Vikings Is Based On History... This *beep* Is all Made up By Some AUthor
thats why Vikings>>>> The last Kindgom
Ragnar Lothbrok >>>>> Ulthred
thats why Vikings>>>> The last Kindgom
Ragnar Lothbrok >>>>> Ulthred
Wikipedia is a fine place to start reading...
"Now, who has the key?"
[deleted]
Cornwell does his research.
Unfortunately it's not always quite clear what events did or didn't take place the way historians believe it did. Scholars don't always agree with each other either.
Cornwell always expresses/discusses these 'probabilities' in his novels. He works with the material he has and sometimes 'plays' with it a bit.
A fine example of this will be Aethelflaed's storyline.
"Now, who has the key?"
The whole 9th century is "documented" in sources which some people think are not to be trusted anyway. The accuracy, however, is in the mindset.
I am surprised how much Alfred's personality and the naive religiosity of others reminds me of things read in texts of the period. Alfred is simply too good to be true, he is a clever bishop turned king. When one reflects that clerics wrote history and those of England did it on behalf of the Archbishop of Canterbury, it is impossible not to believe he was either thoroughly invented or at least very strongly characterised to be presented as an example.
Alfred is simply too good to be true, he is a clever bishop turned king
True. I haven't read the article in the Radio Times but I can imagine that the degree of accuracy is not only reflected in the portrayal of Alfred. (Clothes, weapons, castles, family life, battlefield tactics, tattoos, etc.)
I don't know enough to make a judgement about that though.
"Now, who has the key?"
Both are BASED on History, Neither is literal.
ALfred, wessex etc are not made up.
Humankind cannot bear very much reality. ~T.S. Eliot
some things and events in Vikings are based on history. the rest is complete fiction
shareSome events in Vikings are based on what some folks wrote on parchment for some purpose. Calling them history is goodwill.
shareThats what history is.
shareThat's what history is.Only as long as it is believed to have actually happened. A few legends were passed on as history until dismissed as, well, "something made up by some author" too.
That 'Some Author' is by any measure, one of the best writers of historical fiction ever. He's certainly one of the most prolific with 49 historical novels and more than 20 million copies sold worldwide.
Look up Bernard Cornwell. And this series, the Saxon Stories, 9 in all, is most definitely based on history.
Also, the series, Vikings, takes plenty of liberties with history... Probably even more than this one, frankly...
God made man because he loves stories. —Rabbi Nachman
Exactly, hell Vikings actually has the Blood Eagle used in it as an actual thing. When it's authenticity is dubious. At best.
Valar morghulis
lol.. even if it were true, how does that make Vikings>>>>The Last Kingdom? So you mean the History channel is >>>> all the other channels in the world combined?
Clark: Jonathan Kent; isn't it a little past your bedtime?
Yes, because historical accuracy is the deciding factor in whether adventure stories are good or not.
That was sarcasm, in case you're too stupid to tell.
There is no evidence that ragnar really existed his something of a danish king arthur figure. And historical accuracy is not really that good on either show. Vikings has rollo as ragnars brother, ragnar according to the viking sagas was a from denmark, rollo was from norway. They aslo lived a few decades apart. Rollo is a real historical figure as attested by the writings of the french royal court and the fact that Rollo was the great-great-great grandfather of william the conqueor making him an ancestor of the modern royal family of england.
Both shows are also terrible depicting the weapons and armor of the era although vikings is better with the swords. uthreds sword is ridiculous in the show and not like what is described in the book. The last kingdom is better with the armor, at last on the saxon side with the maile hauberks and the helmets, though both sides would have used round shields.
I love it when people like you, redcolodin1621, post because I actually learn something.
Why did the use round shields? I know the Romans used rectangular shields, so why did Vikings & Saxons use round?
God made man because he loves stories. —Rabbi Nachman
their a difference in fighting style between the vikings/saxons and the romans. While all of them used versions of shield wall, the romans prefered spear, the pilum, is a type of javelin meant to thrown.after that they would draw the gladius. The saxons and vikings used longer spears for thrusting attacks Not throwing. Like the ancient greeks they prefered a smaller rounder shield because it was more manuvarable then the roman scutum. Also by the late part of the western empire the legions had adopted a oval shield.
The vikings(danes, norwegians,swedes) who invaded in the 9th-10th centuries and the angles, saxons, and jutes who invaded britain several centuries before were all germanic language speakers and prior to converting to christians the saxons worshipped most of the same gods as those who would become the vikings, uthred envy mentions this to father beocca the pilot episode. Wotan=Odin etc. They saxons would not have been as clean shaven in real life as they had a cultural attachment to beards and long hair, which is something the normans would make fun of a century after the show is set.The normans themselves christianised and francaphone descendants of vikings too to wearing there hair short and shaving their faces
[deleted]
Some not all, the alot of the norseman who went to byzantinium stayed in the east and founded the kievan rus kingdom. Some did return like hadradda who tried to conquer england at the same time the normans did.
shareI can see how useful the gladius was in a shield wall in close combat, especially with the round shield, but wouldn't the round shield make you just as vulnerable to your enemy as they were to you?
And, how did shields stand up to beatings from the axe?
Considering how expensive it was to make swords and axes, how did the poorer soldiers arm themselves? Or, did they fight with other weapons until they could afford an axe or sword of their own? Was it kosher to take the weapon of a man you killed in battle? Considering that warriors were buried with their weapons, then inheriting a sword or axe would not seem to be the way a young warrior acquired one, correct?
God made man because he loves stories. —Rabbi Nachman
Swords were rare, only the high status warriors had them, which is alsoo why we find them in burials like the sutton hoo site in england.the axe and spears were much more common. The spear was the main human weapon of war from stone age till gunpowder was invented. In a shield wall you work as a team, each mans shield covers a part of his body and also the man to his left. Watch the early part of the first battle in 300 or the training utyhred gives to the man after alfred acceprs him. You actually kinda form an interlocking layer if protectiin with the men around you in a shield wall.
Migration era swords(viking era swords) are different than the gladius. They are a good deal longer, having been based on the gladius' longer calvary brother the spatha. The longest infantry gladiia are about 32 inches from pommel(the bottom part of the hilt) to the tio of the blade. The longest spatha were about 39 inches. migration period swords are spatha with a hit adapted to styles of hilts wwhich are classified by pommel type, trilobed, lobed or cockelshell. The sword used on history channels vikings are a good represe tation. This sword wood further evolve to the one handed knightly sword you seen in robin hood films and then would have an offshoot branches during the late middle ages leading to longswords(aka bastard sword) and true two handers, neither of which are as heavy as depicted in tv and videogames, european swords even at their heaviest did not excede 15 pounds. Migration era swords would have weighed 3-4 pounds, crusader swords about the same, longswords of the 100 years war era would have weighed as low as 4 pounds for smaller earlier ones and as much as 7 pounds. The big renaisance 6 foot zweihanders would have weigh 6 or seven pounds to around 14 for battlefield swords and up to 20 or even more for heavily decorated ceremonial swords.
Shields would be surprisingly strong as it was made with layered oak plywood and nearly all had a leather facing glued to the business side that would help maintain the shape againts slashes. They were also rimmed with iron around the edges for use as both a weapon and to protect against cuts that hit the rim of the shield. Yest they would break eventually though.
Here is a link to albion swords website that gives the specs and prices of there next generation line. These are expensive functional reproductions but they are often based on real artifacts and show the evolution of the european sword from the around 150 b.c to 1600 a.d. they have several different types of gladius, several viking era swords, a nice group of single handed knightly swords a ton of longswords and about 5 of the big two handed swords from the early renaissance.
http://www.albion-swords.com/swords/albion/swords-albion-mark-nextgen.htm
Thank you so much for this information.
My best friend of many years is a 3rd degree blackbelt in Iaido, (I think that's how it's put), and I've made silk covers for his katana & scabbard, so I've experienced the weight of a great sword. But it was so well balanced that it actually felt much lighter. I've watched him teach Iaido and practice it, and it boggles my mind at the skill necessary to actually fight well.
I'm very interested in the fighting techniques and battle strategy & tactics because I've sat through so many films with him where he's explained the history. 300 was an amazing lesson in these and over the years, the small amount of knowledge that I picked up has helped explain why certain battles in history were won and lost.
Again, thank you!
God made man because he loves stories. —Rabbi Nachman
Remember though the only accuracte part of 300 is the shield wall scenes.once the king jumps out in front and uses his spear like a bo staff it all goes out the window.
shareWhy are they called "germanic" anyway? Did the Danes, Norwegians and Swedes originally come from what is now Germany like the Angles and Saxons?
shareLanguage groups. Certain languages shown enough similarity to be grouped together.
English,latin, spanish, german,farisi,hindi are all memebers of the indo european language group. they all have a origin in what philogists call proto indo european, the language that developed somewhere in centrsl russia(humans having walked out of africa and settled all over the world already). These tribes settled an area the stretched from india to ireland After living central russia.the languages they spoke diverged from each other a good deal but groups that settled near each other had more similarites then differences Forming subgroups. All language in a group have similarities but the subgroups even more so.
from indo european you get the indo-aryan subgroup Sanskrit(the oldest extant),farisi, pashto, urdi,hindi,tajik etc
The romance language group latin(oldest of this group still in use), ancient estrucean, spanish, catalian, portugese, french, romanianian,
For the germaninc group you have old norse, old english,modern english, frisian, danish,norwegian,dutch, swedish, german etc
Slavic you get russian, bulgarian, polish,the other eastern european languages.
The other language groups are broken up like this too. Take the afro asiatic group from north africa and the middle east, hebrew,arabic,ancient phoenician would be the semeitc subgroup which chews(then ancient ethiopean language) and ancient egytpian would be the africa branch of the the larger group.
Where does Gaelic fit in to those groups?
God made man because he loves stories. —Rabbi Nachman
indo european, celtic subgroup, insular(meaning island) celtic branch. insular celtic languages are scots gaelic, irish gaelic and manx. The other group is britonnic and includes welsh and cornish. Scots gaelic and scots are two different languages.
shareJust saw this comment. One thing I noticed is how often the shields changed in TLK, mostly on the Saxon side.
shareLet us play a little game.
It is called "Spot the Troll"...
---
Click here:
http://soundcloud.com/tigermaster/
It is called "Spot the Troll"...
Vikings is written by Michael Hurst. If he writes it as accurate as he wrote The Tudors, it's 80% bull. He's a notorious historical revisionist. :P
This is based on a book series, in turn also based on actual events. I suspect neither one is completely accurate!
PS: Alfred the Great was real.