Vikings #4, On to Season 3

[Wmarshal]

I have not watched Reign, don't think I will now either :drunk: .

Yeah, I agree. I think one of the more distasteful aspect of Mel Gibson's historical films is his tendency to distort facts to propagate various political opinions of his. Like how much he hates England for some reason. You see similar tendencies in other historical movies and series though. Vikings not entirely excepted. Like how Ragnar in season 1 is this ambitious self made entrepreneur held down by "Big Government" that wants to regulate his sea voyages and forces him to pay unfair taxes. When he in reality (if we assume that he actually existed) was a prince, and even if he wasn't a Jarl wouldn't have had the authority to do stuff like that anyway. Plus that people of course already knew where Britain was. So it rather seems to be a way to make him look like an ideal modern ´Murican or something.

I admit, Vikings has a issue with what the vikings know and don't, as Borg pulled out "as forgiving as christian" out of know where. But it is possible they were going with no one attakced England and made it a thing like him, as it is stated some did travel about.

[RenlyIsNotRight]

Yeah, I agree. I think one of the more distasteful aspect of Mel Gibson's historical films is his tendency to distort facts to propagate various political opinions of his. Like how much he hates England for some reason.

He's from an intensely conservative Irish Catholic background.

I'm not saying hatred of all English people is justified, but knowing Mel already has a penchant for bigotry, his dislike of a country who subjugated his ancestors (and mine as well) and suppressed the religion he so devoutly follows shouldnt be surprising at all.

[cdawnb]

I have not watched Reign, don't think I will now either :drunk: .

Yeah, I agree. I think one of the more distasteful aspect of Mel Gibson's historical films is his tendency to distort facts to propagate various political opinions of his. Like how much he hates England for some reason. You see similar tendencies in other historical movies and series though. Vikings not entirely excepted. Like how Ragnar in season 1 is this ambitious self made entrepreneur held down by "Big Government" that wants to regulate his sea voyages and forces him to pay unfair taxes. When he in reality (if we assume that he actually existed) was a prince, and even if he wasn't a Jarl wouldn't have had the authority to do stuff like that anyway. Plus that people of course already knew where Britain was. So it rather seems to be a way to make him look like an ideal modern ´Murican or something.

While I respect the fact that people are always going to have different opinions on what they like and don't like and you have made some valid points on 300 and Braveheart, I have to say that is one of the oddest ways to criticize this show that I have seen. This is in no way an American production. The only thing American about it is the channel is shown on.

You also have absolutely no way of knowing if there was ever a community in the Viking world that would put up with a leader like Haraldson. People put up with crappy leaders all the time. History is riddled with them.

Ragnar talked all the time about hearing stories about the west. That's why he wanted to go there. The show never tried to make it out that he was the only one who knew about England.

Knowledge about things was going to be uneven amongst the population simply because they didn't have 24 hrs news cycles. Everything was passed around orally and probably not very accurately to boot.

Eta

And don't watch Reign. There is no reason to distress your brain with it.

[Bennis of the Brown Shield]

While I respect the fact that people are always going to have different opinions on what they like and don't like and you have made some valid points on 300 and Braveheart, I have to say that is one of the oddest ways to criticize this show that I have seen. This is in no way an American production. The only thing American about it is the channel is shown on.

You also have absolutely no way of knowing if there was ever a community in the Viking world that would put up with a leader like Haraldson. People put up with crappy leaders all the time. History is riddled with them.

Ragnar talked all the time about hearing stories about the west. That's why he wanted to go there. The show never tried to make it out that he was the only one who knew about England.

Knowledge about things was going to be uneven amongst the population simply because they didn't have 24 hrs news cycles. Everything was passed around orally and probably not very accurately to boot.

Eta

And don't watch Reign. There is no reason to distress your brain with it.

Which is a big deal, considering that they are mainly based in America and thus their prime target audience will be Americans. It is the same with many other US channels (or at least was until quite recently), even ones with substantial market shares in the rest of the world; the American viewers are regarded as by far the most important customer group, and what they can get from sending their content in other countries is more like a nice bonus.

Jarl Haraldsson was a lot more than just a crappy leader though. He murdered and stole from his own warriors over nothing. Considering the way Norse society worked, with very little in the way of institutional power and basically everything revolving around how many friends you had that were willing to follow you or aid you in battle, such a behavior would be complete suicide. Sure it isn't "impossible" that a character like this could have existed... but then, the same can be said about many other things. It is not physically impossible that a Japanese Samurai got kidnapped by Korean pirates, then sold as a slave to the Chinese, was handed over to a Persian ruler as a funny mascot, then got sold to Rus merchants when said ruler got tired of him, and eventually, after many ifs and buts, ended up as a freed man in "Kattegat". So then we could have a main cast consisting of Ragnar Lothbrok, Rollo, Lagertha, Tyoshi Kyamoto, Floki, and Athelstan instead of the boring one we have now. :cool4:

Yeah it did. He only knew of some legends about rich land existing to the West of where they lived, neither he nor the men he was sailing with seemed to be sure that it really did (hence the scene where he kills one of them when he starts panicking). Whereas in reality there seems to have been lots of trade going on with Scandinavia hundreds of years prior to when the show is set*, plus of course that the famous Anglo Saxon story of Beowulf is about a Geatish (like Jarl Borg) king, and is set in present day Sweden and Denmark. So clearly they had knowledge about each other. Probably pretty detailed as well, considering that some of the characters figuring in that work might actually have existed (though the dragon and Grendel probably didn't...) So that part of the story in Season 1 really just is there to make him look like a viking Columbus or Captain Cook or something.

*As evidenced by Anglo Saxon graves that are packed with various items of Scandinavian origin.

[cdawnb]

Which is a big deal, considering that they are mainly based in America and thus their prime target audience will be Americans. It is the same with many other US channels (or at least was until quite recently), even ones with substantial market shares in the rest of the world; the American viewers are regarded as by far the most important customer group, and what they can get from sending their content in other countries is more like a nice bonus.

Jarl Haraldsson was a lot more than just a crappy leader though. He murdered and stole from his own warriors over nothing. Considering the way Norse society worked, with very little in the way of institutional power and basically everything revolving around how many friends you had that were willing to follow you or aid you in battle, such a behavior would be complete suicide. Sure it isn't "impossible" that a character like this could have existed... but then, the same can be said about many other things. It is not physically impossible that a Japanese Samurai got kidnapped by Korean pirates, then sold as a slave to the Chinese, was handed over to a Persian ruler as a funny mascot, then got sold to Rus merchants when said ruler got tired of him, and eventually, after many ifs and buts, ended up as a freed man in "Kattegat". So then we could have a main cast consisting of Ragnar Lothbrok, Rollo, Lagertha, Tyoshi Kyamoto, Floki, and Athelstan instead of the boring one we have now. :cool4:

Yeah it did. He only knew of some legends about rich land existing to the West of where they lived, neither he nor the men he was sailing with seemed to be sure that it really did (hence the scene where he kills one of them when he starts panicking). Whereas in reality there seems to have been lots of trade going on with Scandinavia hundreds of years prior to when the show is set*, plus of course that the famous Anglo Saxon story of Beowulf is about a Geatish (like Jarl Borg) king, and is set in present day Sweden and Denmark. So clearly they had knowledge about each other. Probably pretty detailed as well, considering that some of the characters figuring in that work might actually have existed (though the dragon and Grendel probably didn't...) So that part of the story in Season 1 really just is there to make him look like a viking Columbus or Captain Cook or something.

*As evidenced by Anglo Saxon graves that are packed with various items of Scandinavian origin.

We will have to disagree on the whole American thing. I just don't see it. You're attributing Hirst, who is English, with American libertarianism. He is the sole writer and driving force on the show.

Yes, there is evidence of trade between them before Ragnar. That's how the stores would have reached Ragnar. This is what drove him to want to go west. This was pretty clear to me, but I can see how this might have bothered you.

Horik talks about hearing about Christians, Ecbert talks about Vikings raiding France, Borg about Christians also. All of these stores would have reached these characters through trade and other means. They had to start the story some where and Hirst decided to start with Ragnar.

It's a story. The internal progress is pretty consistent ( though not 100%).

If it were a documentary, I'd be right there with you.

[Bennis of the Brown Shield]

He's from an intensely conservative Irish Catholic background.

I'm not saying hatred of all English people is justified, but knowing Mel already has a penchant for bigotry, his dislike of a country who subjugated his ancestors (and mine as well) and suppressed the religion he so devoutly follows shouldnt be surprising at all.

Ah, I forgot to reply to this.

I didn't know that, I thought he was of Scottish descent for some reason... I guess that explains it a bit better.

We will have to disagree on the whole American thing. I just don't see it. You're attributing Hirst, who is English, with American libertarianism. He is the sole writer and driving force on the show.

Yes, there is evidence of trade between them before Ragnar. That's how the stores would have reached Ragnar. This is what drove him to want to go west. This was pretty clear to me, but I can see how this might have bothered you.

Horik talks about hearing about Christians, Ecbert talks about Vikings raiding France, Borg about Christians also. All of these stores would have reached these characters through trade and other means. They had to start the story some where and Hirst decided to start with Ragnar.

It's a story. The internal progress is pretty consistent ( though not 100%).

If it were a documentary, I'd be right there with you.

Surely the company financing the entire thing gets to make some input on what Hirst is writing.

As for the knowledge of Britain thing, I just can't agree with you. Jarl Haraldsson says repeatedly in season 1 things like "there are no lands to the west" and "how did you find this land of great riches when all before you have failed", and that Ragnar must have found a new way to navigate the seas.

That they know a bit about Christians doesn't necessarily imply that they know about England, there were other Christian states that were closer after all. Such as Charlemagne's realm.

The internal consistency is fine I suppose. Well, aside from where Kattegat actually is supposed to be ;) The non existent fjords and mountains in Denmark and southern Sweden notwithstanding, it also seems like it is possible to travel both to Uppsala and to Hedeby from there on foot (or horseback as I believe Lagertha did when she and Ragnar had separated). Meaning that either Ragnar or Lagertha must have Moses style magic powers, or alternatively be able to walk on water like Jesus.

[Corvinus85]

Ah, I forgot to reply to this.

I didn't know that, I thought he was of Scottish descent for some reason... I guess that explains it a bit better.

Surely the company financing the entire thing gets to make some input on what Hirst is writing.

As for the knowledge of Britain thing, I just can't agree with you. Jarl Haraldsson says repeatedly in season 1 things like "there are no lands to the west" and "how did you find this land of great riches when all before you have failed", and that Ragnar must have found a new way to navigate the seas.

That they know a bit about Christians doesn't necessarily imply that they know about England, there were other Christian states that were closer after all. Such as Charlemagne's realm.

The internal consistency is fine I suppose. Well, aside from where Kattegat actually is supposed to be ;) The non existent fjords and mountains in Denmark and southern Sweden notwithstanding, it also seems like it is possible to tra to Uppsala and to Hedeby from there on foot (or horseback as I believe Lagertha did when she and Ragnar had separated). Meaning that either Ragnar or Lagertha must have Moses style magic powers, or alternatively be able to walk on water like Jesus.

I find it funny every time the location name is displayed and it says something like Hedeby, Scandinavia. It could be in Finland for all I know. They don't want to be specific on purpose.

[Gus]

I tend to think of it as taking place in a mini Scandinavia. They seem to have taken four well known regions / places like Uppsala (East sweden) Denmark (South Sweden and denmark), West coast Sweden and Southern part of Norway and made then neighbors and much smaller. I'm fine with that since they are actually borrowing from things that existed and never showing a map.

[Zorral]

We will have to disagree on the whole American thing. I just don't see it. You're attributing Hirst, who is English, with American libertarianism. He is the sole writer and driving force on the show.

Yes, there is evidence of trade between them before Ragnar. That's how the stores would have reached Ragnar. This is what drove him to want to go west. This was pretty clear to me, but I can see how this might have bothered you.

Horik talks about hearing about Christians, Ecbert talks about Vikings raiding France, Borg about Christians also. All of these stores would have reached these characters through trade and other means. They had to start the story some where and Hirst decided to start with Ragnar.

It's a story. The internal progress is pretty consistent ( though not 100%).

If it were a documentary, I'd be right there with you.

:agree: particularly with your observation, "The internal progress is pretty consistent ( though not 100%)."

Further, the "flavor" is consistent with the feel of works such a Beowulf and the Nibenlunglied. Or at least it seems to me, who knows the literature better than either the cultural or political history -- and don't know the literature that well either. :cheers: I.e., Vikings works. and works at least as well as Beowulf and the Eddas. :cool4:

I'm hoping the History channel's new series, Sons of Liberty, that opens tomorrow night, works as well for me as Vikings does. Sons of Liberty isn't as away in historical time, it's set in a period and place in which I am extremely well educated, and in geography with which, in many case, very familiar.

[Corvinus85]

:agree: particularly with your observation, "The internal progress is pretty consistent ( though not 100%)."

Further, the "flavor" is consistent with the feel of works such a Beowulf and the Nibenlunglied. Or at least it seems to me, who knows the literature better than either the cultural or political history -- and don't know the literature that well either. :cheers: I.e., Vikings works. and works at least as well as Beowulf and the Eddas. :cool4:

I'm hoping the History channel's new series, Sons of Liberty, that opens tomorrow night, works as well for me as Vikings does. Sons of Liberty isn't as away in historical time, it's set in a period and place in which I am extremely well educated, and in geography with which, in many case, very familiar

I have effectively stopped watching the HC except for Vikings, so thanks for letting me know about Sons of Liberty.

[Zorral]

I have effectively stopped watching the HC except for Vikings, so thanks for letting me know about Sons of Liberty.

I'm hoping . . . in any case it's only three episodes.

[Mark Antony]

John Adams was really good, kinda wish they would have tackled another subject

[Corvinus85]

Finished my re-watch of season 2 on Amazon. So good. But it was still the American version, because it didn't show why Ragnar spared Horik's oldest son.

[Bennis of the Brown Shield]

I find it funny every time the location name is displayed and it says something like Hedeby, Scandinavia. It could be in Finland for all I know. They don't want to be specific on purpose.

I tend to think of it as taking place in a mini Scandinavia. They seem to have taken four well known regions / places like Uppsala (East sweden) Denmark (South Sweden and denmark), West coast Sweden and Southern part of Norway and made then neighbors and much smaller. I'm fine with that since they are actually borrowing from things that existed and never showing a map.

What irks me about all that is that it is so lazy. Want the show set in cool Norwegian fjord environment? Fine, just have Ragnar be Jarl of a random part of the Norwegian coast that has nice fjords in it. It would have taken literally 3 minutes for an intern with google to fix this. It's not like he is Jarl of "Kattegat" in the sagas either, so they wouldn't be diverging from them any further. Instead you get a completely ridiculous environment for where the show is supposed to take place. Like as if HBO had shot Rome up in the Alps.

Mini Scandinavia wouldn't be necessary since the Norse travelled around a lot with their ships, so there's nothing implausible per say of Ragnar going to Uppsala or Lagertha visiting Hedeby even if they live quite far from there.

:agree: particularly with your observation, "The internal progress is pretty consistent ( though not 100%)."

Further, the "flavor" is consistent with the feel of works such a Beowulf and the Nibenlunglied. Or at least it seems to me, who knows the literature better than either the cultural or political history -- and don't know the literature that well either. :cheers: I.e., Vikings works. and works at least as well as Beowulf and the Eddas. :cool4:

I'm hoping the History channel's new series, Sons of Liberty, that opens tomorrow night, works as well for me as Vikings does. Sons of Liberty isn't as away in historical time, it's set in a period and place in which I am extremely well educated, and in geography with which, in many case, very familiar.

Eh, I'm not sure I can agree with that. The "tone" works for the series, but I think it feels like a pretty different atmosphere than you get from the Sagas. The way people talk to each other and behave is, I think, not the same. In the Sagas you get the impression of a culture where it is seen as ideal to speak laconically, and appearing composed regardless of what is happening. Which ends up being really funny in a lot of situations.

Such as when the viking Atle hears a man aggressively banging on his door and goes out to see what it is about, when suddenly one of his enemies jumps out and runs him through with a spear. At which point he only exclaims "These broad bladed spears see much use nowadays!", and dies.

Or when a group of Icelanders are besieging the longhouse of Gunnar, who has been outlawed, and one of them climbs up the wall and tries looking through a window to see where he is, at which point Gunnar thrust his spear-axe out the windown and hits him in the waist, making him tumble down the house. One of the other men asks him "Is Gunnar home?" and he replies "Look for yourselves. But well did I learn, that his spear-axe was home." and then dies. :P Or for that matter,

Ragnar Lothbroks ominous last words after being thrown the snake pit.

That is to say, I think you get an impression that is a little similar to for example that of English aristocrats during the 19th and early 20th centuries, like when one of Wellington's officers next to him gets his leg blown off by a cannonball during the Battle of Waterloo and Wellington looks down on the bleeding stump and says "It appears you have lost your leg, sir", and he only replies "By God sir, I have!"

It can be discussed if the Icelandic Sagas illustrate how the Norse really behaved of course, but regardless I don't think the show captures quite the same atmosphere as them.

[Veltigar]

That is to say, I think you get an impression that is a little similar to for example that of English aristocrats during the 19th and early 20th centuries, like when one of Wellington's officers next to him gets his leg blown off by a cannonball during the Battle of Waterloo and Wellington looks down on the bleeding stump and says "It appears you have lost your leg, sir", and he only replies "By God sir, I have!"

Small nitpick: Upon loosing his leg, it was Lord Uxbridge himself who said to the Duke of Wellington "By God, sir, I've lost my leg!", to which the Duke replied "By God, sir, so you have!" :)

[The Iceman of the North]

Small nitpick: Upon loosing his leg, it was Lord Uxbridge himself who said to the Duke of Wellington "By God, sir, I've lost my leg!", to which the Duke replied "By God, sir, so you have!" :)

Sorry Kdnw, your entire line of thought have been found to be faulty and without merit. Please try again.

[toffeejay]

I really hope more of next season is set in England. The two English kings are interesting characters and the series works well when its set there.

It's just as soon as something looks likely to happen, some prick back home - the Earl, Rollo, Borg, Horrik, (insert name of next seasons idiot who decides he has a stupid grievance against Ragnar so he's going murder all the villagers only to then get his arse kicked by Ragnar) makes him leave and return home.

And please tell me they have killed Horrick's son, because at the end it seemed like he might be spared. Seeing that they murdered Horrick's young children it would seem stupid to spare the son who took up arms against them?

[RenlyIsNotRight]

Shit well this is actually old news it seems but I wasn't aware, but new cast members and characters for Season 3

Still not sure on who exactly Ian Beattie (Meryn Trant) is playing though.

[Corvinus85]

Shit well this is actually old news it seems but I wasn't aware, but new cast members and characters for Season 3

Still not sure on who exactly Ian Beattie (Meryn Trant) is playing though.

I'm going to go with this guy since apparently he lived during the time of the Siege of Paris.

[RenlyIsNotRight]

I'm going to go with this guy since apparently he lived during the time of the Siege of Paris.

Supposedly another actor is playing "Emperor Charles" though, so maybe he's just some random French general.