[ad_1]
For years, Vikings have been a source of fascination in movies and television. One of the earliest examples of content related to the Norse fighters was the aptly titled 1958 film The Vikings. Starring acting legend Kirk Douglas, the film told the story of a slave and a Viking prince who are fighting to win the affections of a captive princess. While made before historical fact-checking was so readily one’s disposal, The Vikings attempted to include several historical elements, attempting to mimic their ships and weaponry.
More recently, Vikings were portrayed in the Robert Eggers’ movie The Northman. This story was far more violent than that of the Kirk Douglas movie, choosing to show a Viking prince’s quest for vengeance for his father’s death. This year, Vikings will work their way into the cultural milieu through the How to Train Your Dragon live-action remake, which mixes history and fantasy. Now, a key TV series about Vikings is under review by a historian.
Historian William Short Reviews Vikings
And It Is Not Very Accurate
The TV series Vikings gets reviewed by a real historian. The epic period drama began in 2013, releasing its initial seasons on the History Channel before being switched to a Prime Video-first release in the latter half of season 6. Spanning just under 100 episodes, this series tells the story of a Viking warrior looking to explore. Vikings featured a leading cast including Gustaf Skarsgård, Katheryn Winnick, Alexander Ludwig, and Georgia Hirst.
In an interview with Insider, historian William Short breaks down some scenes from Vikings, evaluating their accuracy. Short took issue with several of the elements in Vikings, including the use of the shield wall and the portrayal of a Viking group hoisting their ship over a mountain, the latter of which he said would not happen. Overall, he rated Vikings a 4 out of 10 for accuracy, saying “a lot of the details seem to transpire in this ‘what if’ fantasy world.” Check out the full quote from Short below:
This kind of sneaking up on the castle, probably not. Vikings were pretty direct about what they did. Now they did use ambushes quite a bit, that was a very standard battle technique. But it was very different. What you do is you would be intelligence about where your enemy was going to be and when, and you’d go there and wait for them with a superior force. It’s not like you jump out of the bushes, or sneak up on them. You just wait and then when they arrive, you start fighting.
The shield wall we see in this clip and numerous others really do not depict the shield wall as it was used in the Viking age. Shield wall, the ancient word for skjaldborg, it was mainly used to protect against projectiles, so that the king could observe and issue his orders, and then it would be taken down and they could continue the fight.
The shield wall was meant to be a defensive structure thrown up temporarily and then taken down again. So having archers behind the shield wall, probably not so likely. Have archers further back from the front of the lines, definitely. That was very much a thing.
So what they’re using here is some kind of boom chain. Something stretched across the river that’s underwater until the last moment, and can be pulled up to stop the ship at the appropriate moment. Now even in Viking lands, these kind of underwater obstacles were used, especially around trading towns and try to minimize the possibility that raiders might attack trading towns, because trading towns were very desirable targets for raiders. A lot of welt, so chains, underwater obstacles such as posts and booms that were held below the water’s surface, all of these were used.
They’re lifting their ships over the moutains and dropping them on the other side so they could said to Paris. That’s not a Viking approach at all. That’s way off. They just sailed up the river. Viking ships were the technological marvel of their age. It’s what Vikings had and what other European lands did not have. And one of the advantages of their ships is they were very shallow draft. They didn’t need much water to float the ship. And so sailing up the river to Paris was no problem for them.
Now we know that Vikings did portage their ships, especially in the river systems of Eastern Europe. When they sailed on trading voyages from the Baltic Sea down to the Black Sea. It seems likely that the way they would portage a ship over land is with wooden rollers. Just dragging it, probably mostly with human power, maybe by horses.
I think I would rate this 4. The Vikings TV show uses historical people, names of people, historical places. But a lot of the details seem to transpire in this ‘what if’ fantasy world where people with Viking names have been dropped into something that’s not very Viking.
What This Means For Vikings
The Series Was Lower-Ranked Than Other Viking Content
Given its History Channel connection, this is a pretty surprisingly low score for Vikings. The rating is even lower than the 1958 movie The Vikings, which Short gave a 5 out of 10 accuracy rating. Overall, this minimal adherence to accuracy did not seem to affect the series, which ran for six seasons and was nominated for copious awards. In terms of accuracy, however, Short better recommends The Northman as an example of a well-researched story about the Viking era.
Source: Insider / YouTube
[ad_2]
Source link