I haven't seen this new season yet but I've enjoyed prior seasons. Before Vikings my main exposure to Ragnar Lobrock was through the Civilization games lol but I never knew much about him.
I've enjoyed not every episode but many of them.
The first season was particularly cool because it had a lot of daily life type stuff. It was neat how they explained how Ragnar was able to solve some sailing challenges and open up opportunities to sail further than ever.
So how good and how Fantastic VS Historic is this show? I've been meaning to watch it for some time, and I'm fine with it being pretty much 100% fantasy. I just don't like it when they try to pass off fantasy for history.
@Dev6 - that depends entirely on how much fantasy you would consider a story about mythic figures whose existence is completely undocumented. Like, say, King Arthur or Hektor of Troy.
Personally I'd say it requires a bit more fantastical elements than that to be called fantasy, but some might differ. I just twinge a little every time it's called a "history show" as if it was a show about the Tudors or Napoleon
It's not history at all, but it's based on historic characters. But since they have switched them around, changing their origin, age, how they interact, etc etc, it's to much change to be passed of as history. It's still an entertaining show though and may inspire some to learn more about the actual history of some of its characters.
The way it passes of the vikings reigion though just make me cringe everytime, heh.. its so hollywood I doubt the writers have even bothered to read a single wiki page, hehe Entertaining though.
One thing I just can't stand though, and this is really my only caveat with these shows, is the hollywood obsession of dressing everyone in BROWN LEATHER! I mean wtf? Haha, it's so funny and tragic at the same time, that hollywood tries to create what they believe their viewers think is cool and ppl see so many such shows they start to believe that was actually how ppl was clothed back then that new hollywood shows have to do the same to not be accused of being "unhistorical" XD Why so afraid of colors?
It's the best show portraiting the age I've found so far. I wasn't so keen on the Last Kingdom myself. I read the first book and liked it, but the show was a bit mediocre unfortunately. Not bad, just not that good to keep me interested.
I haven't seen this new season yet but I've enjoyed prior seasons. Before Vikings my main exposure to Ragnar Lobrock was through the Civilization games lol but I never knew much about him.
I've enjoyed not every episode but many of them.
The first season was particularly cool because it had a lot of daily life type stuff. It was neat how they explained how Ragnar was able to solve some sailing challenges and open up opportunities to sail further than ever.
I've pretty much enjoyed every episode of the series! I absolutely love how the characters are written! The only thing I didn't like, really, was the death of Ragnar - but they did that historically accurate.
So how good and how Fantastic VS Historic is this show? I've been meaning to watch it for some time, and I'm fine with it being pretty much 100% fantasy. I just don't like it when they try to pass off fantasy for history.
It takes quite a few liberties... But has quite a bit that is based on actual history.
One thing I just can't stand though, and this is really my only caveat with these shows, is the hollywood obsession of dressing everyone in BROWN LEATHER! I mean wtf? Haha, it's so funny and tragic at the same time, that hollywood tries to create what they believe their viewers think is cool and ppl see so many such shows they start to believe that was actually how ppl was clothed back then that new hollywood shows have to do the same to not be accused of being "unhistorical" XD Why so afraid of colors?
It's the best show portraiting the age I've found so far. I wasn't so keen on the Last Kingdom myself. I read the first book and liked it, but the show was a bit mediocre unfortunately. Not bad, just not that good to keep me interested.
I think the lack of "colors" as you say, in their garb, is probably intentional. They want to show a dark, gritty time. There's plenty of popping colors in their shields.
I think the lack of "colors" as you say, in their garb, is probably intentional. They want to show a dark, gritty time. There's plenty of popping colors in their shields.
It just not the colors of course, that was just one thing. I believe wool and linen was among the most common fabrics for viking clothing, not seldom colored in bright colors. The richer the viking the brighter the color. The earliest fabrics colored get the most vibrant color, then the same coloring is used over and over and thus the coming fabrics get less and less vibrant, I think. So the more color the more cash it cost. I mean, most of the vikings raiding in real life probably had brighter colors on their clothes than any of the characters in the show even would have on a wedding, hehe
I'd say it wouldn't change the grittiness the slightest if they had accurate clothing. I mean, would anyone actually feel the show was even more gritty and dark if all their shields was black/brown/grey? No, then why the clothes?
Anyways, not starting an argument here. Just find it interesting that you see this weird cliché over and over again in shows - the leather obsession.
It's a difficulty whenever you do a historical(ish) drama. What might have looked awesome to seventh century eyes can look silly to 21st century eyes, and visa versa. "leather and laces" is a look that seems right to 21st century eyes. Sometimes suspension of disbelief also requires suspension of authenticity.
And when you get on to the often filmed Tudor period, you are dealing with fashions that change as frequently (for the rich) as they do in our time. So you end up with the equivalent of 1970s and 1950s clothing side by side.
It's a pretty decent portrayal of the period, and although I think the events are fictional, I think they're reasonably believable. But... eh.. the costumes... all wrong! Like Skatan said, why the obsession with brown leather and totally a-historical armour? I get they want to make it look cool, but seriously, are you telling me this doesn't look cool: (these are about the best images I can find right now)
Only the first photo looks like something not from the show... The second one has the majority of dark colors (blacks and browns) except for their shields... and in the show, the shields are even colorful. For example: https://nerdist.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/02/v4_20_03112016_jh_27104-e1485982335158-970x545.jpg The only real difference is - in the show they don't wear metal helmets that frequently.
And the third picture, same as above; it's pretty dark colors - only the helmets are the things that stand out.
Well I see quite a few reds, blues, greens, and pale blues, pinks and creams... but I was talking more in terms of the style of clothing and armour than colours. The TV show has this obsession with ridiculous leather scaled armour, and studded leather armour, and other a-historical crap like that, which is fine for fantasy/fictional universes, but not for historical stuff.
Granted, in the shot you just posted, the guy nearest the camera has what looks like a gambeson, so top marks for that... but he lets himself down with that leather apron thing that he wears over it! Just why??
I get that they want cool looking armour, but I personally think actual norse armour looks cool enough, are viewers really going to look at an actual northman and go "that doesn't look cool at all, I'm not watching this!"? XD Just once I'd like to see a viking film/tv show with proper armour - gambesons and mail hauberks - and not the ridiculous fur-and-leather ensembles that Hollywood is obsessed with.
eta: it's kind of like somebody doing a Vietnam War film but having the GIs wearing modern SWAT gear that's been dirtied up, combined with riot gear from all other countries and with random biker accessories, and deliberately broken up so it looks old and worn. XD
There is also cost involved - a real, or at least convincing mail coat is expensive, and I think earlier TV shows have muddied the waters - some of the simpler authentic outfits are now associated with cheezy 1950s TV shows like "the legend of Robin Hood".
And weight too - I doubt actors have the strength and stamina of real vikings!
I guess we should all be thankful that it's not a documentary and a drama instead, eh?
I am not one of those people who gets hung up on trivial details. As long as they don't do something too crazy ("What? A UFO comes down from the sky!"), and they tell a telling story, with great depth to their characters - count me in.
It's like any book to movie you watch; they always change things. Sometimes it's major, sometimes it's trivial. If you're one of those people who get caught up on the trivial details of things like that - save the time and don't watch it. You're just going to be frustrated by the experience.
Thankfully, every time an episode of Vikings ends, I am left wanting to watch the next one - immediately!
And weight too - I doubt actors have the strength and stamina of real vikings!
Right.
Because he looks like someone who couldn't have the strength and stamina of a real Viking to wear the armor, compared to the cosplayers who wear the armor.
Overdeveloped musculature developed in the gym isn't the same as the real toughness developed through genuine hard work. It's the same as the leather armour - it's how we think it should look in the 21st century. A real Viking warrior would have a much more wiry physique.
I grew up in a rural-ish area, playing sports against players in schools from big cities and farm areas. We used the phrase “country strong”, because gym memberships don’t exactly reproduce the effects of farm work.
It's hard to tell this episode - who is crazier! Bishop Heahmund or Ivar the Boneless! Bishop Heahmund is definitely a bad ass - though, there's bound to be consequences for going against his Prince (and indirectly, his king) and further gaining the wrath of the Vikings when Ubbe and Hvitserk approached them about ceasing the fight and just wanting the land they were promised. And it was quite surprising, in the end, to see Hvitserk side with Ivar... I felt that was a bit out of character for Hvitserk, who seemed to side with the other brothers about Ivar's madness... So I am hoping we see why Hvitserk switched sides.
What this is leading up to - with the Civil War feeling - is going to be epic!
If re-enactors can manage to fight while wearing mail, I think a bunch of actors can do a few scenes in it. Mail isn't as heavy as people think it is. Yes the weight all hangs from the shoulders, but you soon get used to it. I've worn Roman mail for a job before which isn't much different, and I'm not exactly a giant.
And yes, it is a drama and not a documentary, but considering it's a) shown on the History Channel and b) about real people in a real time and place that really exists, people are naturally going to assume that it's at least partially real, and start thinking vikings dressed like that. Changing minor details is one thing but changing history is something I can't forgive... but that's just me. When I watch a historical tv show, I want to see it like it was.
[quote]and I think earlier TV shows have muddied the waters - some of the simpler authentic outfits are now associated with cheezy 1950s TV shows like "the legend of Robin Hood".[/quote]
Yeah, I think there's some truth in that, tbh. Modern fantasy images have become far more appealing, and far more widespread. Do you know how hard it is to find actual authentic images of vikings on Google?
If re-enactors can manage to fight while wearing mail, I think a bunch of actors can do a few scenes in it. Mail isn't as heavy as people think it is. Yes the weight all hangs from the shoulders, but you soon get used to it....
To my knowledge, which is all from reading and from youtube since I never cosplay/re-enact or anything, if you wear a good belt around the waste it takes a lot of that weight from the mail on your hips instead. That way you spread the weight around and use a lot more of your muscles. Also, this belt is where you attach your side-arm(s).
I think I've recalled reading a properly dressed soldier in roman and medieval times wore about the same total equipment weight as modern day soldiers, which is around 30 kilos. I dunno the authenticty of such a claim, but it wouldn't surprise me if it's correct. A lot of the info I've learned watching medieval/historcial scholars on youtube shows that weapons and armor oftentimes was a lot less cumbersome and heavy than we've been lead to believe by watching too much Hollywood. All those huge giveaway swings kinda indicate that the weapon weilded is heavy, but in reality they were not rarely quite nimble.
The dane axe, moving back on topic again, was a perfect example of this. The dane axes were most likely quite nimble, with thin axe blades and not at all a "chrushing" type axe. Compared to a wood-chopper axe which we've all tried out, it would weight a lot less. Kinda interesting I thought when I saw that.
youtube suggestion if you are interested
I can recommend schola gladitoriae on youtube if you are interrested. He's thorough, does his research and portrait things and historical facts objectively. He's mostyl into medieval weaponry and later era sabres, but I like most of his videos. For armor I think Knyght Errant is very good. He talks a lot abouut plate armor and I've learned a great deal about this watching just a few of his videos. Among others, that plate armor was NOT so unweildy as I thought! You can actually run in it, climb in it and even do those stupid dodge-rolls you often have in games! I gotta admit, I was under the impression plate wait was thicker and weighed much more. It was a revelation for me and made such armor in games much more immersive for me.
Do you know how hard it is to find actual authentic images of vikings on Google?
Wild guess here. But... could it be because Vikings were not around when cameras were around? I mean, that's just a wild guess and all...
Obviously, but they had pictures. We do know what northmen actually looked like, but not many modern images like to show this, preferring instead the Hollywood image.
@Skatan yep, the two-handed Dane axe was more agile than people think. A skilled used could move it quite quickly and use the haft to block attacks. When most people think of two-handed weapons, they think of big "raaagh" attacks that anyone can dodge. Also, I've seen several of Schola Gladitoria's videos, as well as Skallagrim's and Lindy Beige's.
Slightly off-topic, but in terms of getting things right, HBO's Rome does a pretty good job of portraying actual Romans without the Hollywood BS.
@Fardragon true, but my point is, with things like this combined with other stuff - writings, scraps recovered from burial sites, etc - historians have a pretty good idea what northmen looked and dressed like, enough for us to create what is generally accepted as an accurate portrayal. But finding such a portrayal online is very difficult when a Google Images search for 'vikings' tends to yield mainly images which are either obviously fantasy creations, or from the TV show, and don't even try to use existing sources to create anything resembling an accurate portrayal.
Granted, it's hard to make an accurate image using tapestry, so we've had to make a few leaps of logic, but we know that northmen wore mail. We also know that biker's leather armour wasn't a thing in that period. Yet most films and TV shows don't even try to look at actual sources from actual historians, preferring instead to go "oh, medieval? Let's throw lots of random leather with studs and fur - this must be accurate because I saw it on a fantasy art page, and D&D is basically medieval, right?", so people watch this stuff and think "based on real events? Yeah, that must be how vikings dressed!", and I just wish films and TV shows based on actual historical events would make a bit more of an effort. Anything set 18th century or later seems to be able to get it right, but as soon as it goes before that they don't even try.
Anyway I'll stop now because this is turning into a rant. :P
Slightly off-topic, but in terms of getting things right, HBO's Rome does a pretty good job of portraying actual Romans without the Hollywood BS.
Rome is still the best historical (pre-modern age) series ever made IMHO.
On that, we can agree. I was so very bummed that they stopped ROME after two seasons "because it was too expensive."
Tell that to GoT, right? :-/ IIRC it was the most expensive show shot to (that) date but compared to the money that's in tv shows today I guess it was peanuts.
Granted, it's hard to make an accurate image using tapestry, so we've had to make a few leaps of logic, but we know that northmen wore mail. We also know that biker's leather armour wasn't a thing in that period. Yet most films and TV shows don't even try to look at actual sources from actual historians, preferring instead to go "oh, medieval? Let's throw lots of random leather with studs and fur - this must be accurate because I saw it on a fantasy art page, and D&D is basically medieval, right?"
I think it is, however, logical to think they also wore fur and leathers - considering they were indeed "Northmen." I don't think they slept in mail, and probably dressed in leathers, wool and furs, during their day to day life.
Tell that to GoT, right? :-/ IIRC it was the most expensive show shot to (that) date but compared to the money that's in tv shows today I guess it was peanuts.
I agree. While I enjoy Game of Thrones... they clearly dumped a lot of money into it, during Season 1, before they knew it was going to be the big hit wonder that it would become.
Granted, it's hard to make an accurate image using tapestry, so we've had to make a few leaps of logic, but we know that northmen wore mail. We also know that biker's leather armour wasn't a thing in that period. Yet most films and TV shows don't even try to look at actual sources from actual historians, preferring instead to go "oh, medieval? Let's throw lots of random leather with studs and fur - this must be accurate because I saw it on a fantasy art page, and D&D is basically medieval, right?"
I think it is, however, logical to think they also wore fur and leathers - considering they were indeed "Northmen." I don't think they slept in mail, and probably dressed in leathers, wool and furs, during their day to day life.
As I mentioned earlier in this thread, linen was the most common fabric of that time, linen with not seldom vibrant colors. Winter time then of course wool was used a lot, but leather was probably not that common. Of course people wore leather and fur coats, but some weird fur wrapper around your fore arms? Who in their right mind would ever wear that? Just use your logic, if you wouldn't wear that yourself, then why would a historical person have done it?
As I mentioned earlier in this thread, linen was the most common fabric of that time, linen with not seldom vibrant colors. Winter time then of course wool was used a lot, but leather was probably not that common. Of course people wore leather and fur coats, but some weird fur wrapper around your fore arms? Who in their right mind would ever wear that? Just use your logic, if you wouldn't wear that yourself, then why would a historical person have done it?
Don't ask a loaded question like that - because most of what they wear, I'd totally wear.
I guess for me, it's not "totally" out of place - and because it's a drama show (not an actual historical show), I am fine with it. I love the stories (despite historical differences from actual events), and I especially love the characters.
Comments
I've enjoyed not every episode but many of them.
The first season was particularly cool because it had a lot of daily life type stuff. It was neat how they explained how Ragnar was able to solve some sailing challenges and open up opportunities to sail further than ever.
I've been meaning to watch it for some time, and I'm fine with it being pretty much 100% fantasy. I just don't like it when they try to pass off fantasy for history.
Personally I'd say it requires a bit more fantastical elements than that to be called fantasy, but some might differ. I just twinge a little every time it's called a "history show" as if it was a show about the Tudors or Napoleon
The way it passes of the vikings reigion though just make me cringe everytime, heh.. its so hollywood I doubt the writers have even bothered to read a single wiki page, hehe
One thing I just can't stand though, and this is really my only caveat with these shows, is the hollywood obsession of dressing everyone in BROWN LEATHER! I mean wtf? Haha, it's so funny and tragic at the same time, that hollywood tries to create what they believe their viewers think is cool and ppl see so many such shows they start to believe that was actually how ppl was clothed back then that new hollywood shows have to do the same to not be accused of being "unhistorical" XD Why so afraid of colors?
It's the best show portraiting the age I've found so far. I wasn't so keen on the Last Kingdom myself. I read the first book and liked it, but the show was a bit mediocre unfortunately. Not bad, just not that good to keep me interested.
I'd say it wouldn't change the grittiness the slightest if they had accurate clothing. I mean, would anyone actually feel the show was even more gritty and dark if all their shields was black/brown/grey? No, then why the clothes?
Anyways, not starting an argument here. Just find it interesting that you see this weird cliché over and over again in shows - the leather obsession.
And when you get on to the often filmed Tudor period, you are dealing with fashions that change as frequently (for the rich) as they do in our time. So you end up with the equivalent of 1970s and 1950s clothing side by side.
https://3.bp.blogspot.com/-bQBTfpRiiEw/UEeDZbEB50I/AAAAAAAACrE/P5fa9b44sXs/s1600/viking-axe.jpg
https://www.jorvik-viking-festival.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2013/10/About-Festival.jpg
http://www.vikingsofmiddleengland.co.uk/images/bandofbrothers.jpg
The second one has the majority of dark colors (blacks and browns) except for their shields... and in the show, the shields are even colorful. For example: https://nerdist.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/02/v4_20_03112016_jh_27104-e1485982335158-970x545.jpg
The only real difference is - in the show they don't wear metal helmets that frequently.
And the third picture, same as above; it's pretty dark colors - only the helmets are the things that stand out.
Granted, in the shot you just posted, the guy nearest the camera has what looks like a gambeson, so top marks for that... but he lets himself down with that leather apron thing that he wears over it! Just why??
I get that they want cool looking armour, but I personally think actual norse armour looks cool enough, are viewers really going to look at an actual northman and go "that doesn't look cool at all, I'm not watching this!"? XD Just once I'd like to see a viking film/tv show with proper armour - gambesons and mail hauberks - and not the ridiculous fur-and-leather ensembles that Hollywood is obsessed with.
eta: it's kind of like somebody doing a Vietnam War film but having the GIs wearing modern SWAT gear that's been dirtied up, combined with riot gear from all other countries and with random biker accessories, and deliberately broken up so it looks old and worn. XD
And weight too - I doubt actors have the strength and stamina of real vikings!
I am not one of those people who gets hung up on trivial details. As long as they don't do something too crazy ("What? A UFO comes down from the sky!"), and they tell a telling story, with great depth to their characters - count me in.
It's like any book to movie you watch; they always change things. Sometimes it's major, sometimes it's trivial. If you're one of those people who get caught up on the trivial details of things like that - save the time and don't watch it. You're just going to be frustrated by the experience.
Thankfully, every time an episode of Vikings ends, I am left wanting to watch the next one - immediately! Right.
Because he looks like someone who couldn't have the strength and stamina of a real Viking to wear the armor, compared to the cosplayers who wear the armor.
Spoilers to follow!
It's hard to tell this episode - who is crazier! Bishop Heahmund or Ivar the Boneless! Bishop Heahmund is definitely a bad ass - though, there's bound to be consequences for going against his Prince (and indirectly, his king) and further gaining the wrath of the Vikings when Ubbe and Hvitserk approached them about ceasing the fight and just wanting the land they were promised. And it was quite surprising, in the end, to see Hvitserk side with Ivar... I felt that was a bit out of character for Hvitserk, who seemed to side with the other brothers about Ivar's madness... So I am hoping we see why Hvitserk switched sides.
What this is leading up to - with the Civil War feeling - is going to be epic!
And yes, it is a drama and not a documentary, but considering it's a) shown on the History Channel and b) about real people in a real time and place that really exists, people are naturally going to assume that it's at least partially real, and start thinking vikings dressed like that. Changing minor details is one thing but changing history is something I can't forgive... but that's just me. When I watch a historical tv show, I want to see it like it was.
[quote]and I think earlier TV shows have muddied the waters - some of the simpler authentic outfits are now associated with cheezy 1950s TV shows like "the legend of Robin Hood".[/quote]
Yeah, I think there's some truth in that, tbh. Modern fantasy images have become far more appealing, and far more widespread. Do you know how hard it is to find actual authentic images of vikings on Google?
I think I've recalled reading a properly dressed soldier in roman and medieval times wore about the same total equipment weight as modern day soldiers, which is around 30 kilos. I dunno the authenticty of such a claim, but it wouldn't surprise me if it's correct. A lot of the info I've learned watching medieval/historcial scholars on youtube shows that weapons and armor oftentimes was a lot less cumbersome and heavy than we've been lead to believe by watching too much Hollywood. All those huge giveaway swings kinda indicate that the weapon weilded is heavy, but in reality they were not rarely quite nimble.
The dane axe, moving back on topic again, was a perfect example of this. The dane axes were most likely quite nimble, with thin axe blades and not at all a "chrushing" type axe. Compared to a wood-chopper axe which we've all tried out, it would weight a lot less. Kinda interesting I thought when I saw that.
youtube suggestion if you are interested
I can recommend schola gladitoriae on youtube if you are interrested. He's thorough, does his research and portrait things and historical facts objectively. He's mostyl into medieval weaponry and later era sabres, but I like most of his videos. For armor I think Knyght Errant is very good. He talks a lot abouut plate armor and I've learned a great deal about this watching just a few of his videos. Among others, that plate armor was NOT so unweildy as I thought! You can actually run in it, climb in it and even do those stupid dodge-rolls you often have in games! I gotta admit, I was under the impression plate wait was thicker and weighed much more. It was a revelation for me and made such armor in games much more immersive for me.
@Skatan yep, the two-handed Dane axe was more agile than people think. A skilled used could move it quite quickly and use the haft to block attacks. When most people think of two-handed weapons, they think of big "raaagh" attacks that anyone can dodge. Also, I've seen several of Schola Gladitoria's videos, as well as Skallagrim's and Lindy Beige's.
Slightly off-topic, but in terms of getting things right, HBO's Rome does a pretty good job of portraying actual Romans without the Hollywood BS.
This is about as representational as art got, and this was around 300 years later.
Granted, it's hard to make an accurate image using tapestry, so we've had to make a few leaps of logic, but we know that northmen wore mail. We also know that biker's leather armour wasn't a thing in that period. Yet most films and TV shows don't even try to look at actual sources from actual historians, preferring instead to go "oh, medieval? Let's throw lots of random leather with studs and fur - this must be accurate because I saw it on a fantasy art page, and D&D is basically medieval, right?", so people watch this stuff and think "based on real events? Yeah, that must be how vikings dressed!", and I just wish films and TV shows based on actual historical events would make a bit more of an effort. Anything set 18th century or later seems to be able to get it right, but as soon as it goes before that they don't even try.
Anyway I'll stop now because this is turning into a rant. :P
http://www.imdb.com/best-of/top-10-tv-shows-of-2017/ls027788731/?ref_=ls_mv_sm
I guess for me, it's not "totally" out of place - and because it's a drama show (not an actual historical show), I am fine with it. I love the stories (despite historical differences from actual events), and I especially love the characters.