I agree about the fast movement and that it seemed like a season arc. They also killed off their biggest-named and best actor.

Not a terrible play for a limited budget show. Headline the big name to get people interested, then let it stand on it's own once you get a following.

I'm quite liking it so far, and don't think Byrne will be overly missed.

I agree that it is moving a bit too fast, and that the last episode in particular was slightly cheesy. Still enjoying it though, I love the guy playing Ragnar.

Well, the show is called Vikings, not Ragnar, so if they are in it for the long haul, there are at least a couple of places they can go. For one thing, according to background material on the website, Brother Rollo is indeed intended to be Rollo, the first Duke of Normandy (otherwise known as Hrolf gangr, in English Ralph the Walker), a known badass. It is historically impossible for Ragnar and Rollo to be brothers, but clearly despite all the "historical" background on the website, Hirst doesn't give a damn about that. So the show could eventually follow Rollo's conquest of Normandy.

Also Lagertha is now pregnant, and she could be gestating Ivarr the Boneless, who is a major psychopath. The Ragnarssons, listed in various sources as Ivarr the Boneless, Halfdan the Black, Ubbe, Sigurd Snake-in-the-Eye, Bjorn Ironside (the one we have met), and several others, were the leaders of the Great Heathen Army, that wreaked havoc in England, invaded Ireland, and committed all sorts of mayhem. Plenty of historical cum legendary material there for several seasons of raping and pillaging and cleaving people from neck to navel. There are good reasons why the Christian folk of Europe prayed to be delivered from the Northmen, and those reasons would certainly make for good action tv.

Or the show could drop the saga of Ragnar and his sons and move on to Eirik the Red and his son Leif and the settling of Greenland and the excursions to Newfoundland. And then there's Eirik BloodAxe, King of York, and his wife Gunnhild the Witch and their encounter with the great skald Egill Skallagrimson and the poem he wrote to save his head.

The point being that Ragnar is not the only colorful badass to come out of the North and terrify people from Rus and Constantinople to France, England, Ireland, and Newfoundland. Lots of stories to tell if Hirst and the History Channel want to.

On another point, I was a bit surprised as to how they handled the single combat. In the various texts we have about the Viking Age, single combat is called a holmgang (island-going). Two men would go to an island (usually in a river) and fight heads-up. The idea was that if the combatants were alone on an island, then their friends, relatives, hench guys and random hangers-on could not jump in and make it a melee. Who knows what they really did in such duels, but in the sagas and other literature, such a battle would be a holmgang, not a couple of guys clobbering each other surrounded by a screaming crowd just a few feet away. It would have been more "authentic" and colorful to stage the fight on an island--I'm sure they could have come up with one.

The funeral OTOH came right out of the trip report of ibn Fadlan, a 10th century emissary from the Caliph of Baghdad to the King of the Volga Bulgars, who observed such a funeral during an encounter with the Volga Vikings, also known as the Rus and the Varangians, This is one of the earliest surviving accounts of Vikings. Most of the familiar stories of the Viking Age date from the 12th-13th centuries. Historically the story of the Vikings begins with the raid on Lindisfarne in 793 and ends with the death of the last great sea king, Harald Hardrada, who invaded England and died at the Battle of Stamford Bridge in 1066, just weeks before Rollo's descendant William the Bastard, son of Robert the Devil, Duke of Normandy, won the Battle of Hastings and conquered England.

Please put historical spoilers into spoilertags, I for one don`t want to know anything of the above.

These are not spoilers. I have absolutely no way of knowing what Hirst plans to do with the show. They are speculation, period. So far Hirst has paid but little attention to history, so he could go anywhere. I was merely pointing out that Ragnar Lothbrok is not the only Viking surrounded by colorful stories--there are plenty others to choose from if Hirst wants to expand the scope of the series, or he could make stories up out of whole cloth without even the pretense of history involved. Further if Erik the Red and Leif the Lucky and the Norman Conquest are "historical spoilers," I wonder about the current state of education. Not to mention that Paul Openfold earlier in the thread wrote, "Also lol at the King of [Nort]humbria's pit of vipers being brought out so early, given that is Ragnar's eventual downfall." Didn't see you bitching about spoiler tags with that post.

I suppose it was a historical spoiler in the Spartacus thread when people mentioned that Caesar and Crassus (and Pompey for that matter) can't be killed off, but that anything could happen to Tiberius because he was fictional.

A spoiler is when someone KNOWS what is going to happen and tells. If someone doesn't know what is going to happen and imagines what MIGHT happen, it is speculating, not spoiling. This distinction has been nitpicked to death in the Game of Thrones threads.

The current state of Education? We had like maybe 2 hours of history per week in School, and as you probably know there is a lot of history. I know a lot of about Roman/Persian/Greek and Nazi-Germany and do know very little about Vikings. It`s good to know some history because you know history repeats itself, but anymore history in School wouldve just been a massive waste of time.


Thank you, haven`t seen the post but good that you spoiler it again for me.

Everyone knows about Spartacus and everyone knows who Julius Caesar is, but if most people will not know who Ragnar lothbrock is.

Considering this show is made by the historychannel, any historical events are going to be most certainly spoilers.

I usually want to watch a show and be suprised and if I care I google that stuff later on.

.

But yeah I`m prolly just putting you as the first ever user on my blocklist.

NiSash, it's been established that history doesn't need to be in spoilers. See the Boardwalk Empire threads.


I really hope the new baby ends up being Ivar the Boneless. People will be very very happy with what happens with him

Well guess I`m out of the thread then.

Some care about history spoilers, some dont. We covered this in Spartacus series and the resulting consensus was "fine, stfu with the bitching already and we will stop talking about the Spartacus film and/or the basic history of the rebellion that most know about from that film".

I would consider the legendary/historic death of a character that hasnt been covered in a previous popular film or series a spoiler. I wouldnt consider the wider contextual discussion of how the show differs from the likely history or at least legend of Ragnar to be a spoiler.

IOW talking that Ragnar raided England and northern France a bunch and had 5 sons who were famous isnt a spoiler, talking about his death is. This differs from Spartacus the show discussing that Caesar and Crassus wont be killed because ld****ingo they dont and anyone with the most basic general knowledge should know of the triumvirate.

But Viking history is really obscure, my knowledge is basic and I have been to the Jorvik Viking Centre not far from where I live a few times because the Vikings pillage and rape forever altered my corner of England. Who Ragnar was isnt basic "wtf did you study at school?" level stuff man, short of actually being from a Nordik country and his death is so obviously a spoiler and I am a little pissed you not only posted it but made a second reference to it so I couldnt help but notice. Cheers buddy.

Cliffnotes: it is a fine line what is and isnt allowed and it is a community consensus that will never be a true consensus but the spoiler button is ridiculously easy to find so hit it on the most concrete of likely future events ffs. AFAIK Ragnar has never had an epic big budget Kubrik directed Kirk Douglas film about him and I would bet big bucks that the historical detail in Boardwalk Empire isnt how Steve Buscemi is dying.

If people are interested in history they can easily seek it out elsewhere on the Internet.

Latest episode was pretty meh for me as well. I've liked Ragnar's acting performance up until now, but this week his repetitive facial expressions and monotone, focused personality started to feel a bit tedious. Same can be said for his wife. Not really sure how a badass Viking married couple is supposed to act, but these two are just so damn pompous!

Stick to the show guys, or just make a thread for history nerds and one for tv show only. It would work exactly the same way as GoT book thread and GoT tvshow only thread. Respect these and stop being the same as the idiots that cant stay out of tv show thread when you know "more".

knowing history and read a certain book is pretty close , some tv shows/movies differs ALOT from their books.

But then again, book nerds cant stay away because tv show thread is always better.

Common sense says if you're posting something about historical facts(or what's thought to be facts) then you should use spoiler tags.

Speculating on what you think might happen(even if it's based on facts) doesn't need to be put in spoilers as long as you let it be known it's just your opinion. The only people that would know you're basing it on facts are people that already know what could happen so it wouldn't spoil it for them.

It's not that hard to show some courtesy to other people.

FWIW I liked little old lady's posts, but agree that we should put speculation based on historical fact in spoilers that are marked as such.

okay so I'm really digging this show. I think it's awesome television. The one thing I don't understand (and I don't normally get weird about little details like this) if the King truly didn't care about his brothers safety and clearly didn't care if he lived or diee.g. how come he just didn't sniper them out in the house while they were all eating dinner and ambush them then? surely that would have been the best way to go if you didn't care about your brother and we're planning to out flank them. instead he let them leave all just to ambush them during the payout. I realize that the king did this and let them leave so he had time to raise an army to attack, But he really didn't need that all you needed was some bow n arrows from elevated position they're done when they're in the house or even on the way in...

-Darth

Well my toughts:


1. The armies did look quite small, I think this was a budgetproblem maybe they were bigger. --->

2. So then the King probably wanted just to buy time to get his troops together.

3. He might not have known if the Leader of the Vikings were indeed with them, so then he would just kill 6 - not so important people.

4. The bishop was there too might be a bad thing to dishonor your word and killing someone after you invited them right in front of the bishop.

yeah but they're even other opportunities though like during his brothers baptism. I just think the king really lost a ton of equity with a -ev strat.

-Darth

That would probably count as blasphemy to kill someone during the baptism.

Touche

still he has no chance with out some Sirius reinforcements or a knight in shining armor that actually knows battle tactics to lead a somewhat reasonable sized army. even then he still slightly
-ev imo.

-Darth

and to be fair those rules probably only apply to each other considering these Northman absolutely have no respect for any of the Rules and traditions of the Christians. why would they follow them for that makes no sense to me. I think those rules only apply to other Christians. of course I'm just shooting off right now and don't really know for sure.

-Darth

Rolo got real butthurt about the Christian thing there

Good episode. Really wondering why the former earl's wife is trying to buddy up with Ragnar's wife tho. Is she just looking for protection? I thought she was gonna spill the beans about Rolo scheming on them

You dont have to sign all your posts, we can see the account name to the left of them.

I enjoy the show but it moves so insanely quickly. In 7 40 minutes eps we have:

1, met the Earl and the main cast
2, sun stone, wheel thing and special new boat introduced
3, gone to England
4, gone home
5, had the protagonist screwed over by the antagonist Earl by taking his money
6, Earl marries daughter to old rich guy
7, second trip to England
8, Earl's family member, brother I think, is killed for trying to rape Ragnar's wife for some dumb reason
9, home again, oh **** Earl's family member, brother, I think, is dead
10, trial which Ragnar wins
11, Ragnar chills on rock to get revenge
12, Earl kills a lot of Ragnars employees or neighbours or whatever you class those people as i have no clue
13, wait, now there is some weird religious seer priest guy, who is that, oh **** no time to find out we has a trial by combat about to be offered
14, trial by combat rejected, then accepted, cos why not
15, we meet the King of Northumberland probably somewhere above hard to keep track of order
16, trial by combat happens with Ragnar injured but partially healed by magic or herbs or some **** when he was nearly dead like three days ago. Ragnar wins ldo
17, old rich dude stabbed to death, I dont think we ever got told his name
18, funeral time with Earl Ragnar who everyone pledged fealty to
19, brother who pledged fealty even though he didnt need to turns out to be the actual protagonist all along wtf
20, wifey of Ragnar is pregnant
21, old dude who wants to die in combat turns up, he gets to go to England next time they go, wonder when that
22, oh, we are going to England for the third time now apparently they have a bunch of these fancy ships to go over open ocean seems that Floki's super awesome design wasnt required in the first place
22, Ragnar chills in England for a bit, sets up camp, murders some guys at night, takes the kings brother hostage
23, King holds a council asking for ideas, someone suggests paying them off and is shouted down
24, they all have dinner together, Rollo becomes Christian called Rolf because the king will only pay them off if one is Christian
25, oh, that was all pointless then cos now they are just going to double cross them and kill them
26, the King sends a force of roughly equal size and gets decimated cos lol good job bro
27, pays off Ragnar in the end after he sends back his hostage brother dead cos lologic
28, Ragnar sails home happy, King swears revenge in the last of a series of ilological decisions and actions he makes that episode
29, Wifey has miscarriage
30, cos **** it why not have a number 30, lets say number 30 is the ex Earl's wife probably being responsible for Ragnar's wife losing the baby which seems likely to me

It is like the show is in a race to cram as much detail in as possible where the only thing the creative staff enjoy is the fight scenes and they only include names of people and things they do when not fighting when they absolutely have to. Half of the above would have taken entire seasons to develop for most shows.

I thought the old Earl's wife was with Ragnar's brother which seemed strange as the Earl offered him the daughter.

I suspect she is spying for the brother on Ragnar?

Still enjoying it

I don't think the brother needs to spy on Ragnar. He spends more time with Ragnar than Ragnar's wife does.

Good Point than why did she volunteer to be her slave? Its not like she misses her limp dick husband after he gave away their daughter to the fat slob