Vikings : As a person who have studied the Old Norse…

As a person who have studied the Old Norse…

This show went from promising and educational, to complete Hollywood very quickly. The faults are too many to list, as there are numerous in every episode. I think i read the writers were cooperatimg with icelandic scholars to make it authentic, seems like that broke down.

A more authentic, and in my opinion much more entertaining approach, would be for the show to stay truer to the primary sources, while the things that were made up, should be believable according to said sources. As such, Ragnar fighting to become jarl, was believable according to Old Norse cultural norms.

A short list of things that should've been done differently:
1: Ragnar should be noble by birth, not a simple farmer.
2: Ragnar should want to preserve paganism against Christianity, like Floki, but without the subliminal political message of cultural conservatives being insecure.
3: Insults should never be left unanswered between warriors, and should often result in duels. Especially when drunk. Should be much more fighting between Norse people, even within same community.
4: Being challenged to personal combat and declining (Lagertha!) should make you lose all social status. But champions could fight in ones stead.
5: Ragnar should not have gone into solitude after becoming unpopular. He should have done great deeds worthy of praise for the rest of his life, until he finally was captured in battle and tortured to death.
6: Ivar should not be a warrior, but a tactician. He should not crawl, but be carried (on shields when overviewing battlefields).
7: Much more emphasis on magic! Rune carving, grave mound meditation etc etc. There's lots of this in the sagas (and on the few Norse runestones that survived Christianity). Magic potions etc.
8: Why is martial arts left out? The primary sport to the Old Norse was a martial art called glma, essentially martial art for the battlefield. Wasn't unheard of for people to get killed at sporting events, might even have been common.
9: The belief in reincarnation of the courageous was left out. This was why the Old Norse didn't fear death as much, because if one feared it, one wouldn't be reincarnated, and the fear or cowardice would be inherited by ones descendants, ultimately weakening ones lineage.

Just on top of my head, without going too much into the historical flaws (except for 2, the rest regards Norse culture).

Re: As a person who have studied the Old Norse…

Nope. You misunderstood every line, inclusive your starter.

Only direct answers. See above, andreasnorup-15463, for reference.

1. There is nothing saying any known figure in our old Saga didn't start out as a farmer, and that goes for stories in other cultures as well.
The tales of Ragnar are several and never mentions his birth or details about his born legacy. Likewise different sources tell totally different stories. Ragnar is a legend comparable with the Fionn's in Ireland. Not a real person.

2. There is nothing historical over Ragnars' ideas of preserving anything. But here settling for the TV-version, insubordination and perspective is created through contemporaries like Floke.
Ragnar is therefore, admittedly on his way, while other people around him plays the roles that characterizes the burdens of Hippocratic or the earnest of religion.

3. No. generally people think Vikings, just as any other forlorn era of "barbaric people" was totally anarchistic. This is Hollywood stuff. It was impossible.
So "insults" would be passed on. Had it been different there wouldn't had been a humanity at all. Chimpanses exert the exact same diligence by the way, and how humane are they do you think? They can actually decide to kill each other for more shorter reasons.

4. That with "champions" fighting in once stead is a role-playing myth. Totally defunct in real life. It has happened but not as a rule, and certainly not in Viking society.

5. Whatever Ragnar did isn't a favorite hero's deed. That's someone more complex with back-draws.

6 Ivar was not a cripple. This part is pure speculation in a way that in best case maintains a story and a plot. At worst it shows a very renowned viking as the idiot he wasn't.

7. Runes are the Nordic scriptural language. There is no more magic in it then in Arabic or the Roman alphabet. This is clearly accepted by historians and experts on archaeology around the World.
It's more modern myth from the 1800th Century that has worked those things into it. So as long as you don't believe there is magic in my words there were none in the futharks.

8. There were no martial arts in the time of the Vikings. The word "glima" used sometimes isn't right either.
But naturally they sported each other in combats. There is actually a little too little of this matching in the series, perhaps because they didn't know how to do it.
I've seen a video with Katheryn Winnick. She's much better than some think, but not nearly as good as to fix this problem all by herself, especially since no-one else can wrestle.
I'm a wrestler with historical wrestling and combat as part of my science so try me if you wanna know more.

9. Norse mythology isn't about reincarnation. That's the Indian version. Vikings believed in an afterlife (and according to modern Asatru) still do, not getting back to the same earth they gladly left

Re: As a person who have studied the Old Norse…

See, you don't understand Norse culture.

1: Of course he would be a farmer. Everyone was a farmer besides what else he did, even kings and chieftains. But to be eligible for the position of chieftain or king, a person would need to be of a lineage which was in favour of the gods (ie: noble lineage). If not, the gods wouldnt favour the chieftain/king, and thus not his subjects. The Norse was ancestral worshippers, with lineages claiming descendance from the gods themselves. So for the story of Vikings to be believable, Ragnas HAS to be of noble birth (which he historically was). This was essential in making people accept you as leader.

2: The historical Ragnar was keen on preserving the customs, by not allowing christianity foothold in Denmark. To the point of destroying all churches in the country.

3: Again no. Insults would be passed on only if the insulted had no honour. There were literally laws against certain insults, because some insults were seen as so harsh, that their intention was solely to force the insulted into fighting. Berserkers were especially known to abuse this honour system, by insulting wealthy people, claiming their property when they won the fight. Words were like receits, there was no taking words back. Words were signed contracts, in a culture without pen and paper.

4: It is described in norse laws and sagas. No myth here. This was how women occasionally could rule, how kings could become old and how Ivar stood any chance in a society like this.

5: Not in the series, no. It's even hard to fathom why Ragnar in Vikings is a so famous at all.

6: There are two theories, one that his legs didnt work - which this series is going with, and which is fine IF he is not portrayed as a warrior. The other, that "leg-less" should be understood as "loose legs" (this translation isnt far off in Old Norse), as in a person who travels (doesnt stand still). If going with the latter, then Ivar was a berserker. Most sources without a doubt describe him as cripple.

7: Runes CLEARLY had magical properties, as described in most sagas and all sources on runes. Actual runic inscriptions also clearly shows this.

8: Wrong. Naturally a culture emphasising combat had martial arts, and this was preserved in iceland. There were other sports too, but martial arts was logically the most popular.

9: You need to study Norse belief a bit more, before you accept the christianized version of Asatru. The sagas describe reincarnation, there's no doubt here either. There is doubt however on exactly how they believed reincarnation worked. It is clear that not everyone was reincarnated, and possibly only parts of people.

Re: As a person who have studied the Old Norse…


"Ragnar should be noble by birth, not a simple farmer."


1. You wrote more but I cannot see how this subjugation was anywhere near what I just said.

NO sjaiting nobles from the start.

You bypass this kernal idea of masters that never were. There was never any nobility in the beginning, and not among the first Chieftains in the North!

The idea of nobility is a hoax!
So now when starting over really all ideas that famous characters when real and behind in Saga were nobility; is also fake! The storytellers made them nobility because it was darn convenient to have it so! And because those shaity storytellers were also of the Middle Ages and not from the real time!

Chiefs yes. But no nobility!

The idea of nobility came into being in different eras for different cultures. Early on in China.

It's in the meeting with Christianity, a religion which is mastered by an hierarchical disposition that it finally coaxes with Vikings and the Kingship becomes an order with blood and ideas of hereditary rule.
Before it was just one for them selves, a fixation which is called "strong man rule".

Problem is film creators haven't understood this.

2. "The historical Ragnar". Do you even know how stupid this sounds? Do you know anyone historian who will subscribe unto this statement?
Get out of it!

3. I will pretty much take a hold here, because again I don't understand your reason. It sounds as you try to sneak at a non-existing door.

4. When did I start taking the Northern myths for truth? This is your low-ground. Not mine. You need to bring me here onto your plateau, not wobblin' back to what the cooky Sagas says.

5. It doesn't matter more than what I said earlier. You got no answer. Typical.

6. Theories are many. And they aren't as you say; "about why his legs didn't work", because the say nothing at all about his extremities!
Do you understand the difference?
It's not even IN the Sagas.

7. Gasp I don't know what to say Would it feel better for you if I ordained any of the latest historical numbers in the score for you, or would you stay just as impotent no matter?

8. "Martial arts" is a concept. They did have something similar in the Age of the Vikings, but as soon as you assume it, you've became an Asian in idea, because together with American wannabe-ism, that's from where the name stems. It's like calling your only tattoo "punk" in the 60's when that way of itching a sharped ink or the word describing its mechanics didn't exist.

9. Before Christianity; I'd be happy to hear good examples of rebirth in Viking society. The original Gods in Norse mythology has it hidden in their oldest gods, but only as ideas from the Bronze age, and times so early that the Lascaux paints in France comes into mind.

Not Asatru though.


Re: As a person who have studied the Old Norse…

Ok, let's try to educate you on the sagas, then.

1: Yes, the sagas and chronicles all specify his lineage as noble. I have no idea what you've read to miss this. The sagas specify his father as being King Sigurd Hring, while others claim it was King Halfdan. There are also claims of descendance from Odin himself (beyond being a successor to a king).

And yes, nobility was a essential to rule. We even have a rune for "nobility" and "inheritance" in elder futhark (pre-viking age) called "Odal" or "Othal" from germanic Othala, which gave name the the Christian nobility "Adel", and is still used regarding inheritance rights in Scandinavia: "Odel". Old English Atheling stems from this aswell. So the idea of inherited nobility status stems from the Germanic age and survived long into the Middle Ages.

2: Yes. There's no doubt he was a historical character, and there's no reason not to be believe his policies were true (ie: ordering the destruction of churces, like many after him also did, in the continuous wave back and forth towards Christian rule).

3: The honour system was not anarchistic, it was a way to uphold ones status. Words were not theoretical, oaths could not be rejected. An insult unanswered was consent through silence by the insulted, which no honourable person would stand for - as it reflected not only on him, but also on his kin.

Not all exchange of insults ended in fighting, but all insults between honourable persons would not go unanswered.

4: Champions fighting in ones stead is descriped in the sagas multiple times. Occasionally, leaders of armies would fight each other in the stead of the armies. Solving the matter with less casualties. It certainly did happen, if we are to believe people less capable as fighters were able to obtain powerful positions.

5: Whatever Ragnar did? In the series? Be more specific. You already said you don't believe the sagas, neither the chronicles. So you're saying we have absolutely nothing to base anything on.

Norse people believed he slayed a "dragon" (really, a lindorm - a giant snake), if you believe this to be Christian lies, then we have pre-christian runestones depicting people slaying these mythological monsters.

Then he sacked Paris, among other things.

He was especially famous for his sons, not his own deeds. But in the series "Vikings", Ragnar is portrayed as the "most famous king"(!) to the Norse. To be that, the show should not portray him as an unpopular solitude towards the end.
To be more authentic, the fame of his sons should've overshadowed his, leading to an inferioty complex that made him attempt an attack on England in unfavourable odds - all to claim renown.

6: Again, you haven't read the sagas, so you're not in a position to talk about what is actually in them. The saga of Ragnar Lodbrog and his sons ("Ragnars saga lobrkar ok sona hans") clearly states he was a cripple, but clever and cunning, and was carried around.

7: What is "historical numbers in the score"? Latest research regarding runes being a common writing method to norse people? Listen: im not saying every rune was a spell, i'm saying that using runes in certain ways was believed to have magical properties, due to the way the runes we carved and the rituals done in accordance. Sagas describe this, actual inscriptions prove it. There is no doubt.
Academics can then discuss back and forth whether runes was a common way of writing, to a culture without paper. We know runes was used to write short messages on sticks, but we will never be able to prove it.

8: Martial arts is a concept, and to the vikings, this concept was called "Glma". You're not discussing the substance now, but words (and you're wrong, martial arts as a concept isn't Asian). Stay stringent. Almost all ancient cultures had martial arts, but to very few were they as popular as with the Norse. This should be logical, in context with their cultural values and religious beliefs.

You're saying you can't call Glma in the Viking age a martial art, because the words wasn't invented back then. Then you go on to use "asatru", a modern invention for a religion that had no name. That is being a hypocrite. The fact is, many conceptual things did not have a name in the viking age, and to describe them today, we have to use modern equivalents.

9: Read the sagas.



Re: As a person who have studied the Old Norse…

Without entering the entire debate I would argue thag while the Sagas often are the only sources we should keep in mind they are not historical records and not written by Pagans but rather by christians who arent exactly reliable sources to the tee. Always take them with grain of salt please.

Re: As a person who have studied the Old Norse…

I do, albeit it is mostly what is written about the norse belief system by Christians that is corrupted, in my opinion.

Re: As a person who have studied the Old Norse…

Also when it concerns nobility and their system of rulership. Especially Snorri is displaying an political agenda. Also keep in mind Iceland probably was special and different compared the remaining Viking world and the sagas are bound to display Icelandian weirdness to some degree.

Re: As a person who have studied the Old Norse…

Snorre, in the early Middle Ages, invented almost all of it. He also explained How and why.


Although he never excuses himself for being Christian, he explains that the whole idea of the reportorial concept is converged through a thinkers mind. His own mind.

Gods complicated and liked today, like the complex "Loke" are just additions who worked in his sagas, like Hans an Grete in contemporary Medieval stories.

Loke never existed in Viking Age! Snorre invented him.
Nor did many of the other Gods exist.

Snorre also explained why he did this.
He was a Christian, but wanted people to remember what the idea of versing was, a philosophical way of understanding one's ancestry, a way a warding and remembrance.

So in the end he wrote down those sagas as a literal and very sorrowful reichnung, "upprkning" of dead brethren died in deeds done! People Worth mentioning!

Precisely the way all the Rune-stones were made.


This and that has never been understood correctly.




Re: As a person who have studied the Old Norse…

To the non Danish people.
Loke=Loki

Re: As a person who have studied the Old Norse…

I would to weigh in here now cause its getting unhistoric here my friend. Yes Loke/Loki existed in Viking age. There are runestones depicting him and his stories well before Snorri Sturluson (Cross of Gossfort from the early 900s for starters but there are more).
He wasnt a popular god but he existed.
I think the main problem with Snorri is how he displays a pantheon where we have t

Re: As a person who have studied the Old Norse…

Checked mine over.
Correct.
One call someone who's most typical ideas are hedged from the 90's?.
It craxes stupid.

But don't bother.

While your kind has a problem with sticking, it has a work-legend of a few years, while the real problem has that of ages, like in tens or hundreds of years, and it was a long time since I cared so much I got scared about all people who wanted to destroy legacy beginning a feather of their own line.

Re: As a person who have studied the Old Norse…

since you speak with obvious education in the matter, i am only halfway into season 2 so i do not know if this ever gets covered, but weren't the Norse famous for beserkers as well? As i understand it they were along the lines of elite norse warriors I imagine you would know better.. i am just curious why it hasnt been broached in any fighting scenes as of yet.

Re: As a person who have studied the Old Norse…

I isn't really covered in the series, although there are sequences with berserkers in the show, and small sequences with what seems like berserkers.

Yes, they are not rare encounters in the sagas. They were notorious fighters who went into fits of rage before battle, resembling behaviour of animals. This rage made them capable of seemingly superhuman feats of strenght and pain tolerance. It is said they worshipped Odin, and they therefore likely feared dying outside of battle, and thus were very inclined to sort things out with violence, duels etc - as the sagas describe. Because of this, or because animals doesn't wear armor - neither did they.

Some berserkers were notorious criminals because of their inclination towards violence, some even outlaws - while others were used as personal bodyguards for chieftain and kings, or as shock troops in battle, because they wrecked havoc and instilled fear in the enemy with the way they behaved.

It is often mentioned, that the rage of berserkers was so great, that they did not distinguish between friends and foes - simply attacking anything in their vicinity (one saga mentions a berserker killing his own sons for no other reason that they were nearby when the rage set in. The rage was induced by a rumor of another warrior, who wasn't present, who claimed he would kill the berserker in personal combat. The berserker lost that duel btw).
There are obvious nuances to this, since berserkers were also used as bodyguards - and since berserkers was able to act as units in battle. Maybe they didn't always go into this frenzy, or maybe only some of them couldn't distinguish or maybe they could distinguish between berserkers and non-berserkers (or maybe the literature is simply false regarding this).

After the rage, the berserker would become feeble and weak for days before returning to normal.

Beyond the numerous mentions in sagas, the most valid evidence of the actual existance of berserkers, is Norwegian law towards the end of the viking age which made going berserk illegal.

My personal interpretation of berserkers is, that berserkers were warrior-cults who had animal hamingja/fylgja (animal follower-spirit). They could then trade minds between these two bodies - so that they let themselves be possessed by their spirit-animal, becoming a wolf/bear in a human body.
The process of berserkergang was an initial chattering of the teeth and chillness (human spirit leaving the body) following by redness of the skin and great rage (animal spirit entering the body). The animal-spirit would then attack any human, seeing them as threats - but not other berserkers, as they were fellow animals or part of the pack.


One saga describes the berserker Bodvar Bjarki (means something along the line of "Warrior Bearling" or "Battle Bearling") as sleeping, while his animal-spirit (a bear) fought for him outside in battle. When he woke from his sleep (or meditation?) the bear had disappeared. My interpretation is, that he was meditating/sleeping while his spirit was in his animal-follower. This makes more sense to me, as it would be difficult to disprove: if an aggressive bear by incident showed up and started attacking, by superstition the Norse would think a berserker somewhere were in control of it.

Seeing ones own hamingja/fylgja was an omen of ones imminent death.

Berserkers were "hamrammr", which means "shape-strong". Some interpret this literally, as in capable of shape-shifting (shape shifting is often mentioned like this in the sagas). I think "shape" here is in regards to the mind: one who can shape-shift his mind. And i think this is what the sagas refer to with shape shifting.

That is about as far as i can reasonably go on the berserkers of the viking age (although the tradition of warriors being inspired by animal predators go very far back, probably all the way back to the stone age).

I believe the reason the show did not touch more on berserkers, is because they didn't want to interpret on it. They took a safe route.

Re: In argument.


Berserkers were "hamrammr", which means "shape-strong"


Difficult to hold my breath here. I and my friends laughed so much it was hard to restrain. I even broke out my house and continued laughing down the street!

Don't listen to the guy. He has NOTHING to do with the main historical ideas. Guess that sound continues when he sleep-naps.

But before I tell you he's in general totally crap, there are few incidents on which he might accidentally be right.

And before that. When you work with history, it's pretty common you get the contrary: "Proove it You should know!"

But when you know what you shouldn't know, you don't riddle like the man above.
Ridiculous.
It's more like when someone stubbornly says it isn't like it; You're just alright while building up inside of you.

"Berserkers"?

This "Viking board" has existed since the series started.

It's not why I got here. There are mostly people who want answers who are here.
Why would I stay. None of my friends want to see any and I say Shhh!

It's not about every detail in the series. This small part of education I do for free and, I'm educated as well, sometimes I'm totally ridiculous.
Because somewhere to be is what everybody wants, and if someone tries to explain that away from you, they will get pretty angry.

Some people when getting into this mess think they are experts, without that chaff of legend, and mumbles on like Vikings big experts they think of, really.

Were in a problem there because they are what I call "Game experts". Not "Viking experts". This time the youngster are very good at interpreting the series "Lost" a long time ago. They just like Vikings soo much they think they are experts because now they are vikings instead of lost.
Kind of sucks, doesn't it?

Let these people explain how a child was born and taken care of, or more immediate feelings they generally execute as "fans", like in "Star War Fans" and they think because they are fans of the Vikings they are snowblowers on everything, but o compare with, all they knew was that Princess Leia had breasts.

We are in the focking 70's with nice hats and a good wrestling and boxing. And these people know not the difference between a brawl-fight, and a 10.000 year old batter.

Troublesome.


But. Some might still ask! What does the name mean then?

"Berserker"

It means 'Bjrnhamn' - "bear familiarity"

The word "hamn" is also used in English words "Haven" and "Harbor", because those words

has nothing but stories like these
describes the old wanted but miss-happened familiarity between bears and men and their lust to hug each other.

/"Hamn" is Haven by linguistic arts. But it has also been known by Shakespeare's and other's familiarity by the consolidation of, and in, a "hug" two people in love puzzled and un-contraindicationally bounded by love.

Re: In argument.

I have no idea what you're rambling about. Maybe someone could rephrase that into something intelligble.

but from what i understand you're a conspiracy theorist, having a view on this that you share only with your friends.

Are those friends of yours imaginary or real?

Re: As a person who have studied the Old Norse…

Don't know why, but all the berserk talk reminded me of this.



The next video was interesting as well.

Re: As a person who have studied the Old Norse…

I love the little back and forth between you and the OP, it's just two guys who really want to be the best at Knowing Old Norse Stuff, so you argue back and forth while farting into wine glasses and savoring the smell of your own farts.

Bigly.

Re: As a person who have studied the Old Norse…

The only one smelling his own farts is you, with your arrogant and completely irrelevant contribution to the thread.

Re: As a person who have studied the Old Norse…

Histodramas often have many anachronisms in my experience, like they take a few character concepts and technological limitations then modernize up the details. The thing about Ragnar's story in particular is it was written 1100-1200 AD iirc. Look at all the things they got wrong with the history of American founders, and that's coming from a written tradition lacking with the Vikings. By the time things were written down, stories shared through an oral tradition had become legend and fairy tale.

But there are some things they did which weren't open to historical interpretation, like Ragnar being the 1st raider in England. Did it detract from the story to change known history? I think they have to change it some or it becomes too obvious to anyone that can read a Wikipedia page, but that's the trade off between a historical drama and just a drama.

I guess, for me, there's always going to be some level of suspension of disbelief. I think they could take what is known history and try to capture the highlights of the sagas and be the most entertaining, but I also think most viewers would be willing to sacrifice historical accuracy for a compelling story. Those are the decision of the writer. We can question their motives, but at the end of the day I'd be surprised if even 1 poster here is a writer of a successful television series so our opinions might be missing some basic understanding.

Re: As a person who have studied the Old Norse…

Well written. Ragnar wasn't the first raider in known viking history though. And it doesn't say so either.
If you wanna change the Wiki - get it on!

And. You do not have to sacrifice a compelling story to tell people and a big audience lies. Only people who wishes the dollar works that way.

It's the greatest cork of all, that you cannot do history well and at the same time blend it with good drama.
It's the looser's in film production that told you it doesn't work.

Unfortunately people love to believe in those shady picnickers.
An army working for no one. An army without self regret. An army of money-makers and black-and-whites.

Re: As a person who have studied the Old Norse…

I think TV tries to shove as many events as possible in a short time frame, whereas major historical events are relatively rare and spread out among different people. Changes like Rollo and Ragnar being brothers were intended for that effect but created other difficulties in writing. Ragnar already went from peasant farmer to king, figured how to navigate across the seas, lead the first raids on the English and their monasteries, invented the internet, and sacked Paris. Very few actual historical figures could post a resume like that unless they altered history.

Re: As a person who have studied the Old Norse…

Somebody felt that? Wheels turning while asleep?

Re: As a person who have studied the Old Norse…

It don't care too much about it being historically correct, as what we know of each person in the sagas are limited. I think it's fine they compressed the events in many sagas into a saga about Ragnar Lothbrok. It's just when they portray the culture according to modern norms, that the show in my opinion fails.

In the series, people do seek revenge - but that is about all there is to honour in the series. They aren't too obsessed about claiming fame, neither are they too worried about their reputation. They let insults go as if they meant nothing, when towards the end of the viking age, there were actual laws against certain insults to prevent the fighting that would ensure to uphold the honour of the afflicted.

They're also not too worried about betrayers, cooperating with Rollo (even though they do despise him). That was unthinkable back then, as he would be infamous - and whoever killed him would claim fame for it, being mentioned in songs for generations to come. Also, as a king, he would never step on board a boat with the very people he betrayed, without any kind of personal bodyguard to protect him. They would not only torture him, as they did - they would torture him to death in a sacrifical rite.

Re: As a person who have studied the Old Norse…

I agree, but it's rather hard to describe such cultural detail accurately. Consider in honor, if everyone that insulted you demanded mortal combat you wouldn't have much life expectancy; so there are likely some subtle rules that they agreed on as a culture that we couldn't begin to more than guess at.

But don't get me wrong, it's an important part of my enjoyment. The Brood Mare offers a slight, she wants to lead the ceremony since she's the queen and it's a big deal; Lagertha swears blood oath and shoots her in the back. Someone spits in Ragnar's face and he gives him treasure?

Re: As a person who have studied the Old Norse…

Oden was Ragnar father it's covered in the first series.

Ragnar/Odin

Did Ragnar ever have a crystal clear sign from the gods? Not just the prescence black birds? I mean something like the way Odin came to Ivar clearly, and then showing at the same time the other brothers their father had died. If I saw something I might consider it a hallucination, but if then all my brothers came back and said they had similar signs then I think I would probably believe the gods existed. I wasn't sure if Ragnar was serious when he said to Ecbert he didn't believe in anything?

Re: As a person who have studied the Old Norse…

andreasnorup-15463 are the only one here that speaks the truth. The other one havent even brushed the surface of germanic and norse mythology it seems. Ive read alot of both germani, british and norse paganism to see that Andreas Norup speaks the truth.

Re: As a person who have studied the Old Norse…

I wonder where you studied Norse history, because you've got it pretty much all wrong. I would ask for my tuition fee back if I was you. I really hope you're not Norwegian, because we learn this stuff in primary school.

Re: As a person who have studied the Old Norse…

Yeah, primary school history teachers are truly experts. You're welcome to post your corrections, if you want to be constructive. Everything i've written is evident from the primary sources - and i've tried only to touch on that which is mentioned in numerous sources.

Re: As a person who have studied the Old Norse…


2: Ragnar should want to preserve paganism against Christianity, like Floki, but without the subliminal political message of cultural conservatives being insecure.



In the context of the TV show, Ragnar understands that religion is power. As we saw during his final days, he says he does not believe in the Norse Gods or the Christian ones. For him it is all politics and power. Again, in the show he is more aware than most of the Vikings and seeks to learn from other cultures, so he can defeat them. We also know from history that eventually European Paganism sells out to Christianity.

I think they left trying to be historically accurate a while back though which is sad.



Sometimes a movie or tv show plot is so stupid that only the stupid can understand it.

Re: As a person who have studied the Old Norse…

I thought these sagas were written down hundreds of years later by Christian Vikings from Greenland that went from oral stories from the pagans, No one really knows the real history of these characters or if they ever existed except Rollo from the French historical archives..

Re: As a person who have studied the Old Norse…

Everything but Greenland is correct.

Re: As a person who have studied the Old Norse…

haha think I mixed up Greenland and Iceland again..

Re: As a person who have studied the Old Norse…

I know. awkward.
Wanna hug a bear anyway?
Top