Anyone watching "Vikings"?

[YJ02]

VIKINGS on History channel

Yes I know, the channel is mainly full of eye grabbers for ratings, etc-and much of their programming is based on some real stretches of history/archaeology (Ancient Aliens for one)

VIKINGS starts with one of the first raids by Northmen on England at Lindisfarne Monastery.

It uses actual ppl from history and "fleshes out" the stories with fictional/ "this is a reasonable assumption of what was done or said" type of drama.

I have found that the historical accounts used are fairly true to the records of the Northmen raids and the Saxon response

You'll find no ridiculous horned helmets or heavy chain mail here (the vikings didn't use them)-the depictions are also true to historical records (though our Swedish members may have a thing to say--like about the word "viking" for one)

Main character is an actual historical figure as well- Ragnar Lothbrok

Surprised it made it to HISTORY given their recent penchant for "reality tv"

 

[shavedape]

I'm okay with the History Channel "stylizing" genuinely historical things such as this. Anyone who reads popular history books is familiar with how the authors paint a picture of the times that they are describing. This is fine and actually makes studying history more appealing -- as long as it doesn't cross the line into outright fiction.

So far I think this is a good direction for the History Channel as long as they don't go overboard and start creating historical facts out of whole cloth.

 

[Overmind One]

I'm okay with the History Channel "stylizing" genuinely historical things such as this. Anyone who reads popular history books is familiar with how the authors paint a picture of the times that they are describing. This is fine and actually makes studying history more appealing -- as long as it doesn't cross the line into outright fiction.

So far I think this is a good direction for the History Channel as long as they don't go overboard and start creating historical facts out of whole cloth.

They will do the bolded. The History Channel has been called out before for its bias towards US History and bogus speculative pieces which are not actual history. But this channel is an A&E Channel, so what can you expect? This is "history" for the masses. I wonder if they are showing how filthy and lacking in personal hygiene the Vikings were? Historical accounts from those who encountered them described them as uncivilized, filthy and lacking in personal hygiene...although a "handsome people".

 

[Gate_Boarder]

I'm okay with the History Channel "stylizing" genuinely historical things such as this. Anyone who reads popular history books is familiar with how the authors paint a picture of the times that they are describing. This is fine and actually makes studying history more appealing -- as long as it doesn't cross the line into outright fiction.

So far I think this is a good direction for the History Channel as long as they don't go overboard and start creating historical facts out of whole cloth.

..... don't go overboard and start creating historical facts out of whole cloth.

http://www.history.co.uk/shows/the-great-martian-war

I know this show was shown on the British historical channel and either the History or the SPACE channel in Canada.

 

[YJ02]

They will do the bolded. The History Channel has been called out before for its bias towards US History and bogus speculative pieces which are not actual history. But this channel is an A&E Channel, so what can you expect? This is "history" for the masses. I wonder if they are showing how filthy and lacking in personal hygiene the Vikings were? Historical accounts from those who encountered them described them as uncivilized, filthy and lacking in personal hygiene...although a "handsome people".

They do a very good job in presenting them much as the historical accounts (remember. most of what we have on the Northmen was written by those ppl's who were either conquered or laid low by them=or by later 'civilized' Northmen who may have wanted to depict their ancestors in more brutish way so that they-being Christian-would look much better in comparison.

Examples are the Saxons in the parts of England outside of the Danelaw writing about the Northmen as savage beasts to degrade their enemy
or
Normans-descendants of Northmen-then Christian and civilized, wanting to look "better" and improved in relation to their ancestors

In the show- they depict the "vikings" being,what we might call 'semi-hygienic' for the time, while at home on their farms but more brutish and "dirty" (probably a calculated decision at the time-to appear more intimidating) and savage while on raids

remember too, that much of Europe at this time, did not take baths except for those areas under Byzantine or Arab control--Christian "urban myths" implied that being exposed to water might allow the entrance of demons to the person, etc

In fact, if anything, the show may go wrong by showing King Ecbert of Wessex,a saxon, frequently in his Roman style bath. This may be accurate, if it is, it would be because they 'inherited' these facilities from the Romanized Britons. In their early days, the Saxon invaders of Britain were just as savage as the later Northmen were.

In season 1 they also showed good depictions of Northmen religion complete with 'seers' and human sacrifice.

But as too the HISTORY channels, typical fare, VIKINGS is far better than those. It is not ancient aliens, nor pawn stars or swamp people or some show on all of human history in 42 minutes.

There are a couple of good shows on HISTORY, this is one of them, AMERICA UNEARTHED is another good one that is based on documented facts and emerging knowledge (mostly via DNA research and archaeology) of America (North and South) that investigates issues such as Scandinavian and other pre-Columbus European ventures to north america, as well as the possibility of Mayan "exploitation" of the south east of America (strong evidence here; the clays used to make certain pigments for Mayan wall art and other paintings is only found in Alabama and South Georgia; DNA evidence for closer relations between the Cherokee of Georgia and Mayans for these operations), Also investigated are the possibilities of later asian migrations to south america and travel from africa to the caribbean.

You have to do a lot of muck washing on the HISTORY channel to get to a couple of good shows

 

[shavedape]

..... don't go overboard and start creating historical facts out of whole cloth.

http://www.history.co.uk/shows/the-great-martian-war

I know this show was shown on the British historical channel and either the History or the SPACE channel in Canada.

Don't forget this which aired on Animal Planet :

http://www.animalplanet.com/tv-shows/mermaids

 

[YJ02]

Don't forget this which aired on Animal Planet :

http://www.animalplanet.com/tv-shows/mermaids

Yeah-I made a thread on it!! They did have a very tiny tiny disclaimer saying it was fake--something like "if beings such as this were found then the techniques and equipment and science depicted in this show would probably be used"

And hey, it had pretty good SFX!

What they did "right" from a human evo standpoint was to 'parallel" what we do know about hominids going from the trees to a new environment-the savanna-and thereby developing better walking,etc

They posited that if some hominids would have been similarly forced to the sea for food gathering than the things shown may have been likely evolutionary 'developments' as bodily changes in selection/survivability

But I do get your point (if that is what it was) of stupid/simple minded American 'tune outs' watching the show and thinking it real.

 

[YJ02]

They do a very good job in presenting them much as the historical accounts (remember. most of what we have on the Northmen was written by those ppl's who were either conquered or laid low by them=or by later 'civilized' Northmen who may have wanted to depict their ancestors in more brutish way so that they-being Christian-would look much better in comparison.

Examples are the Saxons in the parts of England outside of the Danelaw writing about the Northmen as savage beasts to degrade their enemy
or
Normans-descendants of Northmen-then Christian and civilized, wanting to look "better" and improved in relation to their ancestors

In the show- they depict the "vikings" being,what we might call 'semi-hygienic' for the time, while at home on their farms but more brutish and "dirty" (probably a calculated decision at the time-to appear more intimidating) and savage while on raids

remember too, that much of Europe at this time, did not take baths except for those areas under Byzantine or Arab control--Christian "urban myths" implied that being exposed to water might allow the entrance of demons to the person, etc

In fact, if anything, the show may go wrong by showing King Ecbert of Wessex,a saxon, frequently in his Roman style bath. This may be accurate, if it is, it would be because they 'inherited' these facilities from the Romanized Britons. In their early days, the Saxon invaders of Britain were just as savage as the later Northmen were.

In season 1 they also showed good depictions of Northmen religion complete with 'seers' and human sacrifice.

But as too the HISTORY channels, typical fare, VIKINGS is far better than those. It is not ancient aliens, nor pawn stars or swamp people or some show on all of human history in 42 minutes.

There are a couple of good shows on HISTORY, this is one of them, AMERICA UNEARTHED is another good one that is based on documented facts and emerging knowledge (mostly via DNA research and archaeology) of America (North and South) that investigates issues such as Scandinavian and other pre-Columbus European ventures to north america, as well as the possibility of Mayan "exploitation" of the south east of America (strong evidence here; the clays used to make certain pigments for Mayan wall art and other paintings is only found in Alabama and South Georgia; DNA evidence for closer relations between the Cherokee of Georgia and Mayans for these operations), Also investigated are the possibilities of later asian migrations to south america and travel from africa to the caribbean.

You have to do a lot of muck washing on the HISTORY channel to get to a couple of good shows

Damned coincidence!

Seems recent British research is saying much of what I just typed above yesterday

and, if you are one that holds to the "Vikings being barbarous, bloodspitting demons" than you are an unwitting victim of Christian imagery that compared the raiders to the endtimes prophecies to scare up true believers"

"It seems this was a rare era in which history was not written by the victors; mostly because the victors couldn’t write. It was left to monks and Christian churchmen to craft the only contemporary accounts of many of the Vikings’ raids, and Vikings did attack churches, which held no sacred mystique for them. They were simply seen as easy, wealthy targets, confounding local conventions of the time.

“These accounts are dressed up in the language of religious polemic,” Williams said. “Many [of the stories] were borrowed from earlier accounts—from classical antiquity. The violent reputation and particularly the reputation for atrocities was created then, but the Vikings were probably no worse than anyone else.” "

From: http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2014/03/19/every-viking-fact-is-wrong.html

 

[Gatefan1976]

Oops

 

[YJ02]

Oops

Huh? :jaded:

 

[Illiterati]

I love "Vikings". The second season premiered a couple weeks ago.

I had the pleasure of going to their panel at WonderCon last year. So much fun.

 

[shavedape]

Yeah-I made a thread on it!! They did have a very tiny tiny disclaimer saying it was fake--something like "if beings such as this were found then the techniques and equipment and science depicted in this show would probably be used"

And hey, it had pretty good SFX!

What they did "right" from a human evo standpoint was to 'parallel" what we do know about hominids going from the trees to a new environment-the savanna-and thereby developing better walking,etc

They posited that if some hominids would have been similarly forced to the sea for food gathering than the things shown may have been likely evolutionary 'developments' as bodily changes in selection/survivability

But I do get your point (if that is what it was) of stupid/simple minded American 'tune outs' watching the show and thinking it real.

I'm just worried about these shows that fictionalize history as opposed to simply stylizing it so it's more palatable to the viewers if you get what I mean.

 

[Backstep]

Damned coincidence!

Seems recent British research is saying much of what I just typed above yesterday

and, if you are one that holds to the "Vikings being barbarous, bloodspitting demons" than you are an unwitting victim of Christian imagery that compared the raiders to the endtimes prophecies to scare up true believers"

"It seems this was a rare era in which history was not written by the victors; mostly because the victors couldn’t write. It was left to monks and Christian churchmen to craft the only contemporary accounts of many of the Vikings’ raids, and Vikings did attack churches, which held no sacred mystique for them. They were simply seen as easy, wealthy targets, confounding local conventions of the time.

“These accounts are dressed up in the language of religious polemic,” Williams said. “Many [of the stories] were borrowed from earlier accounts—from classical antiquity. The violent reputation and particularly the reputation for atrocities was created then, but the Vikings were probably no worse than anyone else.” "

From: http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2014/03/19/every-viking-fact-is-wrong.html

And given the fact that 10 Northmen could defeat 100 Saxons in battle, the Saxons had to do something to rally the people.

 

[YJ02]

I'm just worried about these shows that fictionalize history as opposed to simply stylizing it so it's more palatable to the viewers if you get what I mean.

I think that vikings is "stylized"-it has, at least not yet, invented anything

And given the fact that 10 Northmen could defeat 100 Saxons in battle, the Saxons had to do something to rally the people.

In the article, they talk about this, seems that several Northmen raiding parties were met by the Saxons with overwhelming force and butchered to the last man.

Some historians have theorized about "what happened to the Saxon fierceness that defeated the Romanized Britons with their Roman trained/styled Army and the lingering presence of foreign Roman Foedorati Auxiliaries in Britain (soldiers from other allied nations at the far end of the empire)?"

Possible answer? That the original Saxons were pagans and held no Christian "merits" of mercy or the practice of with-holding brutality on the battlefield (for fear of being judged an over- zealous fighter-a sin?)-After becoming Christian, their fighting prowess moderated.


Of course, becoming civilized in a diluted Roman manner in matters other than religion probably aided in their new found timidness.

The 'fear of the other' was heavily applied by Saxons who had been defeated by Northman raiders/settlers-this seasoned their writings and possibly inspired future Saxon defenders into responding in a more "uncivilized" manner

Of course, Northman hubris and stories of "easy pickings" may have led later "vikings" into becoming complacent and less prepared for their attacks

 

[Overmind One]

Damned coincidence!

Seems recent British research is saying much of what I just typed above yesterday

and, if you are one that holds to the "Vikings being barbarous, bloodspitting demons" than you are an unwitting victim of Christian imagery that compared the raiders to the endtimes prophecies to scare up true believers"

"It seems this was a rare era in which history was not written by the victors; mostly because the victors couldn’t write. It was left to monks and Christian churchmen to craft the only contemporary accounts of many of the Vikings’ raids, and Vikings did attack churches, which held no sacred mystique for them. They were simply seen as easy, wealthy targets, confounding local conventions of the time.

“These accounts are dressed up in the language of religious polemic,” Williams said. “Many [of the stories] were borrowed from earlier accounts—from classical antiquity. The violent reputation and particularly the reputation for atrocities was created then, but the Vikings were probably no worse than anyone else.” "

From: http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2014/03/19/every-viking-fact-is-wrong.html

I dunno...the peoples who encountered the barbarians (Vikings, Britons, Saxons, Visigoths, Ostragoths, Norse, Anglos, Mongols, etc) described them as violent, filthy and uncivilized. The western barbarian clans repeatedly attacked the western borders of the Roman Empire until it was overrun and Rome was destroyed by them. Now, the descendants of the barbarian peoples (British and Germans mostly today) are in control, THEY are re-writing history as if they were the civilized people taming the primitives. The reality of history is not going to change no matter who is writing it. But the PERCEPTION changes.

Enjoy the show folks! Im not interested.

 

[Illiterati]

Keeping in mind that the word "barbarian" was originally used to denote that the individual in question had a beard.

"Civilized" people shaved, don'tcha know?

 

[Overmind One]

Keeping in mind that the word "barbarian" was originally used to denote that the individual in question had a beard.

"Civilized" people shaved, don'tcha know?

Exactly right. The term "barbarian" has it's root in "barb" or 'hair'.

Later, the term "Barbarian" came to mean anyone from Western Europe who was part of the clans. Huns, Britons, Saxons, Anglos, Ostragoths, Visigoths, Mongols, Norse, Vikings, etc.


Whatever the case, they are the main reason for the fall of the Roman Empire and shows like this need to address that and not be revisionist about it. It seems like whenever I see anything written about conquest and the advance of the barbarian tribes across Europe (and later the world), the writers of this historical fiction tend to romanticize it and make it seem heroic and brave, when it was actually bloody and criminal.

Britain today is run by a "royal family" who are direct descendants from Germanic Huns. So, when it comes time to talk about history, they do not want it told the way it really was. The way they would like to portray Huns:

The way the Romans and others perceived them:

When historians try and obscure these issues, we need only look at the spread of the barbarians and the fall of the Roman Empire. Why did the barbarians attack Rome? Because of resources. They had basically raped the land in western Europe and killed all the big game. When they overran Rome, they destroyed much of it.

So, when I see crap like this, I just shake my head.

http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/truth-vikings-not-smelly-barbarians-3183358

Sophisticated people do not attack for resources or burn villages and commit genocide. Desperate people do. The Vikings were just as uncivilized and unhygienic as the other barbarian tribes.

 

[YJ02]

I dunno...the peoples who encountered the barbarians (Vikings, Britons, Saxons, Visigoths, Ostragoths, Norse, Anglos, Mongols, etc) described them as violent, filthy and uncivilized. The western barbarian clans repeatedly attacked the western borders of the Roman Empire until it was overrun and Rome was destroyed by them. Now, the descendants of the barbarian peoples (British and Germans mostly today) are in control, THEY are re-writing history as if they were the civilized people taming the primitives. The reality of history is not going to change no matter who is writing it. But the PERCEPTION changes.

Enjoy the show folks! Im not interested.

As far as the "vikings" (a much misused word-it actual means something more like "pirate" or "sea farer" in the verb manner, not a noun--I am sure our Swedish friends may be able to clarify) go, the Saxons were the ones writing about them-they were Germans (as well as the Angles and Jutes who accompanied them)

The biggest difference between the 2 groups was that one was Pagan and the other was Christian

If one goes to the source material from Roman History (in Latin or Greek written by men that were contemporaneous to the times) one can see that the original "Germans" were invited/accepted in by the Roman governors of Gaul, Germania (the Rhineland) and Paennonia and Noricum either allowed Germans to come across in small numbers, along with their families only, in return for their service in the Auxilliaries. Smaller tribes, felt threatened by more powerful German tribes, asked to come for refuge and were admitted as Foederati ("federates") and also required to serve.

Just like immigrants today, these ppl sent word home across the Rhine/Danube of the rich lands and Roman life. As more ppl asked to come, more were refused by the Romans.

Of course later, many came across as a result of being pushed westward by other tribes

The Mongols never had a chance to write (or rewrite) about themselves (there is a "secret book of Khans" that is used though has never been verified as being Mongolian) their defeated foes and conquered vassals did the writing. The negativity about them (the extreme negativity) in Europe at least, came from those in eastern Europe who had survived-the depiction of them being "riders of the apocalypse" was meant to stir the Pope and the Holy Roman Emperor (who were at war with one another) to come to Eastern Europe's aid.

The Muslim Empires of the middle east were mainly destroyed and the survivors there wrote their tales of the Mongols for "the stirring of Jihad" in the rest of Islam to come to war.

So, there is a lot of our history that was originally written as propaganda against "the other"-even when in defeat.

And to be a nit picking ninny, the "vikings" were the Norse (Northmen) and the actual Britons never invaded anyone (hey you get to nanny us on computer stuff so...)

 

[YJ02]

Keeping in mind that the word "barbarian" was originally used to denote that the individual in question had a beard.

"Civilized" people shaved, don'tcha know?

My fine friends, you miss the fact that many "civilized" people of the time DID have beards (the Greeks, Persians, non elite Romans and most of the Italian tribes)

It comes from two sources-the Persian and the Greek:

 

[Overmind One]

My fine friends, you miss the fact that many "civilized" people of the time DID have beards (the Greeks, Persians, non elite Romans and most of the Italian tribes)

It comes from two sources-the Persian and the Greek:

View attachment 29637

AWESOME! I stand corrected. I actually like the Greek etymology better:

barbaros: "foreign, strange, ignorant"