Vikings (Season 5 Trailer)

[Marcus Aemilius Lepidus]

One thing i liked in the end of the third episode was that the Vikings appeared to be merchants. In history this was one of the reasons why they were so succesfull. In one habour they were merchants and traded and in another or near a church when they saw an opportunity they raided it, just to sell the stolen stuff in the next habour. It is not that they had a big Pirateflagg on their ships

[saxdude]

I like it

I hate it, it doesnt fit.

[Condottiere 40K]

The story goes, the traders scouted out the area, so that the Vikings had a fairly good idea whether there was anything worth raiding and the resistance to expect; the other story is that if the raiding party found on landing that there was a comparable prepared military force in the neighbourhood, they'd claim they were traders.

Also in regard to mail armour and swords, they probably would salvage those, if only as trading goods.

[Påsan]

As far as I know they have not had an opportunity to loot squat **** yet.


The last episode ended just as that last rider rode away from the Vikings. They might very well show up in the next episode wearing the equipment of the Saxons, when I first saw them and their helmets that was my first thought.

However remember that uniformity is bad for TV characters.

[saxdude]

The show is pretty good, though I have grown pretty tired of the typical euro shows about Rome and the Medieval ages, not to mention westerns and such from the US, but still its pretty nice to see a show about vikings that at least tries to be realistic and tones down the depravity a whole big notch. Not everyone can afford to be a sexual violent deviant with odd and uncontrolled fetishes all the time. People seem to think shows on the past are more realistic if the protagonists are blatant sociopathic rapists, and I like that Vikings took the realistic middleground.

In that, its more tolerable than both GoT, Spartacus and rome (and the Tudors, and the Borgia and whatever).


Man I wish I had the budget to make my own shows though :L

[Cyrus Da Great]

I'm glad THC is getting back on track with historical stuff instead of all the "reality" crap. This and the upcoming "The Bible" look interesting.

[Habelo]

I'm glad THC is getting back on track with historical stuff instead of all the "reality" crap. This and the upcoming "The Bible" look interesting.

Mate, this isnt history. It is retarded drama with swords.

[EireEmerald]

Mate, this isnt history. It is retarded drama with swords.

If you can fault anything, historically speaking, about the show then give it a shot, if not, then don't criticize it so quickly.

[EireEmerald]

You guys are going by the false assumption that GoT is a "swords and action" kind of show but it's not. GoT has swords and action but it's not about those things. GoT is more of a politics/character/drama kind of show and is much better compared to the likes of HBO's Rome.

In contrast Spartacus is a gratuitous cgi frag-fest based on the popularity of film(s) like 300 (it constantly regurgitates 300's visual gimmicks) where hitting a man on the upper back with a blunt shaft causes a huge spray of blood and everyone constantly swears to make the show appear dark and edgy. So apples and oranges.

This Vikings thing seems interesting though, will try it.

This^ Once again, people are being picky. But I guess that never changes.

[Marcus Aemilius Lepidus]

The story goes, the traders scouted out the area, so that the Vikings had a fairly good idea whether there was anything worth raiding and the resistance to expect; the other story is that if the raiding party found on landing that there was a comparable prepared military force in the neighbourhood, they'd claim they were traders.

Also in regard to mail armour and swords, they probably would salvage those, if only as trading goods.

But they don't needed to pretend to be merchants. The hole viking stuff made the Norse people so famous for it, that many people forgot that they were great merchants and they were specially known to be merchants before. The rurikides which founded their realms in Russia, were mainly traders, not Raiders.

[saxdude]

If you can fault anything, historically speaking, about the show then give it a shot, if not, then don't criticize it so quickly.

dont you remember his other posts?

[Cyrus Da Great]

Yes.

Really looking good. The detailing is fantastic, the sets, the costumes all looked great. The dialogue is simple and to the point, no over acting, flamboyant pontificating or obviously structured gags. It all seemed very natural. It's hard to find a single fault...

We may have a winner here..

Except for the use of the title Jarl
Except for making him into some king/nobleman
Except for removing all value put on honor
Except for making them senseless murderers
Except for making the thing something one person could control
Except for the division of plunder
Except for the presence of shield maidens
Except for making the vikings distrustful brutes
Except for ... etc etc etc..

[Påsan]

Its become a common modern myth that the Vikings were "traders" first and foremost, and have been demonized by evil historians.

Its a middle ground. They were not demons hell bent on rape and pillage, but they certainly was not a misunderstood band of traders with a hunch for violence now and again. Vikings were a constant and genuine threat to all Kingdoms in medieval Europe, from the Saxons and Celts in the British isles to the dominant power in Charlemagne's Frankish kingdom to the Muslim Berbs in Spain (They were planning a naval assault on the Christian northern kingdoms when a random band of Vikings sailed in and burnt most of their fleet around 820 ad, that was the first of many) and even reached as far as Italy and Constantinople (A raiding party had heard of the christian Rome, so they decided to loot it. They burnt the wrong city and only found out about it later)

Except for the use of the title Jarl

Agreed, he should be a king.

Except for making him into some king/nobleman

Actually considering the situarion of hundreds of petty king in the Vestlandet at the time, that is exactly what he should be.

Except for removing all value put on honor

Examples, please. The only thing I can think of is the Earls treatment of Ragnar. And that will bite him in his ass, obviously. Beacuse they had a code of conduct does not mean everyone followed it.

Except for making them senseless murderers

They were senseless murderers.

Except for making the thing something one person could control

Huh?

Except for the division of plunder

Plunder were all given to the king who would then divide it among his men. It was how the bonds of loyalty worked. The earl in the show have failed to be fair and generous, which will be his downfall.

Except for the presence of shield maidens

Well if you want to have the fictional Ragnar Lodbrok in a TV show, might as well include his wife.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lathgertha

Except for making the vikings distrustful brutes

I suggest you read some sagas if you go by the dilution that Vikings had some chivalic code that prevented them being backstabbing and sneaky, resourcefulness and cleverness was very valued traits, hell Thor himself dressed up as the goddess of beauty, Freya and married a troll to get back his stolen hammer Mjølnir as a wedding gift (and then proceeded to kill everyone at the wedding) . I recommend you to read up on Scandinavian medieval history, you seem to have an overly romantizised picture of it.

[Condottiere 40K]

‘cold are the counsels of women,’ sums up the Icelandic male attitude. In the mindlessly violent world of thirteenth century Iceland, people’s concerns and anxieties found literary expression in sagas. Someone had to be blamed and the strong willed women of the sagas,safely anchored in the Viking past, provided a scapegoat. The female inciters of the sagas functioned rather like their literary predecessors, the valkyries. They were a useful and colourful myth that accounted for the horrors of violence while removing the blame for it from male shoulders” ( Women in the Viking Age [Woodbridge: Boydell, 1991 ], p. 191 ; see also pp. 182 – 90 ). See also Jenny Jochens, Old Norse Images o Women (Philadelphia: Univ.of Pennsylvania Press, 1996 ); she also subscribes to the idea of women as scapegoats (pp. 209 – 11 ). The emphasis on inciting revenge can be seen in fact that three out of the vechapters on “Human Images” concern avenging and whetting women (see pp. 132

[Knight of Heaven]

Ah all i know is Ragnar wife is hot. If i was the priest, i would be a priest no more.

[Halie Satanus]

Except for the use of the title Jarl
Except for making him into some king/nobleman
Except for removing all value put on honor
Except for making them senseless murderers
Except for making the thing something one person could control
Except for the division of plunder
Except for the presence of shield maidens
Except for making the vikings distrustful brutes
Except for ... etc etc etc..

Aside from the use of Jarl/Earl your points are all incorrect or misinformed. I'm guessing the use of Jarl/Earl may be deliberate since, as Pasan pointed out, the number of Viking 'Kings' was numerous in comparison to the rest of Europe. It could be argued that the Vikings were a little generous when deciding what could rightfully be claimed as a 'Kingdom.'

The biggest misconception you have regards 'shield-maidens' not only because they are well documented as existing in the saga's, but because Ragnar's wife is quite famous, even a cursory look at Wkipedia would give you that info..

I'm no expert on Vikings, I did a fair bit of reading while working on 'Viking Invasion II' mostly to get a feel for the elements I helped with, the look of boats, units, art ect ect. But I did pick up on a few of the general myths that are fed through Hollywood and the like and this show definitely hasn't been sucked into making obvious mistakes to pander to Viking fanboyism (I haven't seen a single horned helmet yet )..

If you had read up on the characters you'd have noticed that Ragnar may not have been a historical figure at all, that might have been a point you could debate...

[athanaric]

People seem to think shows on the past are more realistic if the protagonists are blatant sociopathic rapists, and I like that Vikings took the realistic middleground.

In that, its more tolerable than both GoT, Spartacus and rome (and the Tudors, and the Borgia and whatever).

I agree - there should be a middle ground between "Spartacus" et al. on one side and those mid 20th century samurai/western/whatever chaste hero flicks on the other, and GoT as well as Rome are beyond it. Though they both are good shows, I think they overdid it a bit with the whole "dark and edgy" thing. Everytime you warm up to some character, they murder someone for the evulz (or get killed themselves). Not to mention random sexual content thrown in once an episode (which is usually not really enjoyable because it's interrupted by some disgusting violent scenes, anyway). In the case of GoT I think it's GRR Martin's fault, as AFAIK this kind of content is in the books as well. Writers should be careful IMO that their works focus on telling a story, instead of serving some meta purpose. Books/films that are primarily meant as a deconstruction of a genre, or as a "take that" to a certain clientele, are just awful.
I guess (or rather, hope) that screenwriters will eventually find that middle groud and give us realistic, historically accurate movies.

[Habelo]

If you can fault anything, historically speaking, about the show then give it a shot, if not, then don't criticize it so quickly.

They spat snots and saliva into a bowl of water then passed it down for the others to use. Disgusting. The only "sources" that they did that comes from christians who wanted to paint them as savages.
They are in the raiding era and they dont know where the **** england is? cmon. They were tradesmen that traded way farther then that before they started raiding.
Corrupt leaders, the vikings even killed kings if they didnt do their job well, a cheiftan would have gotten raped if he acted like he does in the series.
I mean seriously, killing a ****ing blacksmith and his right hand? That **** wouldve traveled and he would have been killed the day after.
Who the **** is this cheftain anyway? Doesnt he answer to a moot? He acts all high and mighty like some fuedal king yet he commands a village making him a cheiftan.
The cheiftan owns all the boats? How the **** did he manage to buy them off everyone? This isnt the ****ing fuedal age were he gets massive taxes and can treat the villagers like slaves. He doesnt seem that good of a raider either according to the series.
Raping a blacksmiths daughter without repercussion like she were a slave? Seriously? The retard who wrote that have somehow managed to avoided the word "family-fued" in his ignorant life.
The vikings valued honor, family and friendship above all else but if you look at this serie then you would start to think the opposite.
The priest looked ****ing disgusting and asks people to do queer gayass **** for him. These were the wise men of the village, not some kind of ****ing clown.

That was all the logical flaws that i could think of right now, i am uncertain about that Froki, but his character seems out of place too. Building ships were a team effort done by those that were gonna sail the boat. Like when we youths in sweden fix up a boat or housecar to go on a party trip. Raiding was like partying for vikings.

ps. most of the actors are ****ing ****.

[EireEmerald]

Ah all i know is Ragnar wife is hot. If i was the priest, i would be a priest no more.

I have a feeling Ragnar would have killed him if he accepted.

[Påsan]

Blah blah **** blah

I suggest you ask some grown ups to teach you how to phase an convincing argument in English

But essentially most of your ideas about vikings seems to be rather sketchy at best.



Btw I read up a bit about early Viking raids, and I think the current raid is based a historical one as well, but earlier than the Lindisfarne raid. In 789 the sheriff of Winchester was sent down to greet some Vikings from Hordaland and bring them to the king Beorthrics as traders. There was a confrontation and the Sheriff and his men were killed.

I think they are going to go from England to France or Ireland after this, as after the current raid and one more on another monastery slightly south of Lindisfarne there was a 30 years lull in the attacks on England before they returned. In the meantime they established themselves in Normandy and in the islands and in Ireland.


The little kid Bjørn is an historical character though. He was a major warlord in France and Spain called Bjørn Ironside.
'

They proceeded inland to the town of Luna, which they believed to be Rome at the time, but Björn found himself unable to breach the town walls. To gain entry, he sent messengers to the bishop that he had died, had a deathbed conversion, and wished to be buried on consecrated ground within their church. He was brought into the chapel with a small honor guard, then amazed the dismayed Italian clerics by leaping from his coffin and hacking his way to the town gates, which he promptly opened, letting his army in.

Mind you my books "Vikings at War" disagrees with that Wikipedia article on several points.