Jump to content

Vikings 3: Eye-Stabbing as a means of social mobility


Talleyrand

Recommended Posts

Since Lagertha was married to the Earl of Hedeby, Hedeby, which we now know was rich, powerful and important due to trade, if she does inherit as widow (however she became widow! widow herself or endure hell -- as we could see that sadistic fool-abuser wouldn't be accepting her divorcing him) -- that's a lot of money and followers to pass on to, support, Bjorn, her son. He does become a king at some point in history doesn't Bjorn?



I am very curious as to how in the world Lagertha, the smart, wise, intelligent, strong, independent Shield Maiden, ended up marrying that sadistic drunkard fool in the first place.



Questions, questions, questions!


Link to comment
Share on other sites

Since Lagertha was married to the Earl of Hedeby, Hedeby, which we now know was rich, powerful and important due to trade, if she does inherit as widow (however she became widow! widow herself or endure hell -- as we could see that sadistic fool-abuser wouldn't be accepting her divorcing him) -- that's a lot of money and followers to pass on to, support, Bjorn, her son. He does become a king at some point in history doesn't Bjorn?

I am very curious as to how in the world Lagertha, the smart, wise, intelligent, strong, independent Shield Maiden, ended up marrying that sadistic drunkard fool in the first place.

Questions, questions, questions!

It's very simple. Even smart, successful, savy people get trapped in abusive relationships.

Happens all the time.

Not to make it sound like I am coming down hard on you, but the idea that people just can't belive Lagertha would end up in abusive relationship is a common theme in almost all the discussion I have seen about her story line.

It just highlights to me the lack of understanding people have of the dynamics in abusive relationships.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Woo -- just saw this in the Independent: somebody really doesn't like vikings -- the historic vikings, not the television show -- in connection with the Viking exhibit the British Museum. He's putting straight the record, that vikings were the worst, most destructive, barbaric hordes ever. The blood eagle comes into play in the piece, just as we expect it's going to do in this week's Vikings episode

Given that the main 'victims' of the Vikings were the Anglo-Saxons in England, who was barely finished with their own genocide when the Norsemen arrived, and the Franks who were ruled by the most bloodthirsty European of the millennia when the raiding there started, I wouldn't worry too much.

Since Lagertha was married to the Earl of Hedeby, Hedeby, which we now know was rich, powerful and important due to trade, if she does inherit as widow (however she became widow! widow herself or endure hell -- as we could see that sadistic fool-abuser wouldn't be accepting her divorcing him) -- that's a lot of money and followers to pass on to, support, Bjorn, her son. He does become a king at some point in history doesn't Bjorn?

Bjorn, like Ragnar, are legendary figures (like king Arthur), thus talking about 'history' here is quite futile.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Bjorn, like Ragnar, are legendary figures (like king Arthur), thus talking about 'history' here is quite futile.

It should be pointed out that the alleged sons of Ragnar Lodbrok seem to be historical figures. (at least the ones raiding England)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It should be pointed out that the alleged sons of Ragnar Lodbrok seem to be historical figures. (at least the ones raiding England)

While I have read some of the sagas surrounding Ragnar Lothbrok, I am in no way versed in Vikings history. Aren't his sons the actual historical figures and Ragnar is much more of the mythical persona?

Are historians even sure that they are his sons?

I am just trying to clarify what you posted.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's very simple. Even smart, successful, savy people get trapped in abusive relationships.

Happens all the time.

Not to make it sound like I am coming down hard on you, but the idea that people just can't belive Lagertha would end up in abusive relationship is a common theme in almost all the discussion I have seen about her story line.

It just highlights to me the lack of understanding people have of the dynamics in abusive relationships.

And I'm guessing she sought out that relationship without really bothering to consider what sort of man the Earl is. She's attempting to secure legacy and position for her son, who's estranged from his father. She seeks out someone with a comparable amount of power. I think that's more important to her than whether or not the man is abusive.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

And I'm guessing she sought out that relationship without really bothering to consider what sort of man the Earl is. She's attempting to secure legacy and position for her son, who's estranged from his father. She seeks out someone with a comparable amount of power. I think that's more important to her than whether or not the man is abusive.

That's what I meant by having so many questions. We didn't see this, so we go, "How could she blahblahblah ...." Particularily as that drunk sadistic fool seemed to be, either already, or becoming, dangerous to Bjorn too. If blood fathers like Ragnar can be jealous of their beloved sons, imagine how much stronger the impulse is in a man who doesn't love anybody, including himself.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Given that the main 'victims' of the Vikings were the Anglo-Saxons in England, who was barely finished with their own genocide when the Norsemen arrived, and the Franks who were ruled by the most bloodthirsty European of the millennia when the raiding there started, I wouldn't worry too much.

Bjorn, like Ragnar, are legendary figures (like king Arthur), thus talking about 'history' here is quite futile.

Well, in legend then, doesn't Bjorn become a King or some other title of a powerful ruler?

I don't know norse legends any better than I know the history and religion.

I'm glad there are people here who know more than I do.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I kinda feel bad for Jarl Borg. I know he cowardly attacked Ragnar's village - but still, that beating was just rough. It's all Horik's fault.



Agrees to allow Borg into their alliance ----> changes his mind ---> doesn't have the balls to tell Borg himself face-to-face ----> makes Ragnar do it ----> Uses Ragnar's village as a shield ----> wants Borg back. Dick moves all around.



And I never understood why he killed that random Anglo-Saxon that arrived with the bishop. Did he look at him the wrong way or something? Or is it 'cause Horik's simply an A-hole.


Link to comment
Share on other sites

And I never understood why he killed that random Anglo-Saxon that arrived with the bishop. Did he look at him the wrong way or something? Or is it 'cause Horik's simply an A-hole.

Horik felt ignored. The envoys were talking to Ragnar and not to him and that pissed Him off since he's the King and therefore senior in rank. He killed the envoynout of frustration and to assert his dominance.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

And I never understood why he killed that random Anglo-Saxon that arrived with the bishop. Did he look at him the wrong way or something? Or is it 'cause Horik's simply an A-hole.

I was wondering about that as well. I guess just to show how unstable and sadistic he is. KInd of stupid to break the basic rules of negotiation like that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Horik felt ignored. The envoys were talking to Ragnar and not to him and that pissed Him off since he's the King and therefore senior in rank. He killed the envoynout of frustration and to assert his dominance.

Hm, makes sense I guess. But to be fair, Ragnar's a way better leader - at least from what we've seen thus far. If there's a good reason Horik's king (aside from being born into it) he hasn't shown it yet. And they spoke to Ragnar 'cause he can understand and communicate with them. Much simpler than having someone translate for Horik.

I was wondering about that as well. I guess just to show how unstable and sadistic he is. KInd of stupid to break the basic rules of negotiation like that.

Makes me wonder if that played a part in Ecbert deciding to attack the vikings, or if he never intended to agree to a truce in the first place.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Horik felt ignored. The envoys were talking to Ragnar and not to him and that pissed Him off since he's the King and therefore senior in rank. He killed the envoynout of frustration and to assert his dominance.

That's not what I got from that scene at all. I thought it was because the guy was so very obviously trying to count how many men they had and how big their camp was and Horrik axed him for it.

I love how everyone can have completly different views of the same scene. It makes for great discussions!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Makes me wonder if that played a part in Ecbert deciding to attack the vikings, or if he never intended to agree to a truce in the first place.

I think it's more likely that having half the invading host bug out spurred that on.

Horik was a dipshit for sticking around, but I guess we wouldn't have the Athelstan/Ecbert storyline otherwise.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
×
  • Create New...