probably just put some Nordic background speech. I was more surprised by it having apparently correct meaning for the situation.
I heard that too and wondered. What was more odd about it was that it sounded more modern finnish than what you would have expected for that period. It might have been estonian though, it sounds very similar.
It was Finnish. I'm a native. Then again, the language is one of the older languages in Europe, so depending on the words in question, certain things can be between 100-6000 years old.
I'm pretty sure what they did say was "Nyt se tulee", and "Eikö se tuu?" or "Eikö se tule?". The second phrase was unclear due to the general noise around them. "Now it's coming" and "Isn't it coming?" for meaning.
All of those words are fairly old, however, so an argument could be made that there would not be a significant difference in their usage. I highly doubt that anyone would bother going that far for what's essentially a soundbyte or two. Estonian sounds different, I guess it's the cadence or the way they stress the words.
Well, old Norse was the root from which the other Nordic languages descend from. I'd imagine that Faroese or Icelandic would be the closest modern equivalents, although they have obviously changed a lot since then. Swedish, Danish and Norwegian have had far more outside influences since the viking times in comparison.
I can't really say how close the language they use is to something understandable my modern speakers, since I don't speak any of the germanic nordic languages myself.
Well, old Norse was the root from which the other Nordic languages descend from. I'd imagine that Faroese or Icelandic would be the closest modern equivalents, although they have obviously changed a lot since then. Swedish, Danish and Norwegian have had far more outside influences since the viking times in comparison.
I can't really say how close the language they use is to something understandable my modern speakers, since I don't speak any of the germanic nordic languages myself.
Frisian is actually most likely the closest language still around. it's the closest living relative to Old English
Huh? It's not from the same sub-family of north germanic languages though. Old English and Old Norse are not the same. I'm almost certain it'd be Icelandic.
Both modern Icelandic and modern Faroese has strong connections to old norse. The written part of islandic is closer to the old norse due it keeping much of the same grammatical features (but not all). The modern islandic writings were set down during the 19th century. Old islandic however is very closely related to the modern one, so that most people can still read the sagas that came from around there.
Modern Faroese didn't have a written language until 1854 where they set down a standard ortography. This is due to that in 1536, the danish goverment outlawed any non danish writings (reformation). Thus Faroese became a spoken language purely for around 300 years. Before then it used the same ortography as norwegian, danish, islandic.
They are both "dilluted" by centuries of new languages, words. Primarly the effect of ireland's population emigrating to both Iceland and Faroese. They are also very alike:
Faroese Islandic
Vælkomin Velkomin
Farvæl Far vel; Farðu heill
Hvussu eitur tú? Hvað heitir þú?
Hvussu gongur? Hvernig gengur?
Hvussu gamal ert tú? Hversu gamall ertu?
Reytt/Reyður Rautt/rauður
Blátt/bláur Blátt/blár
Hvítt/hvítur Hvítt/hvítur
I would say they are very close together related. Even if Islandic retains some of the same grammar structure, trying to decide which language is closest is something that we cannot confirm without more extensive proof.
Would have been fun if they had added some old English and old Norse as background sounds. Wikipedia have some helpful colorful charts on the evolution of the Germanic languages (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Germanic_languages#Diachronic). Makes me wonder how similar the spoken languages were at that time. Could probably make out a word here and there if listening closely (more so then you can with the English and Scandinavian languages today). If you were in a part of England especially influenced by Frisian you might have had slightly more in common with Viking tongue since they had been neighbors a couple of centuries before.
Ragnar and Lagertha in Episode 8
seem to perhaps be leaning towards a split. Ragnar even prayed and asked who would give him a son. At the rate things are moving along he might marry someone else by the end of the next episode. Also, poor Athelstan. This episode really showed the constant terror he is living with and how it has made him lose all hope.
Posts
Background info: Taken some university courses on the period 750-1150, Norwegian background, always liked the period.
Episode 1: "Rites of passage"
*His death is entailed here, which History channel will most likely use, so read wiki articles at your own peril.
The second obvious thing, is the location of Ragnar's life and the village of the jarl Haraldsson (most likely made up person). Although they state the village of the Jarl is Kattegatt. Kattegatt is the a sea strait between Denmark and Sweden, placing according to logic their geographic location somewhere around there. However, the location of the village and other places is clearly in a fjord (high mountains, fog, etc) which places it more in the region of eastern Norway (primarily Rogaland, Hordaland and Sogn og fjordande). This is a conscious choice by History channel since most people's perception of Vikings are violence and fjords, and other use would entail people just turning off the show.
The ship idea was already in effect since 600 (using bendable wood, etc), but at the end of the 700s the journey overseas travel were made easier due to better bottom of the ship (harder to overturn the ship, etc). I did enjoy the description Floki does, it was fairly accurate.
The most glaring fault is at the notion of there being nothing to the west. Traders have had long contact with both the west (England, France) and the east (Russia, Finland). We have proof of that due to having found several western or eastern coins in viking graves dated prior to 700. Again this is to serve as a general storyline conflict between Ragnar and the Jarl. Instead however, they could have focused on the high deathrate for traveling to the west overseas and not next to the coast.
The costumes look correct (not my most knowledgeable field), the customs look correct as well as the gender roles. There was very little difference in the sexes in work/war matters. The most important part of being a male in this society was being the active part of sexual matters. Being passive was viewed as womanly (interestingly enough, very alike the Roman and Greek sexual tradition). A woman had inheritor rights to her husband (1/3 of the value of the property) and could own and run a farm until either her sons came of age or if she was a widow to her death. A man technically had more of a public face to lose if he behaved "unmanly" compared to a woman behaving "unwomenly". Remember this is a culture where Odin (head god) is the god of battle and poetry. Shield-maidens are a myth, none is quite sure if they existed at all so here it is set to put Ragnar and his wife on "equal" terms.
On the spiritual nature; there are discussions if viking religion was treated a public matter (formal setting, procedures) or a private matter (every farm had a shrine, personal sacrifices). If one sacrificed something to the Gods, one would expect something back. The seer that they show of could be likely (but most definitely looking as he/she does). There were seers who would be "possessed" and rant various meanings to those who paid them. Christians were known of, but treated as magicians. If one was killed there wasn't much about it.
The court room drama, was viewed as a very important matter for freemen. One of the core things about most sagas are matters around law and court, and this ensues here. It's good to view the matters of court, but the rapid rate of court room drama is unlikely. It was far more common to do court meetings every six months or more in view of several other jarls.
I think that's it for this episode, found it interesting but faults is faults. I enjoy increased attention to this period, but again it is quite hard to have accurate information.
Episode 2: "Wrath of the Northmen"
Two things however quite clearly stand out in this episode. It's the professional killings and the latin spoken. One is quite well portrayed, one is not. I leave it to you to decide.*
*No, I won't
The professional and pathos-less killing is most likely how most raids happened. As I wrote above, the vikings most likely knew about Lindisfarne and the lands to the west. As an increased frequency of raids occurred after Lindisfarne, you could view it as the rapid way the raiders gain wealth from a relative safe method, the stories spread and more and more raiding bands ensued. Trading continued at the same rate as before (maybe more due to popularity of going to the sea) so it didn't stop, but the stories about raiding overshadowed the stories about trade. The prior does look like it could from the era, as well as the nature of people living there. The weaponry used (shields, axes, swords) are also correct.
The latin spoken was pretty bad. For monks who should be speaking in Latin, Greek and whatever they've learnt, several of the pronunciations be more cleared (one of the things that set of my alarms was "Spirit Sancti" (Holy ghost). The fact that our main monk is versed in old Norse isn't that surprising due to their missionary nature of monks. It's a good excuse that's probable during this period Christianity wouldn't be fully accepted in Norse countries until the latter part of the 900s so any dealings with christian missionaries would be with suspicions. The prior also looked good, with the common idea of parchment, illustration and animal keeping being accurate from what is known.
The raping of a Slave girl is sad, but slaves during this period had very few rights (used as property). If you were not a freeman you couldn't stand at court (unless the one who owned you wanted the offender to pay for the damages). Northumbria is one of the most well known areas in Saxon England. However, the name of the king does not fit the timeline (rather choosing to take the myth of Ragnar instead).
Most of this episode concerned itself about the journey and the raid which was good. As there was very little to highlight, I'd like to explain why the raids were so successful.
The new technology of shipwright (the bottom of the dragonship) made landing at beaches quite fast and easy. The raids themselves would often happen fast and in a short amount of time. This is due to most men at arms assigned to larger cities and taking a long time to mobilize and move out to counter the threat. Since during this period the standard strategy of ruining the enemy's farmlands and never fight army versus army, this tactic was quite effective. The rapid rate of deployment and retreat of the vikings made them quite effective (with their new ships highly so). When the local defense force came about, the vikings were most likely gone.
I enjoyed this episode and for those who find Ragnar's eyes quite bewitching, don't go to Scandinavia. More blue eyes then you can spend your time staring into.
Episode 3: "Dispossessed"
Killing someone to watch over a treasure horde is as well not commonly proven nor is part of the faith in the gods I've learnt about. Again, this is to serve the narrative.
Taking slaves was very common in the viking age. Our monk friend was very lucky however to have arrived at the Ragnar household. Most other holds would not give him a bed (more likely a corner), give him beer and give him so much free time. The invitation of a threesome isn't proven, but most likely the fact that our monk refuses makes him unmanly in the eyes of common viking culture. Again setting him at edge versus the viking culture.
Shield maidens again, are not quite proven. It could be likely that women helped in raids, but there is very little proof in the stories one can find. There are of course legends and myths but, I cannot validate any of these stories.
The most enjoyable part of the episode however was the communication part at the latter end the episode. Even though the deployment of the local militia was quite swift (unlikely so), how they tried to remain peaceful through offerings is a very good moment. The language spoken, I cannot authenticate (have neither learnt old Norse nor Saxon), but I could recognize several words (primarily Kopmen). Hopefully more moments such as these will happen.
Overall impressions: Good at costumes, weaponry and general culture stuff. Bad at most other timeline, geography and matters of importance. Things are being ignored/changed due to the narrative. This is alright as long the tale being told is good and brings interest in the period. We'll have to see if this continues or tries to go full "game of thrones" mode.
I think the area around Gothenburg might fit the closest with what we have seen and that they are still suppose to be right next to Kattegat. But yeah, I agree that the goal was to make a genuinely stereotypical Viking landscape rather than an historically and geographically accurate one.
*edit* Oooh it's on now! Episode 4 --->
I just wonder now if they are going to make the Gods an actual part of the world on this show, especially now that Christianity is in the mix.
I'm the true RODENT of esteem
You could also say I foster
a deep love affair with STEAM
Which forumer am I?
It's getting a second season!
It sure picked up the pace in the last episode. Lots of things happened (awesome duel) and there was even a several months time skip at the end. Also, glad to hear it's getting another season! With so much happening it once, I was worried they were in a hurry to (permanently) wrap things up.
That said... someone (read: @Feral) recently mentioned the sketchiness of History's actual historical specials. Can anyone else corroborate this?
(Note, I haven't seen the Kursk documentary @Kongo described.)
Certain....politicized topics....that are sufficiently distantly removed (or not) tend to be particularly common victims of this. And, to be honest, it's not just the History Channel, they just happen to be a very obvious, very prevalent perpetrator of it. For example, if you've ever seen a documentary about the Second World War in Europe (particularly the eastern front), it's shaped by the fact that, in NATO countries, there was a tendency of historical orthodoxy that claimed crimes like anti-partisan village annihilation in occupied countries were perpetrated by just a few bad apples in infamous groups like the SS and the German Army itself was actually an exemplary group given its behavior in the environment it was in. The causes are obvious: the military and political academics for the last few decades have a very good reason to encourage warm admiration of that group in light of a standoff in Europe (and West Germany being ~4 times the size of East Germany) and they were overwhelming shaped post-war narratives from intellectual, intelligent German high officers who wanted to cover their asses and be paid for giving lectures.
In actuality, a lot of evidence already existed--and since the mid-90s, has once again been given appropriate weight--that violence was incredibly persuasive throughout the regular German Army, not just paramilitary units or the SS, and the sheer size of the army meant it had a huge part to play in those particular crimes. The History Channel didn't get the memo.
Of course, that's just one example. I've heard that some of the History Channel's documentaries on the U.S. Civil War (specifically, POW treatment) are also bad, and I could definitely explain how some of their documentaries on, for example, the city of Pripyat and the nuclear power disaster are extremely sketchy, if not deliberately malicious. The programs I'v seen about the early years of the US occupation of Japan are also...really bad in a "Jesus, talk about rose-colored lenses" kind of way, but given that pretty much all of those seem to suck, and there's not really a decent counterpart, I'm reluctant to blame them too much.
EDIT: This series, though, looks pretty good, from what little I've seen. But I know next to nothing about Vikings, besides that they liked to travel around by boat, burn stuff, pillage and rape, and that this gets romanticized a lot.
Threw mine in spoilers although there are spoilers in 2 of the comments just above mine.
Agreed. This show is awesome. The unbelievably brisk pace already puts it in the ranks of HBO and FX. What most shows would drag on for a season or two, Vikings deals with in one episode.
It's pretty much one of the best new shows on TV, if you're reading this and haven't seen it, go watch it.
The only weak part for me was the Earl, at least early on. He was a bit too one dimensional. The editing and pacing is a bit rough sometimes as well but man, the rest of it makes up for it
I heard that too and wondered. What was more odd about it was that it sounded more modern finnish than what you would have expected for that period. It might have been estonian though, it sounds very similar.
It was Finnish. I'm a native. Then again, the language is one of the older languages in Europe, so depending on the words in question, certain things can be between 100-6000 years old.
I'm pretty sure what they did say was "Nyt se tulee", and "Eikö se tuu?" or "Eikö se tule?". The second phrase was unclear due to the general noise around them. "Now it's coming" and "Isn't it coming?" for meaning.
All of those words are fairly old, however, so an argument could be made that there would not be a significant difference in their usage. I highly doubt that anyone would bother going that far for what's essentially a soundbyte or two. Estonian sounds different, I guess it's the cadence or the way they stress the words.
I can't really say how close the language they use is to something understandable my modern speakers, since I don't speak any of the germanic nordic languages myself.
Frisian is actually most likely the closest language still around. it's the closest living relative to Old English
I have relatives who can still speak it
Modern Faroese didn't have a written language until 1854 where they set down a standard ortography. This is due to that in 1536, the danish goverment outlawed any non danish writings (reformation). Thus Faroese became a spoken language purely for around 300 years. Before then it used the same ortography as norwegian, danish, islandic.
They are both "dilluted" by centuries of new languages, words. Primarly the effect of ireland's population emigrating to both Iceland and Faroese. They are also very alike:
Faroese Islandic
Vælkomin Velkomin
Farvæl Far vel; Farðu heill
Hvussu eitur tú? Hvað heitir þú?
Hvussu gongur? Hvernig gengur?
Hvussu gamal ert tú? Hversu gamall ertu?
Reytt/Reyður Rautt/rauður
Blátt/bláur Blátt/blár
Hvítt/hvítur Hvítt/hvítur
I would say they are very close together related. Even if Islandic retains some of the same grammar structure, trying to decide which language is closest is something that we cannot confirm without more extensive proof.
Ragnar and Lagertha in Episode 8