Currently watching.
Pleasantly surprised by it. However, I have trouble believing that either the Vikings or (especially) the Saxons were so ignorant of what lay on the other side of the sea. Wasn't Beowulf already around? That presupposes an understanding of the differences between Geats, Danes, Swedes and others, and familiarity with certain Norse families even. Also, weren't Norse and Anglo-Saxon still somewhat mutually intelligible?
Quote from: Queequeg on December 07, 2013, 06:21:53 PM
Currently watching.
Pleasantly surprised by it. However, I have trouble believing that either the Vikings or (especially) the Saxons were so ignorant of what lay on the other side of the sea. Wasn't Beowulf already around? That presupposes an understanding of the differences between Geats, Danes, Swedes and others, and familiarity with certain Norse families even. Also, weren't Norse and Anglo-Saxon still somewhat mutually intelligible?
You are completely right. Virtually no historical detail in this show is true. If you find it entertaining watch it. It's just not remotely related to actual vikings.
That's a bit dramatic, isn't it? I don't know even how many facts are known about the life of Ragnar.
I kind of think there had to have been some kind of recognition of irony among the Saxons. Something like "Oh Christ, so this is what it was like for the Britons."
Isn't this History Channel? Did the aliens show up yet?
Quote from: Queequeg on December 07, 2013, 06:31:21 PM
That's a bit dramatic, isn't it? I don't know even how many facts are known about the life of Ragnar.
We do know quite a bit about fuzzybritches. It's all oral history. We know quite a bit about the other "characters". This is not historical. Floki lived 60 years after lothbrok and was from western norway. Lothbroke was a dane, from denmark. It's basically fantasy in a vikingesque setting.
Quote from: Queequeg on December 07, 2013, 06:37:40 PM
I kind of think there had to have been some kind of recognition of irony among the Saxons. Something like "Oh Christ, so this is what it was like for the Britons."
It was probably a reaction of the kind "how the hell are these backwater hillbillies getting away with this shit?" interspersed with the "when are they coming back to sell us more slaves?"
Couldn't Floki just be a generic name of a Loki devotee?
Quote from: Queequeg on December 07, 2013, 07:11:28 PM
Couldn't Floki just be a generic name of a Loki devotee?
the character is based on this guy
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hrafna-Fl%C3%B3ki_Vilger%C3%B0arson
who lived a few generations after lothbroke. There is no relation between the name and Loki.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vikings_(TV_series)
Historical accuracy[edit]
Some critics have pointed out historical inaccuracies in the series' depiction of Viking society. Lars Walker, in the magazine The American Spectator criticized its portrayal of Viking Age government (in the person of Earl Haraldson) as autocratic rather than essentially democratic.[30] Joel Robert Thompson criticized the show's depiction of the Norse peoples' supposed ignorance of the existence of the British Isles, and the use of the death penalty instead of outlawry (skoggangr) as a punishment for heinous crimes.[31]
Monty Dobson, a historian at Central Michigan University, criticised the show's depictions of Viking Age clothing, but went on to state that fictional shows like Vikings could still be a useful teaching tool.[32] The Norwegian newspaper Aftenposten reported that the series incorrectly depicted the temple at Uppsala as a stave church in the mountains, whereas the historical temple was situated on flat land and stave churches were a hallmark of later Christian architecture in Scandinavia.[33]
Regarding the historical accuracy of the show, showrunner Michael Hirst comments that "I especially had to take liberties with 'Vikings' because no one knows for sure what happened in the Dark Ages" and that "we want people to watch it. A historical account of the Vikings would reach hundreds, occasionally thousands, of people. Here we've got to reach millions."[34]
Yeah, the Norse temple with bells is a little much.
Well some guy from the American Spectator said something about the historical accuracy, so can't be all untrue.
Quote from: Razgovory on December 07, 2013, 09:34:11 PM
Well some guy from the American Spectator said something about the historical accuracy, so can't be all untrue.
He is right though.
The Uppsala part was insane. Having some guy in the wrong time period is fair enough. But what is today a decent sized city in totally the wrong terrain?
Couldn't they have used another sacred ritual site? Also thought there wasn't a dedicated clergy.
Also Aslaug might be the greatest piece of ass I've ever seen. Holy Moly those cheekbones.
What were Viking marriage customs? I assumed polygamy. Also, some of the buildings look way too medieval.
Quote from: Viking on December 07, 2013, 07:31:47 PM
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vikings_(TV_series)
Historical accuracy[edit]
A historical account of the Vikings would reach hundreds, occasionally thousands, of people. Here we’ve got to reach millions.”[34]
I wonder where this guy got his facts for making an statement like this.
Do we know for a fact that historical series that is fairly close to reality would not find a market?
I can understand for dramatic purpose to pile up actions that happened over a longer period of time, but I see no excuse to get wrong basic stuff like clothing, architectural styles, armor, weapons, government, social structure, etc.
I think the argument that historical accuracy doesn't sell is complete bullshit.
Would a Viking wife be offended by someone raping a captive? :huh:
Quote from: Viking on December 07, 2013, 09:55:51 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on December 07, 2013, 09:34:11 PM
Well some guy from the American Spectator said something about the historical accuracy, so can't be all untrue.
He is right though.
Oh?
Quote from: Queequeg on December 07, 2013, 10:45:59 PM
What were Viking marriage customs? I assumed polygamy. Also, some of the buildings look way too medieval.
Officially, monogamy. Slaves, captives, and concubines didn't count, only infidelity with another freeman's wife counted as adultery.
Freewomen wives kept their maiden names, they still remain part of their biological family even after marriage. They were basically shrews ruling the household and the slaves attached to the lands while the husband was gone. If they were mistreated, had poor providers as husbands, or they or their familiies were simply fed up with the marriage wives could divorce by simply declaring themselves so in front of witnesses, first at his doorstep, then in front of the marital bed.
Would the sons of slaves and concubines count towards inheritance? How was inheritance dealt with anyway?
Quote from: Drakken on December 07, 2013, 11:56:00 PM
Quote from: Queequeg on December 07, 2013, 10:45:59 PM
What were Viking marriage customs? I assumed polygamy. Also, some of the buildings look way too medieval.
Officially, monogamy. Slaves, captives, and concubines didn't count, only infidelity with another freeman's wife counted as adultery.
Freewomen wives kept their maiden names, they still remain part of their biological family even after marriage. They were basically shrews ruling the household and the slaves attached to the lands while the husband was gone. If they were mistreated, had poor providers as husbands, or they or their familiies were simply fed up with the marriage wives could divorce by simply declaring themselves so in front of witnesses, first at his doorstep, then in front of the marital bed.
IIRC the happy couple had to bang in front of six witnesses after the wedding feast to make the marriage official. True?
There is one thing I do wonder, and that's how literate the Vikings were.
The Early Rus' tended to be literate. IDK about the Vikings. Anne of Kiev was literate while neither of her French husbands were.
Quote from: Razgovory on December 08, 2013, 02:15:31 AM
There is one thing I do wonder, and that's how literate the Vikings were.
What is your impression?
Going by the number and quality of runic instriptions on stone that have come down to us a significant number of people could read and write. It is likely that the vast majority of runic inscriptions were made on perishable materials and haven't survived. IIRC they have found huge numbers of runic inscriptions on leather etc dealing with everyday stuff when excavating Bergen, Norway, but I think those are medieval. My guess is that the process from magical, ritual runes to everyday "pick up a gallon of blueberries on your way home from rape honey" was a gradual one.
Quote from: Tyr on December 07, 2013, 10:34:05 PM
The Uppsala part was insane. Having some guy in the wrong time period is fair enough. But what is today a decent sized city in totally the wrong terrain?
They put denmark in mountainous fjord terrain. They did the same with uppsala, in addition to giving it a stave church.
Quote from: Queequeg on December 08, 2013, 12:15:06 AM
Would the sons of slaves and concubines count towards inheritance? How was inheritance dealt with anyway?
That depends on the the householder and place. Initially in iceland land was divided between sons, though when that ran out the farm went to one son. Inheritance isn't an issue that is brought up much in the sagas. Archeologists have shown that in iceland the original claims were divided and sub divided into the resulting modern farms over generations, presumably among family and retainers. This then stopped at a point when the farms got small enough. Property rights meant nothing without armed men to hold the land - or at least armed men returning from overseas soon to wreak revenge on whoever despoiled the house and land.
Quote from: The Brain on December 08, 2013, 03:50:38 AM
Quote from: Razgovory on December 08, 2013, 02:15:31 AM
There is one thing I do wonder, and that's how literate the Vikings were.
What is your impression?
Going by the number and quality of runic instriptions on stone that have come down to us a significant number of people could read and write. It is likely that the vast majority of runic inscriptions were made on perishable materials and haven't survived. IIRC they have found huge numbers of runic inscriptions on leather etc dealing with everyday stuff when excavating Bergen, Norway, but I think those are medieval. My guess is that the process from magical, ritual runes to everyday "pick up a gallon of blueberries on your way home from rape honey" was a gradual one.
There aren't a lot of references to documents or stores of documents, so not very literate. I've been reading about the Carolingian period and found an interesting claim. There are more surviving documents from that period then the entire 1,300 years previous.
Quote from: Viking on December 08, 2013, 04:26:01 AM
Quote from: Queequeg on December 08, 2013, 12:15:06 AM
Would the sons of slaves and concubines count towards inheritance? How was inheritance dealt with anyway?
That depends on the the householder and place. Initially in iceland land was divided between sons, though when that ran out the farm went to one son. Inheritance isn't an issue that is brought up much in the sagas. Archeologists have shown that in iceland the original claims were divided and sub divided into the resulting modern farms over generations, presumably among family and retainers. This then stopped at a point when the farms got small enough. Property rights meant nothing without armed men to hold the land - or at least armed men returning from overseas soon to wreak revenge on whoever despoiled the house and land.
That actually sounds a bit like the Rus' system, although sadly that never went towards functional primogeniture. Are there any good books on the eastward Viking expeditions, or on general Viking history?
Quote from: Razgovory on December 08, 2013, 02:52:55 PM
Quote from: The Brain on December 08, 2013, 03:50:38 AM
Quote from: Razgovory on December 08, 2013, 02:15:31 AM
There is one thing I do wonder, and that's how literate the Vikings were.
What is your impression?
Going by the number and quality of runic instriptions on stone that have come down to us a significant number of people could read and write. It is likely that the vast majority of runic inscriptions were made on perishable materials and haven't survived. IIRC they have found huge numbers of runic inscriptions on leather etc dealing with everyday stuff when excavating Bergen, Norway, but I think those are medieval. My guess is that the process from magical, ritual runes to everyday "pick up a gallon of blueberries on your way home from rape honey" was a gradual one.
There aren't a lot of references to documents or stores of documents, so not very literate. I've been reading about the Carolingian period and found an interesting claim. There are more surviving documents from that period then the entire 1,300 years previous.
The problem is determining what is an artifact of survival and what is the result of a lack of literacy.
Stuff written on perishable materials doesn't last long in a damp climate unless it is carefully tended and re-copied periodically. Break that chain because of some sort of social change or collapse, and much or most of it is lost very quickly.
To give an example, we suspect that Rome had very extensive written records dealing with the bureaucracy of Empire, but much of it has dissappeared, as it was of limited interest to anyone. For example, the only written reference that exists to Pontus Pilate, outside of the Bible, is a dedication carved in marble on a colleseum - even though as provincial governor, he must have generated tons of paperwork and been mentioned in tons more. All has gone.
In the case of the Vikings, pre-Christian writings would have been of limited interest in the medieval period, and so disappeared. It is notable that the survival of Norse Mythology is almost entirely due to one
single guy - Snorri Sturluson, who compiled the "Prose Edda".
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prose_Edda
The reason he wrote it? Essentally, as part of his resume - he was trying (unsuccessfully) to get hired by the King of Norway as court poet; but this old stuff had fallen out of fashion and the Norweigian Court was more interested in "modern" poetry not dealing with pre-Christian myths. Snorri couldn't get a break ... he was the CdM of his day. ;)
Quote from: Malthus on December 08, 2013, 03:12:17 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on December 08, 2013, 02:52:55 PM
Quote from: The Brain on December 08, 2013, 03:50:38 AM
Quote from: Razgovory on December 08, 2013, 02:15:31 AM
There is one thing I do wonder, and that's how literate the Vikings were.
What is your impression?
Going by the number and quality of runic instriptions on stone that have come down to us a significant number of people could read and write. It is likely that the vast majority of runic inscriptions were made on perishable materials and haven't survived. IIRC they have found huge numbers of runic inscriptions on leather etc dealing with everyday stuff when excavating Bergen, Norway, but I think those are medieval. My guess is that the process from magical, ritual runes to everyday "pick up a gallon of blueberries on your way home from rape honey" was a gradual one.
There aren't a lot of references to documents or stores of documents, so not very literate. I've been reading about the Carolingian period and found an interesting claim. There are more surviving documents from that period then the entire 1,300 years previous.
The problem is determining what is an artifact of survival and what is the result of a lack of literacy.
Stuff written on perishable materials doesn't last long in a damp climate unless it is carefully tended and re-copied periodically. Break that chain because of some sort of social change or collapse, and much or most of it is lost very quickly.
To give an example, we suspect that Rome had very extensive written records dealing with the bureaucracy of Empire, but much of it has dissappeared, as it was of limited interest to anyone. For example, the only written reference that exists to Pontus Pilate, outside of the Bible, is a dedication carved in marble on a colleseum - even though as provincial governor, he must have generated tons of paperwork and been mentioned in tons more. All has gone.
In the case of the Vikings, pre-Christian writings would have been of limited interest in the medieval period, and so disappeared. It is notable that the survival of Norse Mythology is almost entirely due to one single guy - Snorri Sturluson, who compiled the "Prose Edda".
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prose_Edda (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prose_Edda)
The reason he wrote it? Essentally, as part of his resume - he was trying (unsuccessfully) to get hired by the King of Norway as court poet; but this old stuff had fallen out of fashion and the Norweigian Court was more interested in "modern" poetry not dealing with pre-Christian myths. Snorri couldn't get a break ... he was the CdM of his day. ;)
The Carolingian lived in the same climate and same time period, yet they have lots of documents. The Vikings also don't seem to be a society that would have lots of documents around. They lacked strong centralized states, or many urban areas. These aren't the types of societies that keep lots of documents.
Why wouldn't the Vikings keep trading records? Also, even though they lacked centralized government, they seem to have had pretty complex political systems that were, if anything, more Byzantine for their lack of direct autocracy.
Quote from: Razgovory on December 08, 2013, 03:28:15 PM
Quote from: Malthus on December 08, 2013, 03:12:17 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on December 08, 2013, 02:52:55 PM
Quote from: The Brain on December 08, 2013, 03:50:38 AM
Quote from: Razgovory on December 08, 2013, 02:15:31 AM
There is one thing I do wonder, and that's how literate the Vikings were.
What is your impression?
Going by the number and quality of runic instriptions on stone that have come down to us a significant number of people could read and write. It is likely that the vast majority of runic inscriptions were made on perishable materials and haven't survived. IIRC they have found huge numbers of runic inscriptions on leather etc dealing with everyday stuff when excavating Bergen, Norway, but I think those are medieval. My guess is that the process from magical, ritual runes to everyday "pick up a gallon of blueberries on your way home from rape honey" was a gradual one.
There aren't a lot of references to documents or stores of documents, so not very literate. I've been reading about the Carolingian period and found an interesting claim. There are more surviving documents from that period then the entire 1,300 years previous.
The problem is determining what is an artifact of survival and what is the result of a lack of literacy.
Stuff written on perishable materials doesn't last long in a damp climate unless it is carefully tended and re-copied periodically. Break that chain because of some sort of social change or collapse, and much or most of it is lost very quickly.
To give an example, we suspect that Rome had very extensive written records dealing with the bureaucracy of Empire, but much of it has dissappeared, as it was of limited interest to anyone. For example, the only written reference that exists to Pontus Pilate, outside of the Bible, is a dedication carved in marble on a colleseum - even though as provincial governor, he must have generated tons of paperwork and been mentioned in tons more. All has gone.
In the case of the Vikings, pre-Christian writings would have been of limited interest in the medieval period, and so disappeared. It is notable that the survival of Norse Mythology is almost entirely due to one single guy - Snorri Sturluson, who compiled the "Prose Edda".
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prose_Edda (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prose_Edda)
The reason he wrote it? Essentally, as part of his resume - he was trying (unsuccessfully) to get hired by the King of Norway as court poet; but this old stuff had fallen out of fashion and the Norweigian Court was more interested in "modern" poetry not dealing with pre-Christian myths. Snorri couldn't get a break ... he was the CdM of his day. ;)
The Carolingian lived in the same climate and same time period, yet they have lots of documents. The Vikings also don't seem to be a society that would have lots of documents around. They lacked strong centralized states, or many urban areas. These aren't the types of societies that keep lots of documents.
Which definition of literate do you use?
I don't think Viking society was based on the written word.
Quote from: Queequeg on December 08, 2013, 03:30:15 PM
Why wouldn't the Vikings keep trading records? Also, even though they lacked centralized government, they seem to have had pretty complex political systems that were, if anything, more Byzantine for their lack of direct autocracy.
I wouldn't call the political system complex.
Quote from: Razgovory on December 08, 2013, 03:28:15 PM
The Carolingian lived in the same climate and same time period, yet they have lots of documents. The Vikings also don't seem to be a society that would have lots of documents around. They lacked strong centralized states, or many urban areas. These aren't the types of societies that keep lots of documents.
The issue is whether people in later ages
cared about the documents. The Holy Roman Empire derived its legitimacy from the Carolingian period, so people in later ages kept their records carefully, particularly in the monestaries that sprang up. People in the northern lands, once converted to Christianity, were less interested in records of the pagan past. Some survived but most did not. This is particularlyb true as the whole system of writing changed - from runes to a recognizable alphabet based on Latin. People in the same lands were now of a different religion and unable to even read stuff written by their predecessors.
Which is not to say that the vikings had as many documents as the Carolingians, just that you can't read too much into what has survived. It isn't always a reliable measure of what once existed.
Quote from: Queequeg on December 08, 2013, 03:30:15 PM
Why wouldn't the Vikings keep trading records? Also, even though they lacked centralized government, they seem to have had pretty complex political systems that were, if anything, more Byzantine for their lack of direct autocracy.
The vikings did not keep records since they were for the most part pagan pirates who considered honour and personal connections most important. The viking age is in the 9th and 10th centuries where individual pirates graduate to pirate kings to forming piracy coalitions which then eventually return home to form kingdoms like the ones they found in europe.
It's not until christianity that any literature is written down. It's not until about 1000 AD that the first scandinavian kingdoms go christian and still further until they get clerical infrastructure.
The texts we have are not primary sources. The are secondary sources. They were for the most part written in the 13th century about events that had happened 200-400 years earlier.
The complex political system was basically a meeting. The only office was a the law speaker (a guy who remembered the law, and often made it up on the spot). The mafia didn't keep records, neither did the vikings.
Quote from: Viking on December 08, 2013, 04:16:58 PM
It's not until christianity that any literature is written down.
Except of course the literature that was.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/R%C3%B6k_Runestone
Quote from: Viking on December 08, 2013, 04:16:58 PM
Quote from: Queequeg on December 08, 2013, 03:30:15 PM
Why wouldn't the Vikings keep trading records? Also, even though they lacked centralized government, they seem to have had pretty complex political systems that were, if anything, more Byzantine for their lack of direct autocracy.
The vikings did not keep records since they were for the most part pagan pirates who considered honour and personal connections most important. The viking age is in the 9th and 10th centuries where individual pirates graduate to pirate kings to forming piracy coalitions which then eventually return home to form kingdoms like the ones they found in europe.
It's not until christianity that any literature is written down. It's not until about 1000 AD that the first scandinavian kingdoms go christian and still further until they get clerical infrastructure.
The texts we have are not primary sources. The are secondary sources. They were for the most part written in the 13th century about events that had happened 200-400 years earlier.
The complex political system was basically a meeting. The only office was a the law speaker (a guy who remembered the law, and often made it up on the spot). The mafia didn't keep records, neither did the vikings.
The reasonably wide-spread practice of carving rune-stones only makes sense if there was at least some literacy extant. They appear to have been raised in some cases by vikings- to commemmorate those who didn't return from voyages, fir example. Many are Christian, but the practice pre-dates Christianity.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Runestone
Obviouly, stones are more likely to survive than stuff written on more perishable materials such as wood.
To elaborate, a document like the Rök runestone (see above) isn't produced in a vacuum. The author was comfortable around advanced writing, he had likely read and written quite a lot. Which form did the literature he knew take? How long texts were written on perishable materials? We don't know. As I've said earlier, my impression is that literature wasn't an extremely important part of Viking society when compared to oral material. But it was definitely there.
To me the Rök runestone is the coolest known surviving artifact of the Viking age.
Brain, what's the relationship between Goths and Geats?
Quote from: Queequeg on December 14, 2013, 04:47:29 AM
Brain, what's the relationship between Goths and Geats?
Roughly the same as Geths and Goats.
Quote from: Syt on December 14, 2013, 04:51:06 AM
Quote from: Queequeg on December 14, 2013, 04:47:29 AM
Brain, what's the relationship between Goths and Geats?
Roughly the same as Geths and Goats.
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fstatic4.wikia.nocookie.net%2F__cb20120326180457%2Fmasseffect%2Fimages%2Fb%2Fbb%2FWA_GethPrime.png&hash=a1c2a7f639ab2ca6a1aa950376d2cb2b3dcbb233)
:huh:
Quote from: Queequeg on December 14, 2013, 04:47:29 AM
Brain, what's the relationship between Goths and Geats?
I don't know how much you've read about this question. The old view of course is that they are the same and glorious proto-Swedes conquered Rome itself back in the day. It's been years since I read about the Goths, but IIRC they may have started out somewhere around Poland and there may or may not have been a memory of having come from across the Baltic. It may be as simple as the words Goths/Geats/göter/Götaland/Gotland etc have the same basic root but do not otherwise indicate kinship.
Worth remembering is that people from present day Sweden travelled to the Late Roman Empire and served as mercenaries. So there were likely Geats among the Goths, if you will.
That makes sense. These names get reused and thrown around.
Quote from: Malthus on December 08, 2013, 03:45:40 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on December 08, 2013, 03:28:15 PM
The Carolingian lived in the same climate and same time period, yet they have lots of documents. The Vikings also don't seem to be a society that would have lots of documents around. They lacked strong centralized states, or many urban areas. These aren't the types of societies that keep lots of documents.
The issue is whether people in later ages cared about the documents. The Holy Roman Empire derived its legitimacy from the Carolingian period, so people in later ages kept their records carefully, particularly in the monestaries that sprang up. People in the northern lands, once converted to Christianity, were less interested in records of the pagan past. Some survived but most did not. This is particularlyb true as the whole system of writing changed - from runes to a recognizable alphabet based on Latin. People in the same lands were now of a different religion and unable to even read stuff written by their predecessors.
Which is not to say that the vikings had as many documents as the Carolingians, just that you can't read too much into what has survived. It isn't always a reliable measure of what once existed.
Well the Christianized Scandinavians did care about documents, they kept plenty. Cultures keep documents because important things are recorded on them. Not important things like the deeds of the chief, but things like who owns what land, and who owes who what. As government becomes more complex it's not longer practical to remember these things, you have to write them down. If the Scandinavians were keeping records like that, there is as strong incentive to keep that even if it dates to the pagan period. Duke Vidkun Vikingsson would certainly want to make sure that the documents that established the hereditary rights and privileges of his grandfather Cheif Viking Vidkunsson are kept safe.
Atlantis was the Minoan civilization and was destroyed by the Thera eruption.
Anyone watching Valhalla?
Dude, I thought Psellus was back...
Yeah, I saw it. Excellent fuel for modern Christian persecution complexes. Decent television, too.
I watched the 1st episode. I'll watch the other ones, I think.
I did not watch the previous series.
Quote from: Grey Fox on March 04, 2022, 08:43:04 AMI watched the 1st episode. I'll watch the other ones, I think.
I did not watch the previous series.
I recommend you watch the first couple of seasons of the first series. It goes downhill in the latter ones but those early seasons were pretty good.
Quote from: Josephus on March 04, 2022, 07:35:03 AMAnyone watching Valhalla?
It's on my list for later :)