History's Vikings is historically incorrect!

page: 1
4
<<   2 >>

log in

join

posted on Apr, 8 2013 @ 08:30 AM
link   
For those who have seen the sort of new series on History channel, it is obvious that parts of the history of vikings have been altered to make the show watchable, as not everyone knows the language of the vikings, but I mean is it necessary to make the show complete fiction? In the show they follow the story of when the vikings invaded England, but here is where it is historically incorrect. In the show, they invade England on a ship holding maybe 10-20 men, but according to history when the vikings invaded England they had a ship carrying closer to 60-70 men.
Source
Source 2
Source 3
edit on 8-4-2013 by kiwisoop because: Accidently hit enter before typing thread




posted on Apr, 8 2013 @ 08:34 AM
link   
See what happens when you watch too much TV.

Your mind goes blank.




posted on Apr, 8 2013 @ 08:41 AM
link   
reply to post by winofiend
 


I accidentally hit enter after typing the subject haha



posted on Apr, 8 2013 @ 08:42 AM
link   
I don't care how incorrect it is. It's a good storyline, and Ragnar's wife is goddamn hot LOL



posted on Apr, 8 2013 @ 08:45 AM
link   
reply to post by kiwisoop
 


Double the men double the cost of production, cgi just as spendy for the good stuff.



posted on Apr, 8 2013 @ 08:46 AM
link   
reply to post by Xaphan
 


I'm not saying it's a bad show, but it's not correct and it's on history channel....



posted on Apr, 8 2013 @ 08:47 AM
link   
Well, history also states that the vikings were all war monger type people often. That was not always the case. Some were peaceful people, their armies were fierce though. It looks like they were forced to create the armies initially because others tried to overthrow them. Need originally made them that way. I read a lot of articles about the vikings over the years. Of course the government that won the wars made the history so you have to dig deep to find the real truth.



posted on Apr, 8 2013 @ 08:55 AM
link   

Originally posted by kiwisoop
For those who have seen the sort of new series on History channel, it is obvious that parts of the history of vikings have been altered to make the show watchable, as not everyone knows the language of the vikings, but I mean is it necessary to make the show complete fiction? In the show they follow the story of when the vikings invaded England, but here is where it is historically incorrect. In the show, they invade England on a ship holding maybe 10-20 men, but according to history when the vikings invaded England they had a ship carrying closer to 60-70 men.
Source
Source 2
Source 3
edit on 8-4-2013 by kiwisoop because: Accidently hit enter before typing thread


I would recommend reading the book by Brad Ferguson. (the shows creator) Yes, there are some deviations from the TV show and what we really know of the ancient Norse culture. (imagine that
) But on the whole the Viking way of life, or what little is known about it, is pretty acurately portrayed. The book is nothing like the show. It is a historical book and does not have any of the characters from the TV show in it.

Fact is, the Northern Heathen cultures at the time had a strong oral tradition and did not write anything down. And most of what has survived in text form is written by scribes who were very biased by the christian religion. What was actually written by Norwegian and swedish scholars was toward the very end of the Viking age (1100AD or so) when it was apparent to them that the spread of christianity was going to make their stories and sagas extinct.

The show also portrays the Viking culture as being ignorant of the lands west to them. This is not so. In fact there were several Viking settlements on the islands off the eastern coast of the british Isles at the time of the Lindisfarne monastery raid in 793 AD. Nobody really knows why the Vikings exploded suddenly on the scene then and not 50 years earlier or later. It is thought that maybe they were hitting "soft" targets like christian churches and monasteries because at the time Charlemagne was brutally putting to the sword any Saxons that would not convert to Christianity. And many who even did convert. So the pagan peoples retaliated against christian targets with the same ferocity and indifference that Charlemagne used against their own peoples. They could not raise a formidable army like the frankish kingdom had, so terrorist tactics suited them better. So yeah, you can find inconsistencies with the show.

But I still love it, its very well written with some deep characters and like I said, a pretty accurate portrayal of overall Viking way of life. I hope it stays on for several seasons. Especially since most TV nowadays is total trash.
edit on 8-4-2013 by Cancerwarrior because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 8 2013 @ 09:25 AM
link   

Originally posted by kiwisoop
reply to post by Xaphan
 


I'm not saying it's a bad show, but it's not correct and it's on history channel....

No insult to the thread intended. I was just joking around


In all seriousness though, yeah, they should really do more research before writing shows like this. I've seen a few other 'historical reenactment' series and movies, and there is always at least one thing that's off.



posted on Apr, 8 2013 @ 09:31 AM
link   
As a historical reenactor, I can tell you that 100% of that show is speculation. Lagertha's clothing isn't exactly the generally accepted interpretation of Viking woman garb. But the show is still rather entertaining.

When my group and I do public events, 99% of our time is spent explaining why what you saw on TV was incorrect and why. People believe the things they see on movies and especially so on channels like History. Of all places, you'd think they'd at least get it right... ~SIGH~ but alas, this is not so.

I am glad that they're portraying Lagertha's behavior as a shield maiden correctly! So many times, I have to explain to the public that Yes in fact women were trained and fought as well as keeping up with the homestead!



posted on Apr, 8 2013 @ 09:50 AM
link   
His little ship was handmade in the middle of the woods by a crazy man. The other ships at harbor in the town haven't really been shown, have they?

Besides, who cares? If it was gonna be truly correct, wouldn't there be subtitles because they didn't speak English?

I'm entertained.



posted on Apr, 8 2013 @ 10:22 AM
link   
I have noticed over the years that History Channel's 'series' generally ARE incorrect portrayals, and for that reason I don't pay attention to them as actual 'documentaries', they just aren't. It's pathetic, and they should be ashamed for calling themselves "The History Channel". Their handle alone implies that what you watch on it is accurate, when it rarely ever is.

S/F



posted on Apr, 8 2013 @ 01:37 PM
link   

Originally posted by wildtimes
I have noticed over the years that History Channel's 'series' generally ARE incorrect portrayals, and for that reason I don't pay attention to them as actual 'documentaries', they just aren't. It's pathetic, and they should be ashamed for calling themselves "The History Channel". Their handle alone implies that what you watch on it is accurate, when it rarely ever is.

S/F


Not to mention that the vast majority of the shows have nothing at all to do with history. Pawn stars, swamp people, gator boys, ax men, etc etc etc. I used to love the history channel back when they showed documentaries about different things, now I hardly watch it except for Vikings and a few others.

So I'm just back to reading books on the subjects I like to learn about. Books are always better than TV and movies anyway.



posted on Apr, 8 2013 @ 01:39 PM
link   
reply to post by Cancerwarrior
 


Totally in agreement with you. Sometimes it makes me angry that they show those stupid Pawn Stars and Doomsday Preppers things, back to back. Sheesh. That's not "history." And you're right about books always being the better option, in my opinion. REAL, physical BOOKS that you can thump on the table or take to bed with you.
edit on 8-4-2013 by wildtimes because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 8 2013 @ 11:24 PM
link   

Originally posted by TheFinder
His little ship was handmade in the middle of the woods by a crazy man. The other ships at harbor in the town haven't really been shown, have they?

Besides, who cares? If it was gonna be truly correct, wouldn't there be subtitles because they didn't speak English?

I'm entertained.


The little boat they use so often is actually more like a skiff. In the context of the show, it is plausible that the crazy man in the woods could have built one much larger. One so small could not have crossed the ocean. It could not hold enough supplies for a proper voyage.



posted on Apr, 8 2013 @ 11:35 PM
link   
The history channel is usually incorrect. They are about ratings not about accuracy



posted on Apr, 9 2013 @ 05:04 AM
link   
At least they don't have them wearing helmets with the horns sticking out of them. That's something at least.

It's a fictional show. As far as I know it is not supposed to be a documentary. I enjoy it for what it is, entertainment.



posted on Apr, 9 2013 @ 05:08 AM
link   
reply to post by Invariance
 


They're not really crossing the ocean though. They would have followed the coastline of northern Europe and only needed to cross the English Channel to reach England. Easily done in a small boat.



posted on Apr, 9 2013 @ 05:47 AM
link   
reply to post by kiwisoop
 


Just my guess, but I'm guessing the reasoning went something like this...

Big boat = More cost for boat, crew and cast.

Smaller boat = less cost for boat, crew and cast. This gives more money left in budget to use for other things..

So smaller boat won for the show.



posted on Apr, 9 2013 @ 08:02 AM
link   

Originally posted by Cancerwarrior

I would recommend reading the book by Brad Ferguson. (the shows creator)


I will have to look into that. Is the book titled "Vikings" or does it have a different name?




new topics
top topics
 
4
<<   2 >>

log in

join