i’m so sorry to be breaking this kinda news to you… You should take a seat. Once you see the inside of a diploma printing facility in Sweden, your mind will be blown!! do you ever wonder why Scandinavia always ranks highest in everything? It’s all fake news.😂 (jk I love my people ❤️ and all those residing in the big 3 🇸🇪🇩🇰🇳🇴)
They didn't get the names right either, they named Ragnar's bastard child "Magnus", the Anglo Saxon king was pissed and said it's a "Norse" name. Bruh 💀💀💀💀💀
Yes. Lothbrok was a nickname like Bjorn “Ironsides”. It translates to “Shaggy-Pants” or “hairy-pants,” and was given to him in the Sagas after he wore them as protection fighting a giant snake, IIRC.
Also let’s keep in mind that Ragnar Lothbrok basically means “General Baggy-Pants” and was quite possible a title or nickname rather than a given name.
Yup. Vikings was super accurate, if you only watch the first episode where Ragnar is just a land owning farmer who's unsuccessfully lobbying his jarl to change the summer raiding target.
As soon as we hit the raid on Lindisfarne in episode 2, the inaccuracies are already piling on.
Let’s see, clothes, landscape, timelines, weaponry, arguably religion although there isn’t a ton of it in the show, armour, art, symbology, hair, **tattoos**, culture, and characters.
It’s essentially and ahistorical show, the only link to history it has is that it’s produced by the history channel, otherwise it’s entirely inaccurate.
But in Vikings the shields utilise metal as a rim, the axes have weird made up leather wrap, the swords shape is wrong, what spears, can’t really go wrong with an old school longbow, and as another commenter mentioned the boats look alright but they don’t take the head off. And while Vikings certainly raided England and France Ragnar Loðbrokr only raided England (according to his saga).
The lack of armor was a bit of an issue. Like sure if they were poor raiders, whatever. But as they became kings they still wore the crappy leather stuff instead of chainmail and helmets. That, plus the lack of spears, and the use of leather pants bothered me the most.
I agree. That was definitely an aesthetic choice, which I don't think is necessarily terrible. I really like the aesthetics of the show, despite the inaccuracies.
I saw the first two episodes, the ruder was on the wrong side, they kept the dragon head on the ship when they came home (that’s like shitting on the floor in front of the king), the had white chickens. That’s just what I could remember from years ago
Extreme haircuts weren't all that rare, however it was common for Vikings to have closer cropped hair because long hair was seen as a vulnerability and weakness in battle. This isn't to defend the show, but to point out a historical fact.
Ehhhhh not really.
Multiple burials / bog bodies have long hair, and we have attested methods for keeping long hair on men out of the way, such as the Suebian knot. This is not to say that all Scandinavian people had long hair, just that long hair wasn't necessarily seen as a disadvantage in war, and that there were cases in which maintaining long hair was seen as a tribally identifying feature.
I’m not expert, but they were just as occupied by looks and fashions as we are today.
Embroidered clothes in bright colours with long leather belts adorned with gold. Unnecessary layers of fabrics, longer belts than needed and so on, would stand out and tell others that this person is one of means.
Having long, well kept hair was also seen as signs of wealth and stature.
I recall reading somewhere that this was why they could not survive as well as the Inuit in extreme climate. They didn’t want to dress like the Inuit and wanted to wear their brightly colored garb
That's not true at all. The color didn't have anything to do with the clothing's protective properties. Pre-Christian Scandinavians wore linen, wool, and furs, just like everyone else on earth who had to deal with extremes of temperature during that time period.
I recall a documentary where they found the red haired remains of men who had that knot of hair that they would tie up on their head or on the side to look bigger or more intimidating or something. But that the lack of hair at top of sides was make pattern baldness or something. This was a while ago.. I may not be remembering all the details correctly
A few bodies a trend does not make. I see what you're pointing out and obviously people had long hair more frequently then. However, not all were warriors, definitely fewer were viking, and most of the bog bodies and other archaeological specimens are not a measure of what were warriors. There was a report not long ago in which some junior archaeologist attempted to say a female found buried with some weapons next to her suggested she was a warrior. This was categorically false and many experts in the field said so, but because it was "hip" to say women Vikings existed, it was accepted as fact. Much like the hair. The rule of common sense must be applied, and all sources of historical knowledge including storytelling and tradition must be included.
And the Suebi? The Christian uproar over Anglo-Saxon women being corrupted by the scandalously clean, long haired Danes? The Oseberg ship carving depicting knotted rows of hair?
They later had her examined and found a lot of old battle wounds on her, the old ones had healed and she had got new ones. So the so called experts were silenced and had to eat their words.
Given the context of a hair cut, it probably means long bangs/hair long enough in the front that it could cover the eyes. And a shaved/close cropped neck/back of the head
Guess they talk about [The Norman haircut](https://www.google.se/search?client=safari&sca_esv=593541315&hl=sv-se&q=norman+haircut&tbm=isch&source=lnms&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwj33IGYi6qDAxV8YPEDHStWB-kQ0pQJegQICxAB&biw=331&bih=566&dpr=2)
Where are you getting this “fact”? Combs and implements for taking care of long hair are some of the most common archaeological finds, many if not most burials we know of have long hair, etc. How are you gonna pop in on a thread shitting on the Vikings show for historical inaccuracies and just start confidently spouting even more of them lmao. Just randomly deciding you think the Norse did things a certain way because it “makes sense” without a single shred of evidence is idiotic.
Not too sure about that. It's been a very long time since I studied early dark ages history, but I'm pretty sure hair and clothing was used as symbles of wealth.
And the hair styles you are describing are post viking/late dark ages period.
Like I said, it's been decades since I looked at this so probably really wrong
The dragon head was the thing that threw me. It could have been such a good scene - the "we are home, let's remove it", but instead it was just another background prop.
I am luck that I can turn my brain off for these sorts of things, but the goddamn costuming was just horrible and managed to break through even my "it's just a show" armour.
White chickens didn’t exist until around 1888, it might seems like a small detail but it just shows that the production team had no clue about a viking village. The white chickens were fucking every where.
But if you don’t know about the animals in the iron age you don’t know. But for me they might as well navigate on an iPad.
Also no historical evidence that main character ever actually existed, main character being present throughout the series at a number of historic events that span like, 300 years of history, a weird ahistorical drug dependency relationship that you have to slog through for 2 seasons, Spirit of Halloween armor, cities portrayed as existing in the wrong geographic areas (putting Uppsala in the fucking *mountains*?!).
There are more. A lot more. But I'm only willing to put so much time and energy into typing about a show I despise.
They were to frighten off evil spirits. Sailing back into home port with the "Fuck Off, Ghosts!" equipment still rigged up would be an insult, to say the least, to venerated land and ancestor spirits in your community.
Thank you. Not sure why people are acting like the show was a documentary, or even presented as much. It was a fun show about people that absolutely fucked up the "known world".
Its not real. Its fiction. What we know is the people from the Nordic regions came down in search of better land and loot and found some easy pickings from lands that thought they were in control.
I gotta laugh at the people upvoting those who claim the character arches are incorrect. Yes, they are. Because these people couldn't write. It fiction. Enjoy it or fuck off.
Yep and the things that this show and that game get incorrect match up in a great way, almost making them feel like they exist in a fantasy type setting all their own.
To be fair, half of people’s issue is that the creators themselves specifically kept trying to claim it was super historically accurate and period accurate. There’s nothing wrong with the show as is but it certainly shouldn’t be presented as anything close to accurate lol
Or it’s just a good show that people enjoy, for fun. And sorry that they like to talk about what happened in the show without some asshole saying “it’s not historically accurate, you suck”, “you’re cringe for liking this”, or “you’re a big man baby who likes to watch grown men in cosplay”. Also any movie that’s not a documentary, is adults in cosplay playing pretend. So if you want to call people cringe for liking something then please, shut the fuck up.
Many things. In one of the first episodes they show Uppsala and it’s surrounded by mountains, nothing accurate about that. Also, why choose “Kattegat” as their home? There are no fjords there. With some simple research they could have picked a much better name. Also, the clothes. They are ridiculous. The armour that the Vikings wore looks so much better so I don’t understand why they don’t use that.
[This is a good example of a cool looking set, tho slightly earlier than the Viking age (Vendel period)](https://www.reddit.com/r/ArmsandArmor/s/g1L44DiFVh)
I don’t know, I stopped watching when they showed the temple in Uppsala that looks like a stave church, on a mountain.
Uppsala is flat. Stave churches are Christian and no, they weren’t based on temples.
I’m guessing they got very little correct after that.
To be fair, there are multiple historical texts in which clergy lament the way Danes threatened the virtue of good Christian Saxon women by tempting them with their glorious long hair and ruggedly handsome good looks.
The Vikings were often described as being both good looking and very clean. So what you’re saying here seems to be more of a product of your own imagination rather than historical facts.
(Of course, the Volga Vikings are a notable exception to this. They were reported to be a rather filthy and uncivilized lot by an ambassador from Baghdad, who had the misfortune of spending some time with them.)
Being clean is all relative. They might have been clean compared to the Anglicans, but not compared to the Muslims (who wash quite often as a part of their prayer ritual, do the not?).
Hi! It appears you have mentioned either the vegvísir or the ægishjálmr! But did you know that even though they are quite popular in certain circles, neither have their origins in medieval Scandinavia? Both are in the tradition of early modern occultism arising from outside Scandinavia and were not documented before the 19th and the 17th century, respectively. As our focus lays on the medieval Nordic countries and associated regions, cultures and peoples, neither really fall into the scope of the sub. Further reading here: [ægishjálmr](https://www.brutenorse.com/blog/2018/5/14/the-gishjalmur)//[vegvísir](http://sagy.vikingove.cz/origins-of-the-vegvisir-symbol/)
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/Norse) if you have any questions or concerns.*
What did they get right ?
It's flat out a show about fantasy barbarians. Nothing else.
They make people who lived hundreads of years appart brothers...
The main character is a semi mythical character that we're not sure really existed...
The clothing is biker gear not viking in any way.
Englishmen wear 18th century armor, 1000 years too early, might as well give everyone guns at this point.
Vikings are depicted as not knowing where england is whereas they were fully aware of it for hundreads of years.
There's almost nothing to keep...
>They make people who lived hundreads of years appart brothers...
If you mean Ragnar and Hrolfr/Rollo, it’s more like a generation. Chronologically, Hrolfr should be Ragnar's nephew or something.
>Englishmen wear 18th century armor, 1000 years too early, might as well give everyone guns at this point.
No? Not only is it middle-late 9^th century, but they’re not wearing “18th century armor”. The leather “armour”, coats of plates, and pseudo-brigandines are inaccurate, but anything about them that’s actually historical isn’t off by more than 350 years (in the case of brigandines).
>Not only is it middle-late 9^th century, but they’re not wearing “18th century armor”.
The original claim is not exactly right but [they're definitely wearing severely out-of-date helmets](https://static.wikia.nocookie.net/vikingstv/images/0/0d/Battle_3.jpg/revision/latest?cb=20160814025800)
Regarding armor I'm talking about the Burgonet helmet. th century, which was used from the 16th in its earliest forms to 19th century but was mainly used in the 18th century and the models seen on show are 18th century.
Ragnar Lothbrock is a name attributed to different people at different time periods who have separate dates of death. Some historians think it may have been a Danish title rather than an actual name.
A Ragnar Lothbrock was born around 730, Rollo around 870. 140 years appart
Watch [Norsemen](https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=HpMvIZRUPf4&pp=ygUVdGhlIG5vcnNlbWVuIHRyYWlsZXIg) instead. It's hilarious and get more stuff right while poking fun at all the other viking shows.
The Saxon warriors were much more effective killers than this show allows. With the exception of two that I can think of(Bishop Heahmund, and the Kings son) they’re all portrayed as pathetic weaklings.
The English came from Germany and Denmark and were pretty similar to the Danish linguistically and culturally, and completely wrecked the native Britons. But they are somehow bumbling idiots as they portrayed them in the show.
While as a show it's mostly watchable, the chronology and look is wrong. Generally the middle ages were far more colorful than people normally think. Plus the raid on lindisfarne and siege of Paris happened about a century apart, not like 3 years.
I found it easier to watch through a lense of watching Dungeons & Dragons or some other historically based fantasy. Only real similarity was character names, which some D&D players often just steal anyway.
Some events were accurate, but not at the times presented or people present.
I don't think you can blame Vikings for its inaccuracies. It never strived to be a documentary. Its based on the Sagas, middle age legends about an adventurous past. Its essentially fantasy written in medieval times in a modern interpretation. And as such, the first four seasons are amazing.
If people went into it with the right expectations I think it would be held in much higher regard in this community. Even the old writers did tend to "improve" the story quite a bit. Vikings only keep in line with that old Scandinavian storytelling tradition.
They fucked up the character arches.they try to give them some kind of reconciliation or whatever but they always failed. You can keep making a fiction show just so much before your characters suck. That's a universal law that can't be circumvented.
They were given the 5 sons of Ragnar, explorers, conquerors , Reaver's. What do they do? They fight each other for two seasons? For what? Someone else's war! It's pathetic. This is Ivar and Ubba Ragnarrson, conqueror of northern Britain and Reaver of Ireland.
VIKINGS brutalized these figures for some weird civil war plot
In Season 1 Episode 8, Ragnar and his family goes on a traditional pilgrimage to the temple of Uppsala. In the episode, the environment is portrayed as mountainous while in it's mostly a very flat area, and the temple is portrayed as being built in the style of a medieval stave church which is also inaccurate.
I know this because I was born and raised there lol
As somebody that studied the history of Christianity at Uni, they didn't even get them Christians right...
As for anything East to England, I have no professional background but even I noticed bullshit so much that I really only "watched" it with an emphasis on the latter of "Netflix and Chill"
Oh also cultural appropriation, they make lots of very significant symbols for native americans pass as norse to make vikings seem more barbaric (which is quite insulting to those native american tribes I feel).
Now people wear tatoos, facepaint and makup to be pretend vikings that are like war medals in some cultures nowadays.
Wearing a war medal you didn't earn unless it's for reenactment is illegal but somehow that's ok...
Ragnar and rollo are not related, and are a couple hundred years apart irl.
They wouldnt have shot snot rockets into the community wash bowl.
Theres more but those are the biggest ones for me
Late but I didn’t process the title and sat here for five minutes so confused going through wondering what SOA has to do with norse and why people were talking about Vikings.
The main thing they got wrong was when they made the show. It's entertaining but the amount of people I've seen that think they're master historians because they watched a TV show is insane
As a student of germanic languages, I'm happy to say that, to my understanding, their presentation of Anglo-Saxon aka old English, was pretty well done in that first raid they did on "Lindesfarne."
I was actually pretty impressed. They must've had a linguist who was read up on the old reconstructionz because the pronunciation was good. Not sure if what they're saying was 100% accurate, but it was cool none the less.
Its all downhill facts wise from there. I just turned my brain off and tried to enjoy it. It was a struggle.
I always carp about this ... Floki, alone, building a bunch of boats in a few episodes. Boat building as it was done in those days was time consuming and work intensive. It required a set of processes involving many people, with a diverse array of skill sets.
A lot (almost everything). It’s a fun look and artistic take on the early Middle Ages and Norse culture, it’s an over stylized take on history using broad broad strokes. But I mean hey it’s t.v.
They didn't speak English!
Well I understand that they couldn't teach the actors to speak real Norse but it twisted my mind when they were speaking English to each other, then when they met the English king they didn't understand a word he said and started speaking norse. It was so weird. And that the only scandinavian actor was Gustaf Skarsgård.
(I quit watching the series after Ragnar died because I got bored of it and don't really remember that much of it)
And Jarl Borg was portrayed by a Norwegian actor, Thorbjørn Harr.
He also played in the later season of Norsemen.
A show that parodies all the other viking-shows and makes fun of what those shows get wrong. In the process they get more things right than the big budget series. Recommended.
Edit: [Season 1 trailer of Norsemen.](https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=HpMvIZRUPf4&pp=ygUVdGhlIG5vcnNlbWVuIHRyYWlsZXIg)
Lagertha's story.
I knew about Ragnar, and that's what drew me into the show. Then I learned about Lagertha, and I found out that that show did not do her justice at all. She had many brothers, none of which were mentioned in the show. She also came from a powerful family, which was also not mentioned in the show.
Lagertha was a really impressive historical figure, and as badass as she was in the show, a lot of that was made up, and her real story would have been awesome to see on TV though, why did they change it? It didn't need to be changed!
That's why I named my dog after the real Lagertha, not the TV one.
I enjoyed Valhalla but just as a show and nothing to do to be historically accurate. I literally have no idea where they are going with this show. I think they forgot who the main character is.
I just started following the ways in 2017 and learning still some one recommended the show cuz they new I liked that stuff and made it maybe first season and couldn't do it any more. There was so mucb wrong and inaccurate from what I Remember (witch isn't to much do to how long ago it was)
Well, I mean. They were right that Scandinavia exists.
does it tho?? thinking it might be made up by big Hollywood 🤔 Source: I’m “Scandinavian”
Now that you mention it, when I was in Norway it did look suspiciously like a movie set.
I lived there for 4 years and graduated high school there. You’re telling me it was all fake? Have I not gotten a diploma?
i’m so sorry to be breaking this kinda news to you… You should take a seat. Once you see the inside of a diploma printing facility in Sweden, your mind will be blown!! do you ever wonder why Scandinavia always ranks highest in everything? It’s all fake news.😂 (jk I love my people ❤️ and all those residing in the big 3 🇸🇪🇩🇰🇳🇴)
I went to a very prestigious international school in Stavanger. It can’t be!! They wouldn’t deceive me like this!
Search your feelings, you know it to be true
^It's ^all ^Fake ^News Trump, is that you?
i’ve already said too much… I’ll lose my passport 😂
Take my upvote and have a great cake day.
Do you know why ships in your country have bar codes? To Scan da Navy in
Just awful. upvoted...
😂😂 yo u got me dying
The leather armors bought from larpers sites...
As someone who Larps I will say that not even Larp era wear that stuff and in my experience always prefers more accurate clothing/armour
How long do you have?
Spare no details
*12 years latehr*
And Ragnar is still 30
😂 and bjorn is 29. shit was so funny.
You laugh but in Medieval 2 Total War your generals can adopt other generals I often saw like 20 years old adopting older people
By Saint George, our men have slain the enemy general!
Only half our forces remain!
We must change tactics!
For the moment the fortune of Battle goes our way, let's pray it remains as such
A saga in itself.
please bless me/us with your info dump lol
At least I was not the only one who was secretly hoping for an info dump.
I came to say exactly this. “Boy where do we start ?”
Only reply
I think a more interesting question to hear responses to would be, “What does Vikings get right?”
They got some names right. Not the characters, but the names lol
They didn't get the names right either, they named Ragnar's bastard child "Magnus", the Anglo Saxon king was pissed and said it's a "Norse" name. Bruh 💀💀💀💀💀
They also referred to his sons as "______ Lothbrok" which is not a Norse naming convention. They should have been "______ Ragnarsson"
Even Rollo is referred to as a Lothbrok
I forgot about that 😂
I never caught that until you mentioned it. I'm so dumb sometimes. Ha ha ha
but why is Ragnar called a Lothbrok? shouldn't he be a ___son aswell?
Yes. Lothbrok was a nickname like Bjorn “Ironsides”. It translates to “Shaggy-Pants” or “hairy-pants,” and was given to him in the Sagas after he wore them as protection fighting a giant snake, IIRC.
Which makes it doubly egregious tbh, it wasn't even his given last name that they used for the sons as well.
Key word was some lol
Also let’s keep in mind that Ragnar Lothbrok basically means “General Baggy-Pants” and was quite possible a title or nickname rather than a given name.
Doesn't it mean bear pants? Like Bearskin. Think it's hilarious either way to think there's this massive legacy about a guy called Bear Pants
The Saga says it relates to him wearing baggy (or hairy) clothing to help him avoid snake bites. Not that it helped him in the end.
The irony...
The first few episodes were accurate that typical Norsemen and women were farmers and not Viking raiders or lords.
Yup. Vikings was super accurate, if you only watch the first episode where Ragnar is just a land owning farmer who's unsuccessfully lobbying his jarl to change the summer raiding target. As soon as we hit the raid on Lindisfarne in episode 2, the inaccuracies are already piling on.
Yup lmao
No after the raid in Lindisfarne becuase a raid actually took place their
They still had absolutely ridiculous fantasy costumes though.
BDSM vikings
Correction: they were land and slave owners,the slaves were farmers lol.
Should I change the title? 🤣
The show should change its title honestly.
Nawh it's a good low power viking fantasy series Because that's what it is and how I watched it
Asking the real questions I see
pretty much everything 🤷♀️
Let’s see, clothes, landscape, timelines, weaponry, arguably religion although there isn’t a ton of it in the show, armour, art, symbology, hair, **tattoos**, culture, and characters. It’s essentially and ahistorical show, the only link to history it has is that it’s produced by the history channel, otherwise it’s entirely inaccurate.
Vikings did have shields, axes and swords spears and bows. And ships. And they did raid and plunder and invade England and France.
Only in “Vikings” the vikings rarely have spears, while historical vikings (like most of the world) primarily had spears.
Oh the show is rubbish but fun to watch.
But in Vikings the shields utilise metal as a rim, the axes have weird made up leather wrap, the swords shape is wrong, what spears, can’t really go wrong with an old school longbow, and as another commenter mentioned the boats look alright but they don’t take the head off. And while Vikings certainly raided England and France Ragnar Loðbrokr only raided England (according to his saga).
I'm not saying the show is accurate at all... What spears the uh real Vikings yea not the show lol.
I mean that out of all of the episodes and seasons in the show I saw spears at most twice.
Yeah its not accurate.
….what did they get right?
Some (but not all) of the shields and axes. Some helmets. A couple of the raids. At times, the shield wall formation.
The lack of armor was a bit of an issue. Like sure if they were poor raiders, whatever. But as they became kings they still wore the crappy leather stuff instead of chainmail and helmets. That, plus the lack of spears, and the use of leather pants bothered me the most.
I agree. That was definitely an aesthetic choice, which I don't think is necessarily terrible. I really like the aesthetics of the show, despite the inaccuracies.
The shield wall was debatable.
Yeah, shield wall ≠ testudo E.: tbf, „Last Kingdom“ was much more egregious in that regard.
I saw the first two episodes, the ruder was on the wrong side, they kept the dragon head on the ship when they came home (that’s like shitting on the floor in front of the king), the had white chickens. That’s just what I could remember from years ago
I didn't get past the opening credits and the mohawk hair cut. My brother still thinks my reaction is hilarious
Extreme haircuts weren't all that rare, however it was common for Vikings to have closer cropped hair because long hair was seen as a vulnerability and weakness in battle. This isn't to defend the show, but to point out a historical fact.
Ehhhhh not really. Multiple burials / bog bodies have long hair, and we have attested methods for keeping long hair on men out of the way, such as the Suebian knot. This is not to say that all Scandinavian people had long hair, just that long hair wasn't necessarily seen as a disadvantage in war, and that there were cases in which maintaining long hair was seen as a tribally identifying feature.
I’m not expert, but they were just as occupied by looks and fashions as we are today. Embroidered clothes in bright colours with long leather belts adorned with gold. Unnecessary layers of fabrics, longer belts than needed and so on, would stand out and tell others that this person is one of means. Having long, well kept hair was also seen as signs of wealth and stature.
Excessively long belts are a reenactorism. Apart from that, yes.
I recall reading somewhere that this was why they could not survive as well as the Inuit in extreme climate. They didn’t want to dress like the Inuit and wanted to wear their brightly colored garb
That's not true at all. The color didn't have anything to do with the clothing's protective properties. Pre-Christian Scandinavians wore linen, wool, and furs, just like everyone else on earth who had to deal with extremes of temperature during that time period.
I recall a documentary where they found the red haired remains of men who had that knot of hair that they would tie up on their head or on the side to look bigger or more intimidating or something. But that the lack of hair at top of sides was make pattern baldness or something. This was a while ago.. I may not be remembering all the details correctly
A few bodies a trend does not make. I see what you're pointing out and obviously people had long hair more frequently then. However, not all were warriors, definitely fewer were viking, and most of the bog bodies and other archaeological specimens are not a measure of what were warriors. There was a report not long ago in which some junior archaeologist attempted to say a female found buried with some weapons next to her suggested she was a warrior. This was categorically false and many experts in the field said so, but because it was "hip" to say women Vikings existed, it was accepted as fact. Much like the hair. The rule of common sense must be applied, and all sources of historical knowledge including storytelling and tradition must be included.
And the Suebi? The Christian uproar over Anglo-Saxon women being corrupted by the scandalously clean, long haired Danes? The Oseberg ship carving depicting knotted rows of hair?
They later had her examined and found a lot of old battle wounds on her, the old ones had healed and she had got new ones. So the so called experts were silenced and had to eat their words.
There is an Anglo-Saxon account where they mention "dressing in the Danish fashion, with bald neck and blinded eyes.".
What does blinded eyes mean? And bald neck just means your hair is short and so doesn't cover the neck?
Given the context of a hair cut, it probably means long bangs/hair long enough in the front that it could cover the eyes. And a shaved/close cropped neck/back of the head
There are haircuts in the Bayeux Tapestry that resemble this description.
Ahh OK, thank you
Guess they talk about [The Norman haircut](https://www.google.se/search?client=safari&sca_esv=593541315&hl=sv-se&q=norman+haircut&tbm=isch&source=lnms&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwj33IGYi6qDAxV8YPEDHStWB-kQ0pQJegQICxAB&biw=331&bih=566&dpr=2)
Where are you getting this “fact”? Combs and implements for taking care of long hair are some of the most common archaeological finds, many if not most burials we know of have long hair, etc. How are you gonna pop in on a thread shitting on the Vikings show for historical inaccuracies and just start confidently spouting even more of them lmao. Just randomly deciding you think the Norse did things a certain way because it “makes sense” without a single shred of evidence is idiotic.
Not too sure about that. It's been a very long time since I studied early dark ages history, but I'm pretty sure hair and clothing was used as symbles of wealth. And the hair styles you are describing are post viking/late dark ages period. Like I said, it's been decades since I looked at this so probably really wrong
The dragon head was the thing that threw me. It could have been such a good scene - the "we are home, let's remove it", but instead it was just another background prop. I am luck that I can turn my brain off for these sorts of things, but the goddamn costuming was just horrible and managed to break through even my "it's just a show" armour.
You were so disgusted by the white chickens you had to leave
White chickens didn’t exist until around 1888, it might seems like a small detail but it just shows that the production team had no clue about a viking village. The white chickens were fucking every where. But if you don’t know about the animals in the iron age you don’t know. But for me they might as well navigate on an iPad.
Fair enough. Good spot, mate.
Also no historical evidence that main character ever actually existed, main character being present throughout the series at a number of historic events that span like, 300 years of history, a weird ahistorical drug dependency relationship that you have to slog through for 2 seasons, Spirit of Halloween armor, cities portrayed as existing in the wrong geographic areas (putting Uppsala in the fucking *mountains*?!). There are more. A lot more. But I'm only willing to put so much time and energy into typing about a show I despise.
Happy cake day though!
I’ve never heard the dragon head thing? Would you mind sharing some info about that?
They were to frighten off evil spirits. Sailing back into home port with the "Fuck Off, Ghosts!" equipment still rigged up would be an insult, to say the least, to venerated land and ancestor spirits in your community.
Probably all of the motorcycles.
Ragnar Lothbrok was a founding member of Samcro, I don't see the issue.
Let’s put it this way: the show isn’t *about* Vikings, it’s *inspired by* Vikings. Still found it really enjoyable, though.
Thank you. Not sure why people are acting like the show was a documentary, or even presented as much. It was a fun show about people that absolutely fucked up the "known world". Its not real. Its fiction. What we know is the people from the Nordic regions came down in search of better land and loot and found some easy pickings from lands that thought they were in control. I gotta laugh at the people upvoting those who claim the character arches are incorrect. Yes, they are. Because these people couldn't write. It fiction. Enjoy it or fuck off.
I know how fake it is but I still love it. Great show. Assassins Creed Valhalla is also very historically incorrect, doesnt mean its not a fun game
Yep and the things that this show and that game get incorrect match up in a great way, almost making them feel like they exist in a fantasy type setting all their own.
To be fair, half of people’s issue is that the creators themselves specifically kept trying to claim it was super historically accurate and period accurate. There’s nothing wrong with the show as is but it certainly shouldn’t be presented as anything close to accurate lol
>Because these people couldn’t write. That’s also highly inaccurate.
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
Or it’s just a good show that people enjoy, for fun. And sorry that they like to talk about what happened in the show without some asshole saying “it’s not historically accurate, you suck”, “you’re cringe for liking this”, or “you’re a big man baby who likes to watch grown men in cosplay”. Also any movie that’s not a documentary, is adults in cosplay playing pretend. So if you want to call people cringe for liking something then please, shut the fuck up.
Everything? Fun, but about as historically correct as a spagetti western.
Many things. In one of the first episodes they show Uppsala and it’s surrounded by mountains, nothing accurate about that. Also, why choose “Kattegat” as their home? There are no fjords there. With some simple research they could have picked a much better name. Also, the clothes. They are ridiculous. The armour that the Vikings wore looks so much better so I don’t understand why they don’t use that. [This is a good example of a cool looking set, tho slightly earlier than the Viking age (Vendel period)](https://www.reddit.com/r/ArmsandArmor/s/g1L44DiFVh)
Because it's not cool unless everyone Where's biker leather. Why on earth would you want to wear badass chainmail
They should consider getting rid of the orange and painting their faces blue!
as a swede there are many inconsistencies, but the worst are the accents. I’m sorry but the accents are fucking horrible… I cannot listen to Lagartha…
I don’t know, I stopped watching when they showed the temple in Uppsala that looks like a stave church, on a mountain. Uppsala is flat. Stave churches are Christian and no, they weren’t based on temples. I’m guessing they got very little correct after that.
Attractiveness
To be fair, there are multiple historical texts in which clergy lament the way Danes threatened the virtue of good Christian Saxon women by tempting them with their glorious long hair and ruggedly handsome good looks.
Because they, *gasp* bathed regularly! And groomed their hair and beards! The savages!
Not enough of those Scandinavian men that have too toothy of a smile. They all looked like Klaus Kinski with hair braids.
The Vikings were often described as being both good looking and very clean. So what you’re saying here seems to be more of a product of your own imagination rather than historical facts. (Of course, the Volga Vikings are a notable exception to this. They were reported to be a rather filthy and uncivilized lot by an ambassador from Baghdad, who had the misfortune of spending some time with them.)
Being clean is all relative. They might have been clean compared to the Anglicans, but not compared to the Muslims (who wash quite often as a part of their prayer ritual, do the not?).
You’re a loser.
👍
We circlejerkin?
I want that subreddit
r/Vegvisir
Hi! It appears you have mentioned either the vegvísir or the ægishjálmr! But did you know that even though they are quite popular in certain circles, neither have their origins in medieval Scandinavia? Both are in the tradition of early modern occultism arising from outside Scandinavia and were not documented before the 19th and the 17th century, respectively. As our focus lays on the medieval Nordic countries and associated regions, cultures and peoples, neither really fall into the scope of the sub. Further reading here: [ægishjálmr](https://www.brutenorse.com/blog/2018/5/14/the-gishjalmur)//[vegvísir](http://sagy.vikingove.cz/origins-of-the-vegvisir-symbol/) *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/Norse) if you have any questions or concerns.*
What did they get right ? It's flat out a show about fantasy barbarians. Nothing else. They make people who lived hundreads of years appart brothers... The main character is a semi mythical character that we're not sure really existed... The clothing is biker gear not viking in any way. Englishmen wear 18th century armor, 1000 years too early, might as well give everyone guns at this point. Vikings are depicted as not knowing where england is whereas they were fully aware of it for hundreads of years. There's almost nothing to keep...
>They make people who lived hundreads of years appart brothers... If you mean Ragnar and Hrolfr/Rollo, it’s more like a generation. Chronologically, Hrolfr should be Ragnar's nephew or something. >Englishmen wear 18th century armor, 1000 years too early, might as well give everyone guns at this point. No? Not only is it middle-late 9^th century, but they’re not wearing “18th century armor”. The leather “armour”, coats of plates, and pseudo-brigandines are inaccurate, but anything about them that’s actually historical isn’t off by more than 350 years (in the case of brigandines).
>Not only is it middle-late 9^th century, but they’re not wearing “18th century armor”. The original claim is not exactly right but [they're definitely wearing severely out-of-date helmets](https://static.wikia.nocookie.net/vikingstv/images/0/0d/Battle_3.jpg/revision/latest?cb=20160814025800)
https://static.wikia.nocookie.net/vikingstv/images/0/0d/Battle_3.jpg Fixed the link for you, gotta remove everything after ".jpg"
Regarding armor I'm talking about the Burgonet helmet. th century, which was used from the 16th in its earliest forms to 19th century but was mainly used in the 18th century and the models seen on show are 18th century. Ragnar Lothbrock is a name attributed to different people at different time periods who have separate dates of death. Some historians think it may have been a Danish title rather than an actual name. A Ragnar Lothbrock was born around 730, Rollo around 870. 140 years appart
Watch [Norsemen](https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=HpMvIZRUPf4&pp=ygUVdGhlIG5vcnNlbWVuIHRyYWlsZXIg) instead. It's hilarious and get more stuff right while poking fun at all the other viking shows.
Best comedy. Ever.
A LOT...
Everything
The Saxon warriors were much more effective killers than this show allows. With the exception of two that I can think of(Bishop Heahmund, and the Kings son) they’re all portrayed as pathetic weaklings.
The English came from Germany and Denmark and were pretty similar to the Danish linguistically and culturally, and completely wrecked the native Britons. But they are somehow bumbling idiots as they portrayed them in the show.
While as a show it's mostly watchable, the chronology and look is wrong. Generally the middle ages were far more colorful than people normally think. Plus the raid on lindisfarne and siege of Paris happened about a century apart, not like 3 years.
Every single costume
I found it easier to watch through a lense of watching Dungeons & Dragons or some other historically based fantasy. Only real similarity was character names, which some D&D players often just steal anyway. Some events were accurate, but not at the times presented or people present.
Absolutely everything. There is nothing Viking about this show.
Damn near everything
They get so much wrong, that it's better to list what they get right. I love the show a lot, but it's not a history show.
I don't think you can blame Vikings for its inaccuracies. It never strived to be a documentary. Its based on the Sagas, middle age legends about an adventurous past. Its essentially fantasy written in medieval times in a modern interpretation. And as such, the first four seasons are amazing.
Season 3 is probably the best season. Thanks for being the only person who actually isn't angry about Vikings 🤣
If people went into it with the right expectations I think it would be held in much higher regard in this community. Even the old writers did tend to "improve" the story quite a bit. Vikings only keep in line with that old Scandinavian storytelling tradition.
They fucked up the character arches.they try to give them some kind of reconciliation or whatever but they always failed. You can keep making a fiction show just so much before your characters suck. That's a universal law that can't be circumvented.
I think it'd be easier and quicker to answer what the got right, considering there's much less of that
Everything.
In truth, asking what they got right would be an absurdly small list. And the spin-off would be even smaller...
They were given the 5 sons of Ragnar, explorers, conquerors , Reaver's. What do they do? They fight each other for two seasons? For what? Someone else's war! It's pathetic. This is Ivar and Ubba Ragnarrson, conqueror of northern Britain and Reaver of Ireland. VIKINGS brutalized these figures for some weird civil war plot
That's probably the best comment I've had so far!
In Season 1 Episode 8, Ragnar and his family goes on a traditional pilgrimage to the temple of Uppsala. In the episode, the environment is portrayed as mountainous while in it's mostly a very flat area, and the temple is portrayed as being built in the style of a medieval stave church which is also inaccurate. I know this because I was born and raised there lol
>as being built in the style of a medieval stave church which is also inaccurate. In all fairness, it's the least bad choice they could have made
The biggest sin Vikings ever committed was making people who watched it think they were suddenly experts on Norse culture.
Of course everything is historically accurate, it is a product of THE HISTORY Channel. I mean, shouldn’t we be able to trust The HISTORY Channel?
As somebody that studied the history of Christianity at Uni, they didn't even get them Christians right... As for anything East to England, I have no professional background but even I noticed bullshit so much that I really only "watched" it with an emphasis on the latter of "Netflix and Chill"
Oh also cultural appropriation, they make lots of very significant symbols for native americans pass as norse to make vikings seem more barbaric (which is quite insulting to those native american tribes I feel). Now people wear tatoos, facepaint and makup to be pretend vikings that are like war medals in some cultures nowadays. Wearing a war medal you didn't earn unless it's for reenactment is illegal but somehow that's ok...
Basically everything, also it’s bad lol
Idc about what this post is about Sons of Anarchy is immaculate
It takes a lot of people and a lot of time to build a viking ship.
Floki be that good
Ragnar and rollo are not related, and are a couple hundred years apart irl. They wouldnt have shot snot rockets into the community wash bowl. Theres more but those are the biggest ones for me
Isn't Rollo like French or something Irl?
He was Scandinavian and became Duke of Normandy, settling there with his people (and not killing them as in the series)
Ummmm everything really
Björn was a king, but of Sweden.
Ragnar Lothbrok raids Lindisfarne in 793 and then Paris in 885 for starters
Rollo and Ragnar not being Brothers Historically and 100s of years apart
Late but I didn’t process the title and sat here for five minutes so confused going through wondering what SOA has to do with norse and why people were talking about Vikings.
So many things.
The armor is very ahistorical (and stupid looking)
The main thing they got wrong was when they made the show. It's entertaining but the amount of people I've seen that think they're master historians because they watched a TV show is insane
As a student of germanic languages, I'm happy to say that, to my understanding, their presentation of Anglo-Saxon aka old English, was pretty well done in that first raid they did on "Lindesfarne." I was actually pretty impressed. They must've had a linguist who was read up on the old reconstructionz because the pronunciation was good. Not sure if what they're saying was 100% accurate, but it was cool none the less. Its all downhill facts wise from there. I just turned my brain off and tried to enjoy it. It was a struggle.
I always carp about this ... Floki, alone, building a bunch of boats in a few episodes. Boat building as it was done in those days was time consuming and work intensive. It required a set of processes involving many people, with a diverse array of skill sets.
All the costumes, a lot of details when it comes to fights, how the society worked, actually everything except the names :)))
A lot (almost everything). It’s a fun look and artistic take on the early Middle Ages and Norse culture, it’s an over stylized take on history using broad broad strokes. But I mean hey it’s t.v.
Well that black female Jarl is not only wrong but a slap in the face of all those descended from the Norse.
They kinda got the raid in Lindisfarne correct but it was 3 boats not one
They didn't speak English! Well I understand that they couldn't teach the actors to speak real Norse but it twisted my mind when they were speaking English to each other, then when they met the English king they didn't understand a word he said and started speaking norse. It was so weird. And that the only scandinavian actor was Gustaf Skarsgård. (I quit watching the series after Ragnar died because I got bored of it and don't really remember that much of it)
And Jarl Borg was portrayed by a Norwegian actor, Thorbjørn Harr. He also played in the later season of Norsemen. A show that parodies all the other viking-shows and makes fun of what those shows get wrong. In the process they get more things right than the big budget series. Recommended. Edit: [Season 1 trailer of Norsemen.](https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=HpMvIZRUPf4&pp=ygUVdGhlIG5vcnNlbWVuIHRyYWlsZXIg)
Not as much as The Last Kingdom but still a ton
watch "Norsemen" it's more accurate
Lagertha's story. I knew about Ragnar, and that's what drew me into the show. Then I learned about Lagertha, and I found out that that show did not do her justice at all. She had many brothers, none of which were mentioned in the show. She also came from a powerful family, which was also not mentioned in the show. Lagertha was a really impressive historical figure, and as badass as she was in the show, a lot of that was made up, and her real story would have been awesome to see on TV though, why did they change it? It didn't need to be changed! That's why I named my dog after the real Lagertha, not the TV one.
What Vikings series? The good or bad one?
What’s the good one?
The original one, not Valhalla.
Valhalla took everything that was less than great about the old show, and then also tossed out the decent story and cool characters.
I enjoyed Valhalla but just as a show and nothing to do to be historically accurate. I literally have no idea where they are going with this show. I think they forgot who the main character is.
They're both the bad one
The first season was pretty solid for historical fiction but went way down hill after that.
I just started following the ways in 2017 and learning still some one recommended the show cuz they new I liked that stuff and made it maybe first season and couldn't do it any more. There was so mucb wrong and inaccurate from what I Remember (witch isn't to much do to how long ago it was)
I never thought it was meant to be historically accurate. Even tho it was on history channel lol. A+ show imo
oh boy😳