vikings! on the history channel? what the hell?

[K.C.]

I'd like to get some honest opinions on whether it's worth catching since it doesn't air here for a couple hours.

[wolverine]

I'd like to get some honest opinions on whether it's worth catching since it doesn't air here for a couple hours.

It is a show about Vikings on the History channel, how could it not be worth watching?

[blasted_saber]

I watched it. Pretty good for non-HBO TV. I'll keep tuning in.

Production quality was surprisingly good.

[Guest]

I watched it. Pretty good for non-HBO TV. I'll keep tuning in.

Production quality was surprisingly good.

My phrase!! :tantrum:

:P

[K.C.]

It is a show about Vikings on the History channel, how could it not be worth watching?

You never know. It could be entertaining in a bad way, if nothing else.

[JB5093]

I really liked it. Can't wait for next weeks episode

[Firekeeper]

I thought it was pretty good. The production values were quite high for cable and so far seems interesting enough in potential buildup.

[The Northern Scholar]

I was pretty entertained by it. As others have noted, the production value was pretty strong and it's refreshing seeing something on the History channel that doesn't involve pawn shops or aliens.

[brighidg]

I'm just so happy it doesn't involve aliens or Nostradamus or Biblical "prophecies".

[Trebla]

I don't even watch the History Channel anymore. I watch the two Military channels and History 2. They show the things that used to make History Channel good. But this was entertaining and I'm definitely going to keep watching!

[UVA]

I'll continue to tune in, see how it goes. The show is of a better quality than one would expect from the History Channel. I'm also glad this is on HC as opposed to a place like Starz. This could've so easily turned into the shit that is 'Spartacus'.

[Harle The Handsome]

Not really sure History channel can do a Vikings show justice. These were some of the most brutal people in history. All they did was rape pillage kill and sail. This show would be much better suited for Hbo or Starz to portray them accurately.

No. They were so much more than that. Truth be told, the above was more an outlier than an actual representation of Viking life. Most were traders and settlers. The reason why they got such a bad rap was because the only literate people at that time were priests and monks. The silver and gold in cathederals and monasteries were often the targets of this small band of raiders, so history made them more fearsome than reality.

[Ouroboros]

No. They were so much more than that. Truth be told, the above was more an outlier than an actual representation of Viking life. Most were traders and settlers. The reason why they got such a bad rap was because the only literate people at that time were priests and monks. The silver and gold in cathederals and monasteries were often the targets of this small band of raiders, so history made them more fearsome than reality.

I must have imagined that part where they held entire cities hostage and tried to plunder them anyway after the ransom was paid.

[Ser Areo Mace]

I was a little disappointed in the first episode but I'll continue watching in hopes it gets better.

[Crazydog7]

Nice to see something on the History Channel that isn't about Swamp People, Ice Roads or Pawn Shops

Definatly give the first episode a look. It was interesting and 8 more to go.

And if it is a hit maybe they will play it all in an endless loop like they do with the hatfields and mccoys

[red snow]

I'll continue to tune in, see how it goes. The show is of a better quality than one would expect from the History Channel. I'm also glad this is on HC as opposed to a place like Starz. This could've so easily turned into the shit that is 'Spartacus'.

Remove sword from back and spread cheek for vengeance rightfully earned :P How dare you insult "Spartacus"

This was a surprise. I'm going to give it a shot - although I admit I'll be thinking of all the violence and nudity we could have got if it had been on HBO, Starz or showtime. Considering it's by Michael Hirst (Tudors) it should at least have a lot of sex.

I thought it might be one of those history shows with reenactments but it sounds like a proper drama.

I watched an interesting "history of the world" show before christmas by the BBC and they had a very different spin on the Vikings and proposed they were the driving force of european history post-rome. For example I knew that the Normans were Vikings but never realised that Russia was founded by the Rus (a varangian viking tribe), a viking tribe that settled in the region. The interesting thing about Vikings is that they were far more flexible when it came to religion and cultural identity so when the Normans invaded northern France they quickly assimilated into Catholicism and French speaking, Apparently the first russian king gathered representatives from all the major religions of the time and then picked the one he liked the most and that's how that part of the rule became Greek orthodox.

So Vikings are pretty cool and more than just rapers and plunderers - although they didn't mind a bit of that too.

[Howdyphillip]

I enjoyed it. I would have kept watching this show regardless to keep history on the history channel, but I found myself liking the show. I wish they would have gone a different direction with the accents, but I really like the focus being on Ragnar. He did some awesome stuff and his sons did even more.

[Harle The Handsome]

I must have imagined that part where they held entire cities hostage and tried to plunder them anyway after the ransom was paid.

More likely you were the victim of rhetorical flourish.

I watched an interesting "history of the world" show before christmas by the BBC and they had a very different spin on the Vikings and proposed they were the driving force of european history post-rome. For example I knew that the Normans were Vikings but never realised that Russia was founded by the Rus (a varangian viking tribe), a viking tribe that settled in the region.

Rus is the word for the steering board used on longboats.

[Ouroboros]

More likely you were the victim of rhetorical flourish.

More like I actually read about the Siege of Paris. You can be as revisionist as you like, but the Nordic cultures did promote raiding and pillaging as a suitable pass-time for young men, and kings often organised large concentrated raids of European lands for the sake of pillage. Yes they were traders and explorers, but they were most certainly also raiders and pirates on a large, cultural level.

You don't attack cities like Paris and Rome with only small bands of outlaw raiders.

[Harle The Handsome]

More like I actually read about the Siege of Paris. You can be as revisionist as you like, but the Nordic cultures did promote raiding and pillaging as a suitable pass-time for young men, and kings often organised large concentrated raids of European lands for the sake of pillage. Yes they were traders and explorers, but they were most certainly also raiders and pirates on a large, cultural level.

You don't attack cities like Paris and Rome with only small bands of outlaw raiders.

Not to seem like quibbling over small details but you do realize there is a distinction between raiding and piilaging and conquering? There is a reason why France has a region called Normandy. Many lands in France, England and Russia were taken to establish and maintain their trade routes.

The sack of Rome wasn't a raid; it was a rebellion. The Visigoths bore the brunt of Rome's military adventurism and layed seige to Rome to force the Senate to settle. As a contrast, look at how the Eastern Roman Empire utilized the Varangian Guard. They were, more or less, The Golden Company of their time, the most trusted, effective and highly paid mercenaries in the world.