The problem with the theory is that it originates from him wanting Ivar to have had the same disability as himself. From that starting point, he seizes upon anything that might hint at that version of events and ignores everything that contradicts it. Good history and archaeology comes from examining the evidence and drawing conclusions from it, not from starting with a conclusion and searching for evidence to support it.
But because he has a disability doesn't disqualify him from doing his own research. But because of this its understandable about the bias. It must of sounded brilliant when you typed that, but it really doesn't touch on the context of the documentary.
Wish they used Scandinavian historians in the translation of the Viking Sagas. The British always screw the interpretation of the theory in their favor.
I'm from Western Norway and our regional dialects are direct ancestors of old Norse. If we call someone "beinlaus", we are nearly always referring to someone being very agile.
Just before I read your print , I thought also of the meaning of boneless and I thought about agility . That he could move as if he had no bones. Movements of a karate expert or even a dancer. Fluid and motionless ! He should be glad he was born in the land of the Norsemen , the Spartans would have thrown him off a cliff if he was deformed !
I'm in western Norway (Hordaland, Bergen) , but haven't heard quite such a phrase. The closest I can think of is talking of "rubber" in relation to people being very agile and able to bend and twist in all sort of ways. But I agree it's one of the interpretations of Beinlause. Normally, in the Viking Age, people used very visual traits, and gave some sort of "nicknames", only that the "nicknames", as for example in Native American naming traditions giving more names to describe personality, in Norway-Denmark, it was very directly. Like Harald Bluetooth, probably had a blue/black tooth, after drinking a lot of mead (edit: honey that have sugar, and make teeth decay quickly) perhaps. Or Bjørn Jernside (ironside) describing the strong warrior, who cannot be outsmarted in a weapon fight, and can take hard attacks, as if made of iron. So I think "boneless"/Beinlause, have to mean lacking either legs or bones, since the word is the same. I liked the Vikings TV-show interpretation of a child that would normally or SHOULD have been put into the forest to die from exposure, to save such children of suffering.
The love of my life had brittle bone disease (O.I.) had his legs amputated at 16 yr old due to the intense pain and lived his life in a wheelchair and drove a cab for a living, even had a 3 wheeled trike built like a Harley from scratch, but the brakes failed day one out of the box and he ended up on a ventilator in ICU for 9 months with hydrocephalous, they finally shunted him and sent him home and he died 3 days later from congestive heart failure. That man may have been 3 ft tall physically but he was 10 ft tall in my eyes. God rest your soul John Smith. I will see you again my love.
As a danish I grew up with the viking tales and sagas. For me benløse/ boneless means cruelness. So when I watched the movie The Vikings, I trought that the character af Ivar the Boneless was so wrong, the actor who plays Ivar in the movie is great though. In my view as a danish speaking "benløse" doesn't mean a disability or lost of legs. In danish we have a saying "ben i næsen" meaning "bone in the nose" translated that you have "extraordinary strong-will" or "don't care" making the ben/bone in Ivars name to careless. Then making careless to cruelness because you adding løse to ben. Løs (singular)/løse (plural) means "it's not there or it's not attached" And again vikings makes fun of the nickname and call Ivar den Benløse, saying that he has no strong-will or sorry my language he gives a sh1t, because Ivar was so extraordinary cruel. The danish people still makes funny or ironic nicknames to someone who accidentally did something extraordinary like the vikings did. One name from the viking sagas is Leif den Lykkelige (the happy one), but the meaning is wrong because again danish make fun in a ironic way, Lykkelig(e) means someone who is so happy, in reality it means the Lucky one, again because the vikings made fun of Leif who was extraordinary lucky, Lykke can mean both happy or lucky, then adding "lig(e) to it, it means the happy one. Leif is the son of Erik den Røde (Erik the Red, he had red hair, in Denmark many red haired have nickname as "the red" ="røde" instead of "den røde"). Erik the Red discovered Greenland and named it "Greenland". Only reason for that is to make people follow him to the land of plenty, but in reality it was fake. Leif discovered America, maybe that's why he got his nickname. He was lucky that he was able to come back to Greenland and tell the story of a new land in the west. Then made his nickname the happy one.
There's much more proof that he was boneless because "he could avoid enemy's weapons like he had no bones". Sometimes fellowmen portrays him as without any bones.
Beinløs or boneless as you say, could also mean being ruthless, or not having any moral or ethics at all. But then vikings felt no restraint in using sexual preferences.
If you read the sagas, upon hearing their father Ragnar was killed by King Aielle, Ivar's three brothers all demonstrated anger and remorse in usual Norse fashion. Not Ivar, he controlled himself, made a plan, and even appeared to ally himself with Aielle. Until it was time... The image in the sagas portrays Ivar as a strategic and tactical genius, almost to compensate for his disability. Proud to call him my 39th great-grand uncle.
Ivar was known to be a giant, have exceptionally strong arms (his bow was larger, and his arrows heavier than all around him), and be a berserker. Most definitely not a cripple.
I'm not saying that it COULDN'T happen, I'm simply saying you have to look at the historical facts surrounding Ivar. I've seen several documentaries with the Biddles and they have evidence that the site excavated was dated to 873, the year of Ivar's death. They didn't find the complete skeleton of the giant, and I thought they should have mentioned that. I think it's just as likely that the warrior buried by his lonesome with the boar's tusk and Thor hammer is Ivar as I do the giant, or a dwarf. The giant could simply have been a normal warrior. There isn't enough evidence in any direction to say what Ivar looked like...I feel for Nabil, and everyone needs a hero, but science and evidence should trump "well I like this idea, so it's true".
Ivar clearly produced astounding results with his tactical prowess, I think it's clear that the Vikings respected him for his cunning and brutality. Just like Ludwig Van Beethoven produced some of the world's most renowned and respected music. Good job Beethoven wasn't deaf. Oh wait.
I respect that he is trying to prove his hypothesis that Ivar was had brittle bone disease, but it's just an impossibility. If he had it there is no way he would have survived to adulthood growing up among Vikings.
To anyone here who wants to debunk this theory, please look up the osteogenesis imperfecta disease. There are several types of it. Type 1 is the most mild form while Type 3 is one of the most severe forms and is very disfiguring. Nabil likely has Type 3, and if Ivar did have brittle bone disease, IMO he more than likely had Type 1. If you watch the TV series "Vikings" you'll see this. So, according to this theory, Ivar did have brittle bone disease, but if he survived for as long as he did in the society, environment and era he lived in and with all the extreme physical activity he took part in, it's logical that he most likely had a much milder form of it than what Nabil has. But now that I think of it, looking at Nabil's roleplay here and then Alex Høgh Andersen's portrayal of Ivar in the TV series, it's interesting to see these two visions of Ivar having two different forms of the same condition.
A bit like feminism really. They claim there is no difference between male and female. This guy, on the other hand, claims that disability is not a disability.
I'm not going to make fun of this man's dissabilty, that's just too low like I see other users doing.But I can't agree with his last statement that he has resolved the mistery of Ivar... he didn't resolve anything. It's just a theory.
Ivarr was a Berserker, and boneless might just as well have meant he was agile or flexible as a boneless man. Just as heartless doesn't actually mean a person with no heart. We can only speculate what it might mean. He is also said to have been above average height. Strong as an Ox, eye of an Eagle, blood of a Lion... are all figures of speech. This video is a deliberate attempt to discredit Ivarr.
Yes, that's what Shaban wants! To discredit Ivar! Lol do you know how foolish you sound? It's clear Shaban admires Ivar, I think this shows more about you than him man. I think it bothers to admit that one of the greatest Viking warriors of all time might have been disabled. Ivar was a great man with disabilities, sorry if that makes you mad.
Matt White Wolf fair enough he may have been disabled but this guy is just determined that Ivan was like him now maybe he was maybe he wasn't But you have to admit the other options are just as plausible if not more so for example it could mean supple very athletic huge or impotent There was in fact bones found that suggested a Viking ruler as tall as 9 feet a bloke like this called boneless would perhaps be considered funny by vikings His only evidence was reading a passage about one kid called Ivar had limbs of grizzle that doesn't prove its ivar the boneless or that the child had brittle bone disease I don't see anymore proof than grasping at straws
Well you forget a pretty importand point, wich is that in the original sagas wich the tv show is based on Ivar was said to be carried on the shields of his warriors into battle because of his disability.
Why would he be a dwarf? Because he was called "the boneless"? Idiotic. Ivar was a well-known giant berserker who had to fight more ferociously than most other warriors. There's no way a 3 foot dwarf with no legs would be able to do that. Some think that Ivar had a genetic disease that meant he had brittle bones, but there are 8 different types of osteogenesis imperfecta ranging from mild to severe and lethal. Add to that, almost all chieftains back then were carried on a shield after victory in battle. It didn't mean they were crippled or injured. Crippled people in viking society would have become some kind of artisan. They would not be any good in war unless it meant making weapons or other useful items. It seems that this guy is just after some kind of selfish confirmation just to make himself feel better. Anyone can use a longbow. It proves absolutely nothing.
I know Vikings valued life but only a good life's worth living, battle, adventure protecting and providing, but is it not possible that if The great Ragnar lodbrok had a deformed son, he would not be killed? wouldn't that say something misleading about his own power, or a judgement from the gods? seem's hard to believe that anyone would survive beyond there 12th birthday with a diaese like that in medieval scandinavia
crippled people becoming artisans would only have occurred when becoming crippled as adults. Someone as badly crippled as Ivarr is being made out to be in this programme would have been exposed at birth, or quietly killed before adulthood was reached. Even artisans required some level of fitness to perfom their tasks. Warrior societies throughout history have practised exposure, from Spartan to Celtic, Roman to Mongol, the obviously weak were killed off.
Yeah but all those. warrior cultures are very different. The vikings were not as barbaric as the mongols and Celts, they were more akin to the roman and spartan cultures, In the ways of logistics and strategy, and being a legend in the viking saga's was more than being a great warrior, Many of there legends are from men that discovered half the known world, that being said Ivar was alive during a great shift in viking society, Gods were abandoned and kingship's were formed meaning lots of ideals could have changed. another example is william the conquers bloodline was riddled with mental and intellectual disease's and his bloodline can be traced back to Ragnar's brother Rollo.
MatthewsPick the Celts were no more barbarous than the Vikings, and they also travelled the world, including the Americas, but the fundamental thing that all warriors societies had was an obsession with physical perfection, especially in nobility. Irish nobles failing the test for kingship had their nipples removed to prevent them trying again, Vikings had the blood eagle, and other torturous executions. They were no less barbarous than any of the other warrior cultures. The Celts had a vast trade network that took them into Russia (the Rus were a Celtic people), and created much artistically too. The Mongols too had their artistic/civilsed side. Much can be said for the Viking, but no more or less than for any warrior society - look at the more recent Samurai society in Japan where artistic creativity went hand in hand with brutal bloodshedding.
Was anyone else really annoyed that these two people were handling thousands of years old bone, with their bare hands? As soon as I saw that I doubted the credibility of this documentary.
Who knows it's probably not even the real bone. A lot of the documentaries I see make molds of most things like that so they can be handled. They would keep the real one in some type of case.
big beard With the huge advances in genetic testing over the past 15-20 years they are learning a lot from bones. It is now common practice to wear gloves in the hopes of not contaminating them more. If they could get even a trace of genetic material it might identify his country of origin.
I don't think so. What makes you think so? The only possible similarity I heard him bring up was boneless disease. Otherwise, I didn't hear any other kind of comparison lofl.
+Mark H ..and that has driven more good stories, political careers, legacies, and world historical events then almost anything else has - re: L Ron Hubbard, Martin Luther King Jr, Hitler, Charlie Manson, Elon Musk (I guess we'll see about Elon)
I don't think it's nonsense, per se, I mean, Ivor was probably disabled but, yeah, it's not likely that he would happen to have the exact same disability and the evidence just isn't conclusive, one way or the other.
The thought of England as a collection of warring states seems totally crazy. We were never taught about the great heathen army, the Danelaw and Canute. We were taught about Alfred, that he was scolded by a poor spinster for burning her cakes when hiding from the Vikings in the Somerset levels, but it very one sided.
I guess that would make us all related somewhat as he, his mother and brothers are found in my ancestry from my mother's and,, my fathers side, (huh?)?? . ( im icelandic) Well that explains a lot, lol. My question is tho, if the giant in the grave is not Ivar, then who could it be? Doesnt match any particular saga, that I know of. Or does it? Anyone know of one that might? I've only read a few, translated, so, a Lotta questions. I don't know a lot about them.
I love how MOST of the historians in this video give multiple possibilities, but everyone in the comments says "it's this!" or "it's that!" The fact of the matter is that none of us were there. We will never KNOW. We will only have our own image of Ivar. A tall traditional Norseman, an impotent man, or a crippled warrior, etc. Until we invent time travel (if such a thing is even possible) then we will never know the condition of Ivar.
I don't understand why they call him boneless. In our language Danish the Word bein or ben as we say today, Means both leg and bone but you think of a leg when you hear the Word beinlausi and not bones. I have brittle bones and it is called knogleskørhed. The Word knogle is mostly used for bones and not bein. And in our language when you hear the name Ivar den benløse, you think of him as having no legs and not of him having no bones. And he may very likely have lost his legs somehow. I think this man very much wants Ivar to have the same condition as he himself to show that you can still be a wellknown brutal viking inspite of it.
This is rather pathetic in a way. Nabil is determined for his theory to be correct- his entire approach to history is entirely non-historic: he has drawn his conclusion, and then goes out in search of the evidence to prove it, in a complete inversion of proper analytical research. When the evidence indicates that his theory is flawed, he dismisses it as "irrelevant" and disregards it.
Thanks, now i dont have to write that exact comment. This guy wants so badly for his "idea" to be factual that he will not be disproven even when he is proven absolutely wrong...suck he had a shitty life, but it doesnt make him right
Tom Nutts there wasn´t exactly contradicting evidence, besides people who had found a giant and were fixated that he in particular was Ivan the boneless, his theory is a pretty reasonable assumption according to the Sagas, the strong theory that he has brittle bone disease has been a strong theory suggested by historians as early as 1949.
oliskranz 1. There is plenty of evidence against the theory- it just receives very little attention in this programme because the moment an historian, archaeologist or scientist differs to his view that's the last we hear of them. 2. In any case, the fact that you don't find much to disprove a theory does not therefore prove the theory, especially as there is even less so-called evidence to support the theory. Pulling a theory out of thin air and then seeking desperately to find something to justify it is the absolute antithesis of all logical research processes. 3. The theory is not strong, despite you saying so (twice in the same sentence, for some odd reason). 4. 1949 is not early.
Tom Nutts this theory is strong, you are very uneducated on the subject, this is not a theory pulled out of thin air, and all of the historians fields in this video are not old Norse culture, literature or vikings specifically. "Beinlaus" means boneless in Icelandic but it also derives from an older definition meaning leg specifically, the Sagas describe him as being born with legs as soft as cartilage and had to be carried everywhere from birth. This is by far the most likely alternative.
I can see the logic behind the argument he may have been disabled- but surely almost all infants found to be deformed or disabled, would have been killed at birth? The vikings, more than any culture, had no place for weakness.
***** different cultures had radically different attitudes towards the disabled, Spartans where Eugenicists and killed all disabled at birth, but the Egyptians where the opposite, Tutankhamen turned out to have brittle bones, and many elaborate canes were made for him.
KungKras I never said they were- but it was common practice all throughout history across almost every culture- that if a baby was born with a disability, it would be taken out to the woods and left to die- people back then thought it was an act of mercy.
showgo You don't know how every norseman (Viking is a profession) thought and felt. Ivar's father was a king. His sons probably didn't need to farm to survive.
KungKras Of course not. But we do know what kind of culture they had. We do know what qualities they revered and what kind of gods they worshiped. All of these things lend credence to the fact that they respected strength. This is backed by facts. No, the nobles did not have to farm. What nobles had to do was be able to fight. That was the whole point of nobles in this time period. The Karls tended the farms and the Jarls were the fighting class. That was their job. The "king" was just the senior Jarl. He was not a king like in the Disney movies. Kings during this time had to be able to fight, since that was their primary job. You should read up on early feudalism, or the social hierarchy of the Vikings.
this was one of the best documentaries i have seen. not saying i learned a ton of history from it but the will power and inner strength of nabil as he draws lines between his own struggles and those of a viking berserker brought tears to my eyes.
The vikings were pretty sophisticated. Not all of them were berzerkers. I can imagine that Ivar's powerful brothers knew about his intellect, and respected him for it.
Stormmblade Grammar is very important to the Nazi party. how was I supposed to know that? the whole documentary is talking about the possibility of him being in battles and being a Berserker.
Ivar the boneless was most likely very double jointed to the point of being able to contort , bending himself to the extreme . This is why he would be though of as boneless , it would also give him an advantage in battle being more flexible than the average man . Leaders were chosen for excellent fighting ability .
James Trump I agree, he probably had Ehlers-Danlos Syndrome, which is mostly an invisible illness, as it causes most damage internally, one symptom is dislocations as well as increased flexibility. I have this and I didn't start to become disabled in my late 20's. So it's quite possible.
I find this a very interesting video. The idea that Ivar The Boneless had brittle bone disease is both consistent with the evidence in the sagas, but also fits well with what I have learned about Viking society of the time. Among themselves they were not a lawless, uncivilized band of thugs, but had rules that bound them. A disabled prince, if he was brilliant, and earned respect may well have become a leader. In fact, his condition may have made him viewed as somewhat other worldly, someone in a way sacred, or special in the eyes of the gods. Remember that Loki is a dwarf.
This little man is so full of himself that he would "postulate" a theory and then try to bully people into saying they agree with him, and conclude his "theory" is the truth despite no evidence to support it?! Did anyone else notice how those he questioned seem to catch their breath when he demanded that they agree? What an ego on this person! Even if Ivar were a cripple, there are hundreds of conditions that could cause crippling. He did not even consider any other illnesses. Names were not literal and often were tongue in cheek, as they pointed out, but he scoffs at that. If we took names literally , Ragnar Lodbrok would wear furry breeches, Bjorn Ironside would have had a metal plate, and Sigard Snake in the Eye would have to have a snake in his eye. He refuses to see the creativity, and humor Vikings were said to have had. I call bs on his whole theory as many other conditions fit the profile too.
Agesilaus II (/əˌdʒɛsəˈleɪəs/; Greek: Ἀγησίλαος Agesilaos; c. 444 - c. 360 BC), was a Eurypontid king of the Ancient Greek city-state of Sparta, ruling from approximately 400 BC to 360 BC, during most of which time he was, in Plutarch's words, "as good as thought commander and king of all Greece," and was for the whole of it greatly identified with his country's deeds and fortunes.[1] Small in stature and lame from birth, Agesilaus became ruler somewhat unexpectedly in his mid-forties. His reign saw successful military incursions into various states in Asia Minor, as well as successes in the Corinthian War; although several diplomatic decisions resulted in Sparta becoming increasingly isolated prior to his death at the age of 84 in Cyrenaica. He was greatly admired by his friend, the historian Xenophon, who wrote a minor work about him titled Agesilaus.
Even today the Swedish word for bone and leg is the same (Ben). Wen we say boneless its the same as saying legless. This is a simple translation error. Sorry bro
psnl and not "factually" aligned w this documentaries delivery of facts... But this comment of information leads me to honor my brother. At 38, in dec of 2016, my brother, Ben, passed away of CML leukemia. A blood disease to which is a terribly painful leukemia that when "blast crisis" occurs in the patient, it's indescribable pain that transpires WITH IN the bones. it wasn't known to me that his belief system was drawn on this pre Christ, "organization" of a fascinating and powerful people. in '08, he carved the interlocked triangle on a tree on a camping trip in Utah w friends. Lsd on that camping trip, i dont know. But i was his caretaker when initially discharged from the hospital after 6 or 8 weeks in ICU here in Miami, in acute medical crisis. He lost his vision and hearing. His vision returned. Was not blurry but the "landscapes" of his vision tiltled and his balance was off until it worked itself out. His hearing was 15% in one ear, 50% in the other ear. He was homeless 3 months prior to diagnosis and not to my knowledge. Less than 10 blocks away from me... Prideful. Not a sympathy seeker. Private. Quiet. Non confrontational except when we were throwing blows kicking eachothers asses as kids growing up lol until someone was bleeding, we didn't stop. and we fought when a parent wasn't home. I have a scar on my eyelid where he cracked me w the wood handle of a broom. it's my favorite scar. when he passed, i accessed his electronics, my cousin extracted all the images and files from his tablet and phone. Where I came across the interlocked triangle. I tattooed it on my outer wrist. I did a gofund me and raised $6700 for his personal needs and use. when discharged, we skipped (i was in charge of him and he followed my say) the insurance bureaucracy and potential limited options of shit, went to costco and bought him a $1200 hearing aid for the 50% ear. In June he was diagnosed, miraculously i got him on the list for a cochlear implant surgery w the hospital. Day of surgery or maybe nearly upcoming, he was, we were informed he would not be able to recieve the implant and not on the surgery schedule anymore. before the next part, of this novel i'm not writing out lol (in his honor, and his belief system that WAS HIS faith) he sat in a waiting room from like 7am to 1pm, unable to hear his name called (i typically attended his appts, by now he had the one hearing aid, a Pre-Op appt, but was lawst in the sawce on his tablet) Intermittently, i checked in w him on status and after no progress, around 12 noon, i called the nurses desk, she informed me he wasn't going to see the doctor and not going to recieve the implant. i made a disclaimer and informed her, i breathed slow maybe 3 times, apologized first, and then went ABSOLUTELY BERSERK, ABSOLUTELY BERSERK that my DEAF brother as INDICATED in every appt he had. Up to 5-6 appts a week, I went ballistic. I called a Gods blessing friend and client of mine, that was the former CEO of that hospital, explained. Following text from my brother was that he was in a room, nurses were bringing him a lunch and what would he like, the Doctor saw him, and he was given a day and time to come in for the implant. He wore Thors hammer. He grew beards when the chemo made every hair on his beard fall out. when he was taken off the life support, at 6'4", his heels hung off the hospital beds. after 7:37 seconds, he passed. His chest, his rib cage, rose. Expanded maybe four times normal. I thought he was going to blow and backed up petrified lol He managed a diet that consisted of healthy and unhealthy fatty foods to maintain a good weight though so ill. When his chest didnt blow, i returned to his bedside. As a Catholic along w my kids, ex husband, ex in laws, father and his wife, we said the Lord's prayer, maybe shouted at times to drown out the coding alarms interfering with the overwhelming sadness of losing my now dead brother. A priest the night before, was called at came and gave his last rites. To show his objection to this, when i moved from holding his head in my hands to the foot of the bed, i knocked his catheter bag and got warm piss all over my sandled feet. 💜 same to my little brother. ha but. i selfishly did it for me. i didn't know he had this faith or belief system but fell on my faith in the true honor and labor of love managing and being his caretaker for the first year and a half. With the go fund me monies, i got him his passport, for the first time, he went to scotland for 30 days and met our aunt, uncle and cousins that we had never met or spoken to because my mom didnt raise us in the US in touch or spoken to off this family. It REACHED HIS SOUL. when he returned to Miami, he cried for TWO days missing the family, the connection and couldn't wait to go again. When my brother's chest rose like it did, i saw valiance i never saw in him before. And wished him all the JOYS possible once i learned of Valhalla. and know when not to wandering the over 100,000 million universes, and visiting me, he returns to Valhalla and was well ahead of his time. He denounced organized religion years back. And died a whole man. with dignity. an intuitive truth to his, our ancestry and it was ashes. that rendered him boneless. 💜 to which he is always near. ps. found out few days ago, we are only two generations scottish and Irish completely prior. im the odd one out and first generation American. And have a greater understanding of myself in identifying myself with a Berserker. Cause I went for BLOOD many times on his behalf when there was ANY difficulties in him receiving necessary referrals and appts etc. And i would do it all over again for him, if I could. Boneless Ben and the Berserker lol Now I understand it was the DNA coming out of nowhere. And I do believe he was a tremendous person dedicated to the love of practicing and finding hope, in his pagan faith or wtvr u want to call it. He was the smart one. Abs brilliant nerd. That was more hardcore than I could have ever imagined for all he endured in the pains of blast crisis's. ✌🏼🕊🤓 thx for allowing me the inspiration to respond to ur affirming to me, comment. Ben Preston 12/15/2016 💜
Whether or not you agree with the man's theory, I personally found this documentary to be quite interesting. If anything it should offer encouragement to those with physical - and indeed mental disabilities - by showing them that they are not limited to what they can achieve in life. If not Ivar, then Richard III who was a hunchback and was still written about in legend despite his disability. Such was the message I got and will take to heart. :)
Tachibana Dosetsu was crippled by a lightening strike. He was carried in a palanquin to the battlefield and never lost a battle. He may not have participated in battle, but he was a master strategist, and never went anywhere without his sword Chidori, which he renamed Raikiri (lightening cutter) as he believed the sword had split the bolt and saved his life. As far as Ivar, Imho, I think the name plays to the serpent legends. I can see that kind of thing happening in some cultures, but not Viking.
I stopped watching at the egyptian comparison. Saying the fact that a crippled egyptian was king means a viking half the globe away and centuries apart was a king too is idiotic. You could also say that the americans have airplanes so the romans obviously had airplanes too.
Yes, that argument was rather stupid. Not so much because of the time gap, but rather, the Nords and the Egyptians had COMPLETELY different cultures and belief systems. For the Egyptians, their Pharaohs were literal Gods, so no matter how bad they looked, what condition they had, or how fucking dumb they may have been, they would worship them. Nords had nothing like this, they, beside their religious beliefs, had more of a meritocracy, so this would have been far less likely. All in all though, I find the theory believable, and especially appreciated all the surrounding information and other theories.
Nabil's theory is interesting, but his methodology is flawed. Good history is like good science: you follow the evidence wherever it leads. You do NOT look to validate your preconceptions. Sagas written centuries after the fact, aren't any more compelling evidence of Ivar's physical condition, than the bones of an unidentified giant. The available evidence supports neither conclusion. What "could have been" - based on unrelated evidence - is purely speculative and irrelevant.
For those of you who watch the first five minutes and think this video will be one sided: It's not. Nabil Sheban does certainly bring up some good points as to why he would think Ivar was like himself. The historians give good reasons towards other theories. I suggest watching it all so that you can formulate your own theories. And hey, you get to learn about the exploits of Ivar the Boneless regardless of his nickname!
Nice that they present several ideas about Ivarr and several people speak their ideas, even discuss them, which is rare in a documentary. All fascinating possibilites, whichever you pick. Even some of the ideas in comments are interesting.
While I hate to burst his bubble and I'm more of a self taught expert on African and native American civilizations than Europeans ones, the probability of an extremely influential war leader to be born with Brittle bones disease is extremely improbable. Fewer than 20,000 US cases per year are reported from this genetic disease, and that's out our world today that has 7 Billion people. To think he had this disease out of everyone would not only be unconfirmable, but also unlikely. One historians said it best - "To think that butchers who parade or be led by someone who was inept" isn't logical. Vikings respected strength, feats of valor, pride, and determination. So it's not to say a cripple couldn't do anything in viking society. But War? That's a massive leap.
Ivar Ragnarsson, or as he was called, Ivar Beinlausi (boneless) was one of 4 sons of Ragnarr Loðbrók (Ragnar Lothbrok). Most likly he was born with lame feet. But brittle bones disease like the smurf in the wheelchair, I think not. His strenght was that he was one of Ragnars sons. He was a son of a king, and after Ragnars death, he was one of 4 kings that inherited Ragnars kingdom and people. So yes, people would folow him and his brothers even though he was a cripple.. BTW, not many years ago they found a grave where Ivar Boneless supposedly died. In that grave they found the remains of a wounded viking warrior that was lame..
Being carried into battle and being carried during a battle are different things. Ivar was a giant that wielded a bow that only he could pull because of his size and strength.
Nabil has some pretty interesting and valid points to make. Although it bucks the trend and obviously angers a lot of historians,the idea of a disabled king viking is not as ridiculous as first glance suggests.Dwarfs were/(are?) considered both mysterious and magical beings.It is entirely plausible that he strengthened other areas to compensate his disability,most notably his guile and tactical genius.Shield-bearing (like Vitalstatistix)has dual benefits, mobility and a better view for strategy.
Dennis Petersson I said vikings want to be led by a strong and cunning warrior. 21st century people will accept but in that era vikings would not want to be led by a disabled character. I am not hating on disabled people, but i am a realist it is hard to imagine vikings want to be led by a man who can't fight.
It wasn't a disability that set Ivar apart. It was his abilities. Sir Terry Pratchett ( Him diamond ) describes it as not just going spare, but going spare with precision. Ivar could wind up and focus not just his own gibbering rage. He could cold bloodedly wind up and focus the gibbering rage of the whole army. Ivar would have had to be on good terms with the battle leaders in his forces. Remember, Ivar would be the first born of Ragnar. He would have status from that. Also there was the terrible prophesy brought about by his father's disregarding his new wife's vision. Ivar was God touched. Whatever disability, if any, that Ivar had was living proof of the gods. We can't know who Ivar truly was, if he had any disabilities at all. Or what those disabilities were. The histories written about him weren't done until 4 or 5 generations later. And they were written by monks. Who would have their own axe to grind. They certainly wouldn't let fact get in the way of what the "Church" thought about him. So keep an open mind when watching these documentaries. History was written by the victors.
Sandra Nelson You obviously have never read anything about norse culture of the time. These kind of doc. are not meant to be taken seriously...it's a show..you know, to make money. This in particular is probably the stupidest documentary ever to be made.It is already sad that there's people ignorant enough to believe these bullshits, but then here you are advising everyone to be open minded with arguments that do not make any sense at all.I'm sure the very people who realized this program are aware this is just rubbish, but they probaly consider it rubbish that makes good audience...and i bet they too would laugh at your comment.
sventibaldo Sigh. That is what I meant. We don't know what really happened. All we have are the Norse sagas and the very dubious Christian monks'accounts. And mercy, those monks could hate a Viking. Was there a Viking leader named Ivar? Maybe. Was there something portentous about his birth? Beats the heck out of me. But some legend of the time came down generations that gave comfort to a people worshiping a very harsh God.
sventibaldo That short guy i believe he is wrong.If i am not mistaken by viking culture the strong and cunning would be leaders.I find it impossible if ivar looked like him he would not be respected by his army even if he was a military genius. It is more likely for him being a giant than a short guy with brittle bones. Though I do not truly believe why he was called boneless (it could be like the woman said by a reverse meaning).
Micheal Hurst May have got it right in his writing for the show Vikings... maybe Ivar wasn’t SO badly disabled he needed carried but could stand etc with crutches. Maybe he had one lame leg.. there’s so many possibilities.
I think he's opening up interesting ideas. I am of Scandinavian descent and have multiple sclerosis, this would be my theory as Vikings didn't have x-rays to say why a person's legs don't work and would just name it as he's "boneless". He may have been of any height, with paralysis of the legs. Also fun facts about MS: it affects Scandinavians more than any other ethnic group, it affects women 2x as often as men but when men get it it's more likely to be Primary or Secondary Progressive which is degenerative in nature (especially affecting the lower limbs like legs). I've never heard this idea discussed but knowing that it's degenerative, maybe he was a badass Viking dude that woke up one day having an exacerbation and lost the use of his legs after he had already earned the respect of his fellow Vikings. Remember, Viking is a verb, going "viking" meant going raiding and there were many farmers and fishermen and women in Scandinavia too. Just a thought.
Also, if you study gigantism, that can be dabilitating structurely too. I've no doubt that he was what we would classify as "disabled" today, giant or small an he must've overcome and become a great leader in his own right.
To be perfectly honest, i think this docu is completely idiotic. I can't see warriors following, and dieing in warfare, for a person that couldn't lead the way. Somebody who couldn''t be a paragon on the field in some way. Why would they die for the ambitions of a cripple who couldn't fight? This idea seems quite far fetched.
I think you are basing your ideas too much on how the fantasy genre tends to portray kings. Throughout history, kings were usually not on the frontlines rushing into battle, but - if at all part of the actual battle - well protected and further back. People in the frontlines have a tendency to die, and kings are usually not intent on dieing. While in viking society being more directly involved in the battle might have been considered more important than other societies, this still is very different from rushing headfirst into battle. I do know, however, that viking society was far from the hollywood-fueled beserker suicide culture usually portrayed. They did very successfully go on many raids and were great warriors using superior tactics, however, they also explored the world to great lengths, and more than anything, they were farmers, traders and settlers.
Now it can also be said that if a society that held the highest honor in "heaven" or Valhalla, for dying in combat and being courageous, would only follow strong warriors into combat would at first glance be true, but they were strategic geniuses and might have seen a disabled but brilliant, "cruel and undefeatable" person as a free ticket to winning every war and battle, which would then grant them highest honors and give them the highest chance to be closest to their gods
oliskranz They were traders and settlers. At times warriors and conquers. They did not had helmets with horns on them and didn't wield huge axes or went "berserk" in conflicts. Actually, i think they were quite normal for the time. I simply think that the ideas in this documentary are build up on more then flimsy evidences. So it seems to me at least.
kunstsein the theory that Ivar the boneless had brittle bone disease has been a strong one suggested by historians in this field specifically as early as 1949, Vikings did not always kill the handicap, there are known cases of retardation´s that were just taken care of by their brothers of family.
Since i accidentally deleted my long winded replay i will keep it short this time. I have seen this doc some time ago and read a bit on this legendary character on the net. And legendary is the key word here. It seems to me that the suggestion of an actual bone disease has very filmsy evidence behind it and is also contested by other scholars/historians. Which is normal i guess. I have no time right now to dwell in this subject matter, but if you have links to some good papers at hand i will come around and read them. So much for that. Cheers.
Imagine being a strong hardcore berserker killing anything in your path and then in the future they remember you as a brittle cripple because of some little delusional man...ain't that some shit
Osteogenesis imperfecta? Good grief, what a preposterous notion! It is much more likely that a reputed giant had the hyperflexibility of Marfan Syndrome--like Abe Lincoln--than that he suffered a rare autosomal dominant affliction that leads to locomotory disabilities and short stature. The saga--not an indisputable historical record--provides Ivar with a brother named Sigurd Snake-in-the-Eye. Since Marfan can cause partial lens dislocation, the syndrome fits both.
I'm thinking that if he had OI, it would be very unlikely he would have survived his early childhood no matter what precautions where taken. Possible? Yes. Likely? Not so much.
punkrock patti Good point. I'd say his chances would have been zero. I've read that the Scandinavians had a practice in which the father picked up a newborn he was willing to accept. If not ... Medieval Christians did something similar, not baptizing those they intended to leave to die of exposure. Infant mortality of all causes is a sad reality of societies in which they had inadequate medical care and could not afford to feed those with no hope of productivity. Some societies still selectively abort and abandon unwanted females.
archanth thats a very good theory, since the name :beinlausi is plural ,and its suggest it means loose bones:like hypermobility, and by the way there is a town here in Denmark that is named Benløse :wich in english means loose bones, at least in that context..i dont get how they can translate it in to boneless...
Esther haveland That's very interesting, thanks. I googled the town. Needless to say, my knowledge of Danish is less than minimal, so I asked Google to translate. It came up with this: "*Legless* was until the beginning of the 20th century, an ordinary village with church, grocery store and school around a pond." In colloquial English, "legless" means very intoxicated. Don't worry, I'd sooner believe your translation than Google's. I supposed some scholar translated it as "boneless" either because it sounds like boneless (bone-loose too, for that matter). Old Norse: Ívarr hinn Beinlausi; Old English: Hyngwar So, I checked the Old Norse Word Study Tool. "beinlauss boneless, without bones beinlausi ... adj sg masc nom" www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/morph?l=beinlausi&la=non&prior=%C3%8Dvarr Since Old Norse was similar to Anglo Saxon, perhaps the meaning has shifted in the last 1200 years?
punkrock patti i have OI! and a lot of men with TYPE I Osteogenesis Imperfecta are average height, often being as tall as 6 ft. but saying this, i completely disagree with the theory he suffered from the same condition.
Well I for one respect the heck out of that gentleman. He had a theory and really followed up on it rather than just following the crowd of other historians as so many modern historians do today - the amount of revisionists decrease every year and I'm proud to still be in the skeptics camp when it comes to historical events large and small. However I believe that someone with that sort of disease in a warrior culture would NOT have been able to survive past a few weeks old, and would have died.
The reason why Norwegians have the most beautiful women in the world and the Britain has the most ugly ones is because the Vikings kidnapped the beautiful ones and left the ugly ones when leaving to go back to Norway.
Sounds like Havelok, a Dane of exceptional size/extraordinary strength who married a Goldesburg and ruled in England for some time during the Viking period. Their descendants were known to belong to the House of Goldsborough/Goldsborough Hall.
The midget forgot to read the part where it says Ivar grew to big proportions, despite being crippled. He also forgot, that while "beinlausi" can mean bone-less, it can also mean "loose-legs", as in a person who doesn't stand still, ie: travels alot. Or as a hypermobile person. Bein = bone or leg, laus = loose or -less. Either way, the saga that specify him as legless says he grew very big despite of it. There's no chance for the arabic midgets theory.
Northern85Star I read it was bad translation. That beinlausi can also mean despicable and not boneless since the wording of those two words are similar in Nordic
charlie rosillo Always interesting to hear other theories! But i doubt that is true, since none of the "heroes" in the sagas has nicknames that are so negative - they're usually more specific regarding the characteristics of either the person, or regarding some great deed that made the person famous :) But of course i cant say for sure you're not right, without having studied the theory
Ivar the Boneless in Danish Ivar Benløs, it does not mean he was disabled, Boneless is a stupid translation Boneless/Benløs means litterally one who travelled far and wide. this is such a stupid documentary.
+Einheriar Benløs litteraly means Leg-less or bone-less, in modern danish, even the most basic google translate would show that, unless you meant in old norse or something.
great that makes a lot more sense :) this probably makes me a horrible person, but I cant take this serious and im almost about to laugh. Do you know how it became the boneless? is it those damned monks again trying to demonise the vikings?
+Einheriar thanks for your extra wisdom,, Vest Noron, is not terribly available.. can you point me to some work on that? I find many modern usages, are mistaken due to " , sound-alikes" with modern languages.. the english word "bloody" has nothing to doe with blood it is a contraction of By Our Lady, good By from God be with you. thanks for the info
This is such a bizarre premise for a supposed documentary on Ivar, basically this guy's quest for self-actualization. Oh wait, it's Discovery, never mind.
Could "boneless" mean that he had no courage. Him fighting with a bow referring to him fighting from afar, by directing armies. Him being carried into battle could be his visage or name on a flag, or his armies shields. He may not have wanted to suffer the same death his father did, unlike his brothers who seamed eager to fight.
In the ancient Nordic languages the wind is referred to as Mr.Boneless. So i assume it means he was fast or thread lightly with little sound. To be cowardice would be referred to as having little body hair or being like a cowardice animal of the forest.
no, he was a berserker, a frothing at the mouth, psychotic killing machine - when the berserksgangr was in full flow they were unstoppable, literally fearless two legged tanks. By definition a berserker cannot be a coward - they looked for a fight, and often if the enemy was insufficient, a berserker could turn on his comrades, such was their killing rage.
Paul Reid A maniac in a spasm of rage is easy to kill. A cold hard man possessed of his senses would easily dispatch a raging madman. Any one who has done any kind of fighting knows that to be true.
Erg Budster Yes cold hard man knowing and understanding what he is facing can dispatch frothing raging lunatic easily. Problem is that it is 21st century POV and 8th to 10th century POV would have been quite different, set of beliefs and general understanding of things would have be different then and seeing some thing like that coming at you you would have most probably thinked that it some kind of magic or monster and if you believe it to be magical or monster then how cold, hard and logical you could have remained ?
What annoys me is how historians, archaeologists and academics dismiss new theories on something just because it's not in their established theories...unless they were there, they don't know for sure...I'm open to new theories on anything that isn't proven fact and I'm just a lay-person. This is an interesting theory and I don't see why it shouldn't be true.
Are you serious? They are historians. Their theories are based off the evidence that they have, which can be found via texts, relics, archaeological diggings etc. People are free to make up whatever theories they want, but you can't seriously expect historians to believe your theory just because you think it possible? They never said it was impossible, but that they did not believe it was a realistic theory. I tend to agree with the historians on this one, since Vikings had lots of nicknames that were not supposed to be taken literally. The fact that they found a guy who could shoot a bow and was disabled, is simply not evidence enough for serious historians.
As an archaeologist I can say theories are not dismissed because they don't fit with 'established' theories, they are dismissed because they have no evidence to back them up.
calicheSCOT Even established "theories" have little or no evidence, that's why they are 'theories'. Unless someone finds proof, they will always remain exactly that. Therefore, although I know what you mean, new theories should never be summarily dismissed, just because the establishment doesn't like the idea.
As this figure lived many hundreds of years ago, we will never know. We have tales that he had to be carried into battle on a shield. It could be just as likely he was a tall man who had bad breaks that never healed properly. It is just as likely he had brittle bone disease without the dwarfism or had a degineritive disease of the muscles which cause his impotence
It's unfortunate they couldn't step outside a judeo-christian framework and do this without all the sensationalistic judgements. Oh well, that's what makes popular TV. Some decent info as far as chains Of events.
it's a bit irritating to hear him referred to by two different names. Eevar and Ivar ? You'd think if they were going to make such a documentary they'd agree beforehand what his name was.
I'd tend to sway twords he was a giant more than a dwarf. The Vikings were known for being big, ruthless tough men. And no disrespect but a man like the little guy could have easily been dispatched by a rival, so I don't believe they would be led by such a weak n physically challenged man... sorry
Yeah there's no way. In the beginning they mention the ancient indo European tradition of a strong, physically fit king. There's also an ancient indo European custom of discarding babies with any type of crippling birth defect. Ivar might have lost a leg, or been really tall. Or have problems with the ladies. All these theories are far more likely to be the case.
The above average height Vikings were like 168-170 cm and sure for the time it probably was taller than the average Anglo-Saxon but far from being giants
It's funny that these "academics" seem to play into the modern stereotype that vikings were crude, vicious barbarians, and that someone with a physical disability would be exterminated. The actual history shows that the Norse were mostly agrarian farmers, practiced some form of direct democracy, and were more egalitarian than other cultures at the time, particularly when it came to gender roles (women who engaged in battle as shield maidens, for example). Given that the saga does describe a "boneless" man with withered limbs being carried into battle, and that Ivar was above all the royal son of a legendary king, and in a culture that allowed for a great degree of equality, I personally think the guy in this film has a solid case that Ivar had brittle bone disease.
When ivar was a child he constantly fought other kids even killing several. Now if he truly had brittle bones his body would be in no condition to fight in adolescence. This guy's theory holds no water at all. He's just a sad little man looking for some way to validate his existence.
I think this is rather possible. The viking god Odin was not (primarely) the god of war, Odins primal attributes was knowlegde, yet he was the king of the gods... The vikings were not simple minded, drunk rapists who just attacked peacefull monks, they certantly had rather good knowledge and had strong millitary capacity. There is a reason why the vikings could DOMINATE most of europe for allmost 300 years. Also if you look at a norwegian king, kong Sverre, you can see that he was a king of strategic and there is also accounts that he in some battles was not fighting (at least a lot) but rather was in the background commanding. Now i know that Sverre was a christian king while Ivar was not, but i think that in this time it hasd little impact, there were still people having trells in Norway 200 years afther christianity was official and one powerfull king also more or less told the pope to go fuck him self(they were not that pious), -> they had the same mindset of the vikings, they just prayed to a different god.(FYI they were also tales that Jesus or Kvite Krist went to Åsgard and took over it by force, there were also tales that people met Odin in person up in the 1600 in Norway). I think he has support from the sagas, as there has been discovered that most of these text often have relatively high accuracy. In fact scientists ahve been able to locate forgotten cities and places by sagas and the bible. I think its clear that the vikings valued more than just physical capasity, and that wisdom was highly regarded. If you looka t håvamål you can see that it relates to wisdom rather than how to kill, it states that the greatest treasure one can have is not gold or silver, nor power, but wisdom; as no one can ever tae your wisdom away from you.
Interesting doc. Perhaps he did have some type of disability. After all, there has been a few leaders/conquerors who would seem unlikely to lead and inspire armies, like Timur the lame or Richard III. Hell even Napoleon was kind of an unlikely leader because of him being short. But whether a person would be able to lead an army and conquer a lot of land with a condition as bad as Brittle Bone disease, I don't know. The truth is when you're talking about events and people that far back in history, the only way you'll know everything about them for sure is if someone invents a time machine.
Richard III wasn't disabled and Napoleon was 5ft 6 average/fairly tall as Freek says.The misconception comes from presuming French inches were the same as British inches, they are not, they are longer per inch. Claudius was disabled and he conquered the English, probs a better example for your interesting point.
somniumisdreaming I have heard the modern day spin on Napoleon not being short as has always been depicted but I'm not sure I believe it. The reason being is I've read a quite a bit about Napoleon and I have yet to hear anyone, his enemies or his followers, describe him as being tall or average height. Rather, everyone used words like short, puny, skinny, etc to describe him. His own men nicknamed him the little corporal which was probably a sign of affection but at the same time you have to ask yourself how could that not pertain to his height in some manner? If you want my opinion I think this notion of Napoleon being tall or average height was secretly started by the French so they could over time remove the one stigma that has tarnished their national hero through out history. But then again as I said earlier, the only way we can ever know everything about history for sure is if we build a time machine and go back to see for ourselves.
KillerFrank I know he was a rather ill looking fellow but there are also contemporary accounts that he was 5ft 2 in French inches and other eye witnesses who said he was average height but sickly looking. Nevertheless as you say we don't have a time machine.
KillerFrank its simple really, its called revisionist history or the old saying that the winner writes history not the facts. Were you readind primary sources?
as for the legend of the danish viking (in scandinavia more correctly pronounced "veeking", Regnar Lodbrok, (father of Ivar the Boneless) , who took for himself a young woman , Kraka, the daughter of a Norwegian "Odelsbonde" , living near by the sea in southern Norway, to be his wife: this legend is still remembered at the site where this famous encounter took place.
My family descend from Ivar and there is a genetic trait inherited by some of my family. They do not suffer from dwarfism but it has various forms including ill-formed legs.
This is very interesting ... would you comment on how you were able to find out your family connection with Ivarr Ragnarsson; requiring certainly lots of hours and hours of reserarch ... you must really like History.
SkywalkerExpress pi tends to effect the lower limbs worse then the upper body Not to mention if day to day life left one with broken bones their pain tolerance would be insanely high
AS the female historian just said the Vikings used opposite nicknames. therefore "boneless" might have been a lot of bones or huge bones supporting Ivarr as a giant.
@WhoDarestheMAN gamer I agree with Nicholas Maniccia, The Vikings were super crafty tacticians. One of their main objectives when warring in England was not to loose men. They could not afford it because their men could not easily be replaced. They would avoid pitched battles as much as possible, and would always employ some sort of a rouse - in conjunction with a rear, or flanking ambush tactic even when fighting in an open field. Other times they would devise some other sort of deception utilizing the lay of the land, tree cover, valleys, etc. But to give you a bit of credit, when the vikings were poised for attack, that attack came with the utmost viciousness and suddenness. They wanted to overwhelm the enemy as quickly as possible. the longer a battle went on, the worse it was for them - even if they were winning, because - again - they could not afford the casualties. One interviewee in this doc stated that the Vikings would fight or die trying to capture this land, but I disagree. They would in fact retreat swiftly if their band stood to take on too many casualties in a battle. They would retreat to their boats and ferry away up or down the coast to safety.
When you introduce your documentary as from the perspective of one who is very emotionally invested in being biased, you uproot the credibility of the documentary....
I don't think Nabil has a lot of evidence, on the other hand I do agree with him I do think the saga evidence is stronger in his favour than the nine foot giant bones. Just because a nine foot giant Vikingr in some authority in the Great Heathen Army was buried, does not in any way suggest that was Ivar. Ivar the Short, or some variation thereof, could be an oblique ironic quip ... Ivar the Boneless ... nah, doesn't sound right to me. Also the saga references to him not being able to walk are fairly telling - why would a nine foot giant be remembered as a cripple? There are also contemporary beliefs that alive is better than dead, no matter what. Allow me to quote from the Havamal; The lame may ride a horse, The handless may drive a herd, The deaf may fight and do well; A blind man is better Than a burnt one; The dead are of no use. This I think really supports the Ivar being disabled, but very cunning, theory. It could well be true, which leaves me wondering ... who the frick was the nine feet tall Vikingr?!
theMatt2610 At least three - the sagas are unclear and lots of people were said to be sons of Ragnar in later years. I did some research and interestingly one of those said to be a son of Ragnar was Ragnvaldr - King of Vestfold - called Heiðumhæri or 'Higher than the Hills'. There's no evidence he was a real person and with the Great Heathen Army ... but the saga links to Ragnar and that nickname is pretty interesting.
Maybe Vikings had an unknown superstition that made them leave Ivar alive and ruling? Disabled people were normally killed but maybe in his case he wasn't because he was regarded as having some sort of supernatural advantage. Just a theory that occured to me, what do you think?
In the viking sagas there is another viking who is no other then ivar the boneless using another alias in his story there is plenty of indication he’s not a cripple from reading it out throughtly its possible ivar had joint and back issues which could cause him problems if he didn’t just use his legs for battling. That’s why it says ragnar carried him to battle its due to his joints and back pain not allowing him to travel and battle at the same time
So... a crippled dwarf is trying to claim Ivar, a known giant, was a crippled dwarf. That's as stupid as all the black people who think Jesus was black. Ivar was found with several of his men in a mass grave. Due to the size and unusual nature of the misshapen bones, his skeleton was taken. He was indeed a giant, and he suffered the same crippling issues modern day giants deal with.
Question what does it matter to you at all? Whatever he was? Btw all the black people who think that Jesus was black is not even near the European white descendants who think he was white. European whites were the first to make a likeness of Jesus and they had no idea how he would have looked so they painted a man who looked like them. They had absolutely nothing as an example. Jesus probably looked more like an Arab. Not even a modern day Jew because he would be more tanned skin from the sun and rough life. Sorry he is not Jeffrey Hunter. I would believe Ivar had a disability much more than Jesus being white!
@@irresponsibleparent3 That comparison was not only poor, it was extremely ignorant. Reading that guy's comment just made me feel sorry for him. Obviously not very smart at all.
The problem with the theory is that it originates from him wanting Ivar to have had the same disability as himself. From that starting point, he seizes upon anything that might hint at that version of events and ignores everything that contradicts it. Good history and archaeology comes from examining the evidence and drawing conclusions from it, not from starting with a conclusion and searching for evidence to support it.
Bobito actually it originally came from the telling of how ovarian was carried into battles on his shield
Ivor might have been disabled but weather or not he was a disabled dwarf is another matter it's all supposition and assertion.
But because he has a disability doesn't disqualify him from doing his own research. But because of this its understandable about the bias. It must of sounded brilliant when you typed that, but it really doesn't touch on the context of the documentary.
Wish they used Scandinavian historians in the translation of the Viking Sagas. The British always screw the interpretation of the theory in their favor.
I was born with no head on my penis so that's what I assume Ivar had
I'm from Western Norway and our regional dialects are direct ancestors of old Norse. If we call someone "beinlaus", we are nearly always referring to someone being very agile.
Not to be pedantic, and I'm sure you've learned this in the last ten years, but the word is descendants.
Just before I read your print , I thought also of the meaning of boneless and I thought about agility . That he could move as if he had no bones. Movements of a karate expert or even a dancer. Fluid and motionless ! He should be glad he was born in the land of the Norsemen , the Spartans would have thrown him off a cliff if he was deformed !
I'm in western Norway (Hordaland, Bergen) , but haven't heard quite such a phrase. The closest I can think of is talking of "rubber" in relation to people being very agile and able to bend and twist in all sort of ways. But I agree it's one of the interpretations of Beinlause. Normally, in the Viking Age, people used very visual traits, and gave some sort of "nicknames", only that the "nicknames", as for example in Native American naming traditions giving more names to describe personality, in Norway-Denmark, it was very directly. Like Harald Bluetooth, probably had a blue/black tooth, after drinking a lot of mead (edit: honey that have sugar, and make teeth decay quickly) perhaps. Or Bjørn Jernside (ironside) describing the strong warrior, who cannot be outsmarted in a weapon fight, and can take hard attacks, as if made of iron. So I think "boneless"/Beinlause, have to mean lacking either legs or bones, since the word is the same. I liked the Vikings TV-show interpretation of a child that would normally or SHOULD have been put into the forest to die from exposure, to save such children of suffering.
The love of my life had brittle bone disease (O.I.) had his legs amputated at 16 yr old due to the intense pain and lived his life in a wheelchair and drove a cab for a living, even had a 3 wheeled trike built like a Harley from scratch, but the brakes failed day one out of the box and he ended up on a ventilator in ICU for 9 months with hydrocephalous, they finally shunted him and sent him home and he died 3 days later from congestive heart failure. That man may have been 3 ft tall physically but he was 10 ft tall in my eyes. God rest your soul John Smith. I will see you again my love.
As a danish I grew up with the viking tales and sagas. For me benløse/ boneless means cruelness. So when I watched the movie The Vikings, I trought that the character af Ivar the Boneless was so wrong, the actor who plays Ivar in the movie is great though. In my view as a danish speaking "benløse" doesn't mean a disability or lost of legs. In danish we have a saying "ben i næsen" meaning "bone in the nose" translated that you have "extraordinary strong-will" or "don't care" making the ben/bone in Ivars name to careless. Then making careless to cruelness because you adding løse to ben. Løs (singular)/løse (plural) means "it's not there or it's not attached" And again vikings makes fun of the nickname and call Ivar den Benløse, saying that he has no strong-will or sorry my language he gives a sh1t, because Ivar was so extraordinary cruel. The danish people still makes funny or ironic nicknames to someone who accidentally did something extraordinary like the vikings did. One name from the viking sagas is Leif den Lykkelige (the happy one), but the meaning is wrong because again danish make fun in a ironic way, Lykkelig(e) means someone who is so happy, in reality it means the Lucky one, again because the vikings made fun of Leif who was extraordinary lucky, Lykke can mean both happy or lucky, then adding "lig(e) to it, it means the happy one. Leif is the son of Erik den Røde (Erik the Red, he had red hair, in Denmark many red haired have nickname as "the red" ="røde" instead of "den røde"). Erik the Red discovered Greenland and named it "Greenland". Only reason for that is to make people follow him to the land of plenty, but in reality it was fake. Leif discovered America, maybe that's why he got his nickname. He was lucky that he was able to come back to Greenland and tell the story of a new land in the west. Then made his nickname the happy one.
Very well expressed comment. So much has been lost in translation. Thank you.
There's much more proof that he was boneless because "he could avoid enemy's weapons like he had no bones". Sometimes fellowmen portrays him as without any bones.
Lol dude there is absolutely no way a cripple could have lived the life of a viking warlord......
@@92GreyBlue because he's a fucking myth. he never existed.
Beinløs or boneless as you say, could also mean being ruthless, or not having any moral or ethics at all.
But then vikings felt no restraint in using sexual preferences.
I.A. Woien no not bein its called benløs
Hear me out... Ivar the boneless had no sexual desire or desire for love. Maybe it was because he never boned a woman before 🤷♂️
If you read the sagas, upon hearing their father Ragnar was killed by King Aielle, Ivar's three brothers all demonstrated anger and remorse in usual Norse fashion. Not Ivar, he controlled himself, made a plan, and even appeared to ally himself with Aielle. Until it was time... The image in the sagas portrays Ivar as a strategic and tactical genius, almost to compensate for his disability. Proud to call him my 39th great-grand uncle.
Sounds more like a sneaky little traitor to me. Knife in the back? Tactically expedient, perhaps, but not exactly "tactical genius".
So it probably had nothing to do with Ivar suffering from erectile dysfunction.
I feel so bad for the guy, he just wants someone to look up to, and he needs Ivar to be super handicapped in order to identify with him...
This whole documentary is pure cope. Even the people who helped him make it were trying to tell him he was delusional without upsetting him.
Ivar was known to be a giant, have exceptionally strong arms (his bow was larger, and his arrows heavier than all around him), and be a berserker. Most definitely not a cripple.
I've officially reached the end of the internet. 🤣
Yes, I think I started with this and now finish with this
Discovery Channel.
I'm not saying that it COULDN'T happen, I'm simply saying you have to look at the historical facts surrounding Ivar. I've seen several documentaries with the Biddles and they have evidence that the site excavated was dated to 873, the year of Ivar's death. They didn't find the complete skeleton of the giant, and I thought they should have mentioned that. I think it's just as likely that the warrior buried by his lonesome with the boar's tusk and Thor hammer is Ivar as I do the giant, or a dwarf. The giant could simply have been a normal warrior. There isn't enough evidence in any direction to say what Ivar looked like...I feel for Nabil, and everyone needs a hero, but science and evidence should trump "well I like this idea, so it's true".
Ivar clearly produced astounding results with his tactical prowess, I think it's clear that the Vikings respected him for his cunning and brutality. Just like Ludwig Van Beethoven produced some of the world's most renowned and respected music. Good job Beethoven wasn't deaf. Oh wait.
I respect that he is trying to prove his hypothesis that Ivar was had brittle bone disease, but it's just an impossibility. If he had it there is no way he would have survived to adulthood growing up among Vikings.
You were there? We really don't know...the burden of proof.
To anyone here who wants to debunk this theory, please look up the osteogenesis imperfecta disease. There are several types of it. Type 1 is the most mild form while Type 3 is one of the most severe forms and is very disfiguring. Nabil likely has Type 3, and if Ivar did have brittle bone disease, IMO he more than likely had Type 1. If you watch the TV series "Vikings" you'll see this. So, according to this theory, Ivar did have brittle bone disease, but if he survived for as long as he did in the society, environment and era he lived in and with all the extreme physical activity he took part in, it's logical that he most likely had a much milder form of it than what Nabil has. But now that I think of it, looking at Nabil's roleplay here and then Alex Høgh Andersen's portrayal of Ivar in the TV series, it's interesting to see these two visions of Ivar having two different forms of the same condition.
This documentary seems bias and lacks objectivity. He appears desperate to prove that disable people can do whatever able bodied people can do.
no..HE SAYS HE IS DESPERATE TO PROVE IT
Sislertx Well, you know what I mean...that seems to be the main priority rather than Viking history.
And a Viking no less.
But they can...just not the same way.
A bit like feminism really. They claim there is no difference between male and female. This guy, on the other hand, claims that disability is not a disability.
I'm not going to make fun of this man's dissabilty, that's just too low like I see other users doing.But I can't agree with his last statement that he has resolved the mistery of Ivar... he didn't resolve anything. It's just a theory.
This man is so awesome. Following his dream, fighting for his idea no matter what other say... Respect!
Ivarr was a Berserker, and boneless might just as well have meant he was agile or flexible as a boneless man. Just as heartless doesn't actually mean a person with no heart. We can only speculate what it might mean. He is also said to have been above average height. Strong as an Ox, eye of an Eagle, blood of a Lion... are all figures of speech. This video is a deliberate attempt to discredit Ivarr.
Reference to impotence. Source: Flateyjarbók.
Yes, that's what Shaban wants! To discredit Ivar! Lol do you know how foolish you sound? It's clear Shaban admires Ivar, I think this shows more about you than him man. I think it bothers to admit that one of the greatest Viking warriors of all time might have been disabled. Ivar was a great man with disabilities, sorry if that makes you mad.
Matt White Wolf fair enough he may have been disabled but this guy is just determined that Ivan was like him now maybe he was maybe he wasn't
But you have to admit the other options are just as plausible if not more so for example it could mean supple very athletic huge or impotent
There was in fact bones found that suggested a Viking ruler as tall as 9 feet a bloke like this called boneless would perhaps be considered funny by vikings
His only evidence was reading a passage about one kid called Ivar had limbs of grizzle that doesn't prove its ivar the boneless or that the child had brittle bone disease
I don't see anymore proof than grasping at straws
well abt that he was the son of ragnar and ragnar had a way to go well againts things that are usually done so... maybe not as well
Well you forget a pretty importand point, wich is that in the original sagas wich the tv show is based on Ivar was said to be carried on the shields of his warriors into battle because of his disability.
Why would he be a dwarf? Because he was called "the boneless"? Idiotic. Ivar was a well-known giant berserker who had to fight more ferociously than most other warriors. There's no way a 3 foot dwarf with no legs would be able to do that. Some think that Ivar had a genetic disease that meant he had brittle bones, but there are 8 different types of osteogenesis imperfecta ranging from mild to severe and lethal. Add to that, almost all chieftains back then were carried on a shield after victory in battle. It didn't mean they were crippled or injured. Crippled people in viking society would have become some kind of artisan. They would not be any good in war unless it meant making weapons or other useful items. It seems that this guy is just after some kind of selfish confirmation just to make himself feel better. Anyone can use a longbow. It proves absolutely nothing.
I know Vikings valued life but only a good life's worth living, battle, adventure protecting and providing, but is it not possible that if The great Ragnar lodbrok
had a deformed son, he would not be killed? wouldn't that say something misleading about his own power, or a judgement from the gods? seem's hard to believe that anyone would survive beyond there 12th birthday with a diaese like that in medieval scandinavia
There are people living with that disease today without even being diagnosed. It's rare that osteogenesis imperfecta is crippling or even lethal.
crippled people becoming artisans would only have occurred when becoming crippled as adults. Someone as badly crippled as Ivarr is being made out to be in this programme would have been exposed at birth, or quietly killed before adulthood was reached. Even artisans required some level of fitness to perfom their tasks. Warrior societies throughout history have practised exposure, from Spartan to Celtic, Roman to Mongol, the obviously weak were killed off.
Yeah but all those. warrior cultures are very different. The vikings were not as barbaric as the mongols and Celts, they were more akin to the roman and spartan cultures, In the ways of logistics and strategy, and being a legend in the viking saga's was more than being a great warrior, Many of there legends are from men that discovered half the known world, that being said Ivar was alive during a great shift in viking society, Gods were abandoned and kingship's were formed meaning lots of ideals could have changed. another example is william the conquers bloodline was riddled with mental and intellectual disease's and his bloodline can be traced back to Ragnar's brother Rollo.
MatthewsPick the Celts were no more barbarous than the Vikings, and they also travelled the world, including the Americas, but the fundamental thing that all warriors societies had was an obsession with physical perfection, especially in nobility. Irish nobles failing the test for kingship had their nipples removed to prevent them trying again, Vikings had the blood eagle, and other torturous executions. They were no less barbarous than any of the other warrior cultures. The Celts had a vast trade network that took them into Russia (the Rus were a Celtic people), and created much artistically too. The Mongols too had their artistic/civilsed side. Much can be said for the Viking, but no more or less than for any warrior society - look at the more recent Samurai society in Japan where artistic creativity went hand in hand with brutal bloodshedding.
Was anyone else really annoyed that these two people were handling thousands of years old bone, with their bare hands? As soon as I saw that I doubted the credibility of this documentary.
No because it's bone
They are bones that have already been contaminated
Who knows it's probably not even the real bone. A lot of the documentaries I see make molds of most things like that so they can be handled. They would keep the real one in some type of case.
big beard With the huge advances in genetic testing over the past 15-20 years they are learning a lot from bones. It is now common practice to wear gloves in the hopes of not contaminating them more. If they could get even a trace of genetic material it might identify his country of origin.
This guy just wants to be a Viking. He's getting on my nerves.
Brenna J yes lol. Very true me too
Yea im almost w ya smh idk if imma be able to stomach this long enuf to get thru the entire documentary😖ugh
He thinks he's the reincarnation of Ivar The Boneless
+TweaksterXXX ha ha ha .
I don't think so. What makes you think so? The only possible similarity I heard him bring up was boneless disease. Otherwise, I didn't hear any other kind of comparison lofl.
TweaksterXXX a goblin that thinks he's a viking XD
In case you failed to notice, he is Caucasian.
Smfh @stubborn, ignorance.
This guy clearly has a fantasy he won't divert from. Whatever makes him happy I suppose.
But it's nonsense all the same
+Mark H ..and that has driven more good stories, political careers, legacies, and world historical events then almost anything else has - re: L Ron Hubbard, Martin Luther King Jr, Hitler, Charlie Manson, Elon Musk (I guess we'll see about Elon)
is it though?
I don't think it's nonsense, per se, I mean, Ivor was probably disabled but, yeah, it's not likely that he would happen to have the exact same disability and the evidence just isn't conclusive, one way or the other.
The thought of England as a collection of warring states seems totally crazy. We were never taught about the great heathen army, the Danelaw and Canute. We were taught about Alfred, that he was scolded by a poor spinster for burning her cakes when hiding from the Vikings in the Somerset levels, but it very one sided.
Who is here after watching Vikings?? Season 6 here we go!
Johan Jönsson me
@Linda Kendrick Similair to vikings I guess. :)
I’m here because I found him in a family tree on my grandmothers line. But I’m getting ready to watch the show!
Shoot, I recently discovered of my Viking ancestors, and am now looking into all of it. Ya know, who I’m related to, all that fun stuff
I guess that would make us all related somewhat as he, his mother and brothers are found in my ancestry from my mother's and,, my fathers side, (huh?)?? . ( im icelandic) Well that explains a lot, lol. My question is tho, if the giant in the grave is not Ivar, then who could it be? Doesnt match any particular saga, that I know of. Or does it? Anyone know of one that might? I've only read a few, translated, so, a Lotta questions. I don't know a lot about them.
I love how MOST of the historians in this video give multiple possibilities, but everyone in the comments says "it's this!" or "it's that!" The fact of the matter is that none of us were there. We will never KNOW. We will only have our own image of Ivar. A tall traditional Norseman, an impotent man, or a crippled warrior, etc. Until we invent time travel (if such a thing is even possible) then we will never know the condition of Ivar.
I don't understand why they call him boneless. In our language Danish the Word bein or ben as we say today, Means both leg and bone but you think of a leg when you hear the Word beinlausi and not bones. I have brittle bones and it is called knogleskørhed. The Word knogle is mostly used for bones and not bein. And in our language when you hear the name Ivar den benløse, you think of him as having no legs and not of him having no bones. And he may very likely have lost his legs somehow. I think this man very much wants Ivar to have the same condition as he himself to show that you can still be a wellknown brutal viking inspite of it.
Thanks, I wanted to know the direct translation, also would like to know how that part of history is understood from the scandanavians/dutch
He was more of the "pillaging" type.
MissWitchiepoo ☝️
Carol's Budget Garden ; why do you write "scandinavians/dutch"? Ivar was from Skåne, which was Danish until 1658.. today it's Sweden.
@@jrgensenbo2999 because thats part of scandinavia? Idk why people mix up dutch and danish but it happens alot
This is rather pathetic in a way. Nabil is determined for his theory to be correct- his entire approach to history is entirely non-historic: he has drawn his conclusion, and then goes out in search of the evidence to prove it, in a complete inversion of proper analytical research. When the evidence indicates that his theory is flawed, he dismisses it as "irrelevant" and disregards it.
Thanks, now i dont have to write that exact comment. This guy wants so badly for his "idea" to be factual that he will not be disproven even when he is proven absolutely wrong...suck he had a shitty life, but it doesnt make him right
His approach reminds me of creationists.
Tom Nutts there wasn´t exactly contradicting evidence, besides people who had found a giant and were fixated that he in particular was Ivan the boneless, his theory is a pretty reasonable assumption according to the Sagas, the strong theory that he has brittle bone disease has been a strong theory suggested by historians as early as 1949.
oliskranz
1. There is plenty of evidence against the theory- it just receives very little attention in this programme because the moment an historian, archaeologist or scientist differs to his view that's the last we hear of them.
2. In any case, the fact that you don't find much to disprove a theory does not therefore prove the theory, especially as there is even less so-called evidence to support the theory. Pulling a theory out of thin air and then seeking desperately to find something to justify it is the absolute antithesis of all logical research processes.
3. The theory is not strong, despite you saying so (twice in the same sentence, for some odd reason).
4. 1949 is not early.
Tom Nutts this theory is strong, you are very uneducated on the subject, this is not a theory pulled out of thin air, and all of the historians fields in this video are not old Norse culture, literature or vikings specifically. "Beinlaus" means boneless in Icelandic but it also derives from an older definition meaning leg specifically, the Sagas describe him as being born with legs as soft as cartilage and had to be carried everywhere from birth. This is by far the most likely alternative.
I can see the logic behind the argument he may have been disabled- but surely almost all infants found to be deformed or disabled, would have been killed at birth? The vikings, more than any culture, had no place for weakness.
***** different cultures had radically different attitudes towards the disabled, Spartans where Eugenicists and killed all disabled at birth, but the Egyptians where the opposite, Tutankhamen turned out to have brittle bones, and many elaborate canes were made for him.
KungKras I never said they were- but it was common practice all throughout history across almost every culture- that if a baby was born with a disability, it would be taken out to the woods and left to die- people back then thought it was an act of mercy.
Mining Forge
People have always been different though. I don't think any area at that point in time had entirely monolithic ethical values.
showgo You don't know how every norseman (Viking is a profession) thought and felt. Ivar's father was a king. His sons probably didn't need to farm to survive.
KungKras Of course not. But we do know what kind of culture they had. We do know what qualities they revered and what kind of gods they worshiped. All of these things lend credence to the fact that they respected strength. This is backed by facts.
No, the nobles did not have to farm. What nobles had to do was be able to fight. That was the whole point of nobles in this time period. The Karls tended the farms and the Jarls were the fighting class. That was their job. The "king" was just the senior Jarl. He was not a king like in the Disney movies. Kings during this time had to be able to fight, since that was their primary job. You should read up on early feudalism, or the social hierarchy of the Vikings.
This is the best mockumentary online
this was one of the best documentaries i have seen. not saying i learned a ton of history from it but the will power and inner strength of nabil as he draws lines between his own struggles and those of a viking berserker brought tears to my eyes.
That little dude is living on a hope and a prayer, there is no goddamn way a berzerker would survive a single battle with brittle bones
Prayer? Prayers wont help...
I know they dont? its a figure of speech.
The vikings were pretty sophisticated. Not all of them were berzerkers.
I can imagine that Ivar's powerful brothers knew about his intellect, and respected him for it.
Berserker*
And also he wasn't one, as Ivar used a bow in combat
Stormmblade Grammar is very important to the Nazi party. how was I supposed to know that? the whole documentary is talking about the possibility of him being in battles and being a Berserker.
Ivar the boneless was most likely very double jointed to the point of being able to contort , bending himself to the extreme . This is why he would be though of as boneless , it would also give him an advantage in battle being more flexible than the average man . Leaders were chosen for excellent fighting ability .
that's probably a good guess. this dude didn't even try to concider any other sort of explanation..
James Trump I agree, he probably had Ehlers-Danlos Syndrome, which is mostly an invisible illness, as it causes most damage internally, one symptom is dislocations as well as increased flexibility. I have this and I didn't start to become disabled in my late 20's. So it's quite possible.
James Trump it would have also left him in pain
To be honest it was most likely the least detrimental type of OI
Doesn't fit the birth story though. And why would the Vikings write about the birth of disabled viking.
I find this a very interesting video. The idea that Ivar The Boneless had brittle bone disease is both consistent with the evidence in the sagas, but also fits well with what I have learned about Viking society of the time. Among themselves they were not a lawless, uncivilized band of thugs, but had rules that bound them. A disabled prince, if he was brilliant, and earned respect may well have become a leader. In fact, his condition may have made him viewed as somewhat other worldly, someone in a way sacred, or special in the eyes of the gods. Remember that Loki is a dwarf.
Loki is not a dwarf, but was a half god-hald troll! And the rest of your theory is also untrue
Are you just going to ignore the fact that Ivar has a monument built in Denmark and Ireland and he is standing up in both statues.
This little man is so full of himself that he would "postulate" a theory and then try to bully people into saying they agree with him, and conclude his "theory" is the truth despite no evidence to support it?! Did anyone else notice how those he questioned seem to catch their breath when he demanded that they agree? What an ego on this person! Even if Ivar were a cripple, there are hundreds of conditions that could cause crippling. He did not even consider any other illnesses.
Names were not literal and often were tongue in cheek, as they pointed out, but he scoffs at that. If we took names literally , Ragnar Lodbrok would wear furry breeches, Bjorn Ironside would have had a metal plate, and Sigard Snake in the Eye would have to have a snake in his eye. He refuses to see the creativity, and humor Vikings were said to have had. I call bs on his whole theory as many other conditions fit the profile too.
+Michelle Miller You are hot !
+Michelle Miller I agree. At first this was interresting, then the guy changed character and couldn't see it from any other point of view.
I'd definitely give Michelle Miller a hard pounding. I also agree with everything she said
Michelle Miller Are there any other medical conditions that Ivar might have had?
elsa1942 impotence
Two words
Confirmation Bias.....
Clinton Hammond Blam!
Agesilaus II (/əˌdʒɛsəˈleɪəs/; Greek: Ἀγησίλαος Agesilaos; c. 444 - c. 360 BC), was a Eurypontid king of the Ancient Greek city-state of Sparta, ruling from approximately 400 BC to 360 BC, during most of which time he was, in Plutarch's words, "as good as thought commander and king of all Greece," and was for the whole of it greatly identified with his country's deeds and fortunes.[1] Small in stature and lame from birth, Agesilaus became ruler somewhat unexpectedly in his mid-forties. His reign saw successful military incursions into various states in Asia Minor, as well as successes in the Corinthian War; although several diplomatic decisions resulted in Sparta becoming increasingly isolated prior to his death at the age of 84 in Cyrenaica.
He was greatly admired by his friend, the historian Xenophon, who wrote a minor work about him titled Agesilaus.
Thank you! Finally someone who actually knows history.
Miguel Aguera ☝️
Even today the Swedish word for bone and leg is the same (Ben). Wen we say boneless its the same as saying legless. This is a simple translation error. Sorry bro
joozack ; same in Denmark - probably in Norway too ...
psnl and not "factually" aligned w this documentaries delivery of facts...
But this comment of information leads me to honor my brother.
At 38, in dec of 2016, my brother, Ben, passed away of CML leukemia. A blood disease to which is a terribly painful leukemia that when "blast crisis" occurs in the patient, it's indescribable pain that transpires WITH IN the bones.
it wasn't known to me that his belief system was drawn on this pre Christ, "organization" of a fascinating and powerful people.
in '08, he carved the interlocked triangle on a tree on a camping trip in Utah w friends. Lsd on that camping trip, i dont know. But i was his caretaker when initially discharged from the hospital after 6 or 8 weeks in ICU here in Miami, in acute medical crisis. He lost his vision and hearing.
His vision returned. Was not blurry but the "landscapes" of his vision tiltled and his balance was off until it worked itself out. His hearing was 15% in one ear, 50% in the other ear. He was homeless 3 months prior to diagnosis and not to my knowledge. Less than 10 blocks away from me... Prideful. Not a sympathy seeker. Private. Quiet. Non confrontational except when we were throwing blows kicking eachothers asses as kids growing up lol
until someone was bleeding, we didn't stop. and we fought when a parent wasn't home. I have a scar on my eyelid where he cracked me w the wood handle of a broom.
it's my favorite scar.
when he passed, i accessed his electronics, my cousin extracted all the images and files from his tablet and phone.
Where I came across the interlocked triangle.
I tattooed it on my outer wrist.
I did a gofund me and raised $6700 for his personal needs and use.
when discharged, we skipped (i was in charge of him and he followed my say) the insurance bureaucracy and potential limited options of shit, went to costco and bought him a $1200 hearing aid for the 50% ear.
In June he was diagnosed, miraculously i got him on the list for a cochlear implant surgery w the hospital.
Day of surgery or maybe nearly upcoming, he was, we were informed he would not be able to recieve the implant and not on the surgery schedule anymore.
before the next part, of this novel i'm not writing out lol (in his honor, and his belief system that WAS HIS faith)
he sat in a waiting room from like 7am to 1pm, unable to hear his name called (i typically attended his appts, by now he had the one hearing aid, a Pre-Op appt, but was lawst in the sawce on his tablet) Intermittently, i checked in w him on status and after no progress, around 12 noon, i called the nurses desk, she informed me he wasn't going to see the doctor and not going to recieve the implant. i made a disclaimer and informed her, i breathed slow maybe 3 times, apologized first, and then went ABSOLUTELY BERSERK, ABSOLUTELY BERSERK that my DEAF brother as INDICATED in every appt he had. Up to 5-6 appts a week, I went ballistic.
I called a Gods blessing friend and client of mine, that was the former CEO of that hospital, explained.
Following text from my brother was that he was in a room, nurses were bringing him a lunch and what would he like, the Doctor saw him, and he was given a day and time to come in for the implant.
He wore Thors hammer. He grew beards when the chemo made every hair on his beard fall out.
when he was taken off the life support, at 6'4", his heels hung off the hospital beds. after 7:37 seconds, he passed. His chest, his rib cage, rose. Expanded maybe four times normal.
I thought he was going to blow and backed up petrified lol
He managed a diet that consisted of healthy and unhealthy fatty foods to maintain a good weight though so ill.
When his chest didnt blow, i returned to his bedside.
As a Catholic along w my kids, ex husband, ex in laws, father and his wife, we said the Lord's prayer, maybe shouted at times to drown out the coding alarms interfering with the overwhelming sadness of losing my now dead brother.
A priest the night before, was called at came and gave his last rites.
To show his objection to this, when i moved from holding his head in my hands to the foot of the bed, i knocked his catheter bag and got warm piss all over my sandled feet. 💜
same to my little brother. ha
but. i selfishly did it for me. i didn't know he had this faith or belief system but fell on my faith in the true honor and labor of love managing and being his caretaker for the first year and a half.
With the go fund me monies, i got him his passport, for the first time, he went to scotland for 30 days and met our aunt, uncle and cousins that we had never met or spoken to because my mom didnt raise us in the US in touch or spoken to off this family.
It REACHED HIS SOUL. when he returned to Miami, he cried for TWO days missing the family, the connection and couldn't wait to go again.
When my brother's chest rose like it did, i saw valiance i never saw in him before.
And wished him all the JOYS possible once i learned of Valhalla.
and know when not to wandering the over 100,000 million universes, and visiting me, he returns to Valhalla and was well ahead of his time.
He denounced organized religion years back.
And died a whole man. with dignity. an intuitive truth to his, our ancestry and it was ashes. that rendered him boneless.
💜 to which he is always near.
ps. found out few days ago, we are only two generations scottish and Irish completely prior. im the odd one out and first generation American.
And have a greater understanding of myself in identifying myself with a Berserker. Cause I went for BLOOD many times on his behalf when there was ANY difficulties in him receiving necessary referrals and appts etc.
And i would do it all over again for him, if I could.
Boneless Ben and the Berserker lol
Now I understand it was the DNA coming out of nowhere.
And I do believe he was a tremendous person dedicated to the love of practicing and finding hope, in his pagan faith or wtvr u want to call it.
He was the smart one. Abs brilliant nerd. That was more hardcore than I could have ever imagined for all he endured in the pains of blast crisis's.
✌🏼🕊🤓 thx for allowing me the inspiration to respond to ur affirming to me, comment.
Ben Preston 12/15/2016
💜
Whether or not you agree with the man's theory, I personally found this documentary to be quite interesting. If anything it should offer encouragement to those with physical - and indeed mental disabilities - by showing them that they are not limited to what they can achieve in life. If not Ivar, then Richard III who was a hunchback and was still written about in legend despite his disability. Such was the message I got and will take to heart. :)
Tachibana Dosetsu was crippled by a lightening strike. He was carried in a palanquin to the battlefield and never lost a battle. He may not have participated in battle, but he was a master strategist, and never went anywhere without his sword Chidori, which he renamed Raikiri (lightening cutter) as he believed the sword had split the bolt and saved his life.
As far as Ivar, Imho, I think the name plays to the serpent legends. I can see that kind of thing happening in some cultures, but not Viking.
Who am I too piss on the little guys dreams, whatever makes you wake in the morning.
Tgis guy is passive aggressive a f.
I stopped watching at the egyptian comparison. Saying the fact that a crippled egyptian was king means a viking half the globe away and centuries apart was a king too is idiotic. You could also say that the americans have airplanes so the romans obviously had airplanes too.
Yes, that argument was rather stupid. Not so much because of the time gap, but rather, the Nords and the Egyptians had COMPLETELY different cultures and belief systems. For the Egyptians, their Pharaohs were literal Gods, so no matter how bad they looked, what condition they had, or how fucking dumb they may have been, they would worship them. Nords had nothing like this, they, beside their religious beliefs, had more of a meritocracy, so this would have been far less likely. All in all though, I find the theory believable, and especially appreciated all the surrounding information and other theories.
Wrong! Almost all seers and shamans were disabled (and that goes for every culture, the Spartans included).
Nabil's theory is interesting, but his methodology is flawed. Good history is like good science: you follow the evidence wherever it leads. You do NOT look to validate your preconceptions.
Sagas written centuries after the fact, aren't any more compelling evidence of Ivar's physical condition, than the bones of an unidentified giant. The available evidence supports neither conclusion. What "could have been" - based on unrelated evidence - is purely speculative and irrelevant.
Aethgeir let him have his dream
For those of you who watch the first five minutes and think this video will be one sided: It's not. Nabil Sheban does certainly bring up some good points as to why he would think Ivar was like himself. The historians give good reasons towards other theories. I suggest watching it all so that you can formulate your own theories. And hey, you get to learn about the exploits of Ivar the Boneless regardless of his nickname!
Nice that they present several ideas about Ivarr and several people speak their ideas, even discuss them, which is rare in a documentary. All fascinating possibilites, whichever you pick. Even some of the ideas in comments are interesting.
While I hate to burst his bubble and I'm more of a self taught expert on African and native American civilizations than Europeans ones, the probability of an extremely influential war leader to be born with Brittle bones disease is extremely improbable. Fewer than 20,000 US cases per year are reported from this genetic disease, and that's out our world today that has 7 Billion people.
To think he had this disease out of everyone would not only be unconfirmable, but also unlikely.
One historians said it best - "To think that butchers who parade or be led by someone who was inept" isn't logical. Vikings respected strength, feats of valor, pride, and determination. So it's not to say a cripple couldn't do anything in viking society. But War? That's a massive leap.
Ivar Ragnarsson, or as he was called, Ivar Beinlausi (boneless) was one of 4 sons of Ragnarr Loðbrók (Ragnar Lothbrok).
Most likly he was born with lame feet. But brittle bones disease like the smurf in the wheelchair, I think not.
His strenght was that he was one of Ragnars sons. He was a son of a king, and after Ragnars death, he was one of 4 kings that inherited Ragnars kingdom and people.
So yes, people would folow him and his brothers even though he was a cripple..
BTW, not many years ago they found a grave where Ivar Boneless supposedly died. In that grave they found the remains of a wounded viking warrior that was lame..
Valhalla Knight Bein can also mean leg...
Such sn interesting documentary. Prompts me to read some viking history. Thank you
This guy won't listen to anything that contradicts his pet belief. He's a zealot like any other.
Being carried into battle and being carried during a battle are different things. Ivar was a giant that wielded a bow that only he could pull because of his size and strength.
Nabil has some pretty interesting and valid points to make. Although it bucks the trend and obviously angers a lot of historians,the idea of a disabled king viking is not as ridiculous as first glance suggests.Dwarfs were/(are?) considered both mysterious and magical beings.It is entirely plausible that he strengthened other areas to compensate his disability,most notably his guile and tactical genius.Shield-bearing (like Vitalstatistix)has dual benefits, mobility and a better view for strategy.
I find it very hard that vikings would be led by a disabled character because obviously they wanted to be led by a strong and cunning warrior.
Sergio Milho A giant warrior is more likely but damn if that was ivar WOW (34:01).
Sergio Milho Is it possible he was born with brittle bones disease then grew out of it.(i am not sure about brittle bone disease)any thoughts?
who says he cant be cunning? just because hes disabled??!!
Dennis Petersson I said vikings want to be led by a strong and cunning warrior.
21st century people will accept but in that era vikings would not want to be led by a disabled character.
I am not hating on disabled people, but i am a realist it is hard to imagine vikings want to be led by a man who can't fight.
exacly... just because hes hancicaped and a dwarf hes not smart?
It wasn't a disability that set Ivar apart. It was his abilities. Sir Terry Pratchett ( Him diamond ) describes it as not just going spare, but going spare with precision. Ivar could wind up and focus not just his own gibbering rage. He could cold bloodedly wind up and focus the gibbering rage of the whole army. Ivar would have had to be on good terms with the battle leaders in his forces. Remember, Ivar would be the first born of Ragnar. He would have status from that. Also there was the terrible prophesy brought about by his father's disregarding his new wife's vision. Ivar was God touched. Whatever disability, if any, that Ivar had was living proof of the gods.
We can't know who Ivar truly was, if he had any disabilities at all. Or what those disabilities were. The histories written about him weren't done until 4 or 5 generations later. And they were written by monks. Who would have their own axe to grind. They certainly wouldn't let fact get in the way of what the "Church" thought about him.
So keep an open mind when watching these documentaries. History was written by the victors.
Sandra Nelson You obviously have never read anything about norse culture of the time. These kind of doc. are not meant to be taken seriously...it's a show..you know, to make money. This in particular is probably the stupidest documentary ever to be made.It is already sad that there's people ignorant enough to believe these bullshits, but then here you are advising everyone to be open minded with arguments that do not make any sense at all.I'm sure the very people who realized this program are aware this is just rubbish, but they probaly consider it rubbish that makes good audience...and i bet they too would laugh at your comment.
sventibaldo Sigh. That is what I meant. We don't know what really happened. All we have are the Norse sagas and the very dubious Christian monks'accounts. And mercy, those monks could hate a Viking.
Was there a Viking leader named Ivar? Maybe. Was there something portentous about his birth? Beats the heck out of me. But some legend of the time came down generations that gave comfort to a people worshiping a very harsh God.
sventibaldo That short guy i believe he is wrong.If i am not mistaken by viking culture the strong and cunning would be leaders.I find it impossible if ivar looked like him he would not be respected by his army even if he was a military genius. It is more likely for him being a giant than a short guy with brittle bones. Though I do not truly believe why he was called boneless (it could be like the woman said by a reverse meaning).
lol this is ridiculous, this guy is delusional, he needs a friend
+MightyForSure No .... he needs some bones.
from what generally happens with brittle bone doesn't sound like that was the vikings disability.
You need live one day like him then you might understand real life you fucking loser
huh?
Smooth Triston that’s just mean it’s funny but still
Micheal Hurst May have got it right in his writing for the show Vikings... maybe Ivar wasn’t SO badly disabled he needed carried but could stand etc with crutches. Maybe he had one lame leg.. there’s so many possibilities.
I think he's opening up interesting ideas. I am of Scandinavian descent and have multiple sclerosis, this would be my theory as Vikings didn't have x-rays to say why a person's legs don't work and would just name it as he's "boneless". He may have been of any height, with paralysis of the legs. Also fun facts about MS: it affects Scandinavians more than any other ethnic group, it affects women 2x as often as men but when men get it it's more likely to be Primary or Secondary Progressive which is degenerative in nature (especially affecting the lower limbs like legs). I've never heard this idea discussed but knowing that it's degenerative, maybe he was a badass Viking dude that woke up one day having an exacerbation and lost the use of his legs after he had already earned the respect of his fellow Vikings. Remember, Viking is a verb, going "viking" meant going raiding and there were many farmers and fishermen and women in Scandinavia too. Just a thought.
Also, if you study gigantism, that can be dabilitating structurely too. I've no doubt that he was what we would classify as "disabled" today, giant or small an he must've overcome and become a great leader in his own right.
To be perfectly honest, i think this docu is completely idiotic. I can't see warriors following, and dieing in warfare, for a person that couldn't lead the way. Somebody who couldn''t be a paragon on the field in some way. Why would they die for the ambitions of a cripple who couldn't fight? This idea seems quite far fetched.
I think you are basing your ideas too much on how the fantasy genre tends to portray kings. Throughout history, kings were usually not on the frontlines rushing into battle, but - if at all part of the actual battle - well protected and further back. People in the frontlines have a tendency to die, and kings are usually not intent on dieing. While in viking society being more directly involved in the battle might have been considered more important than other societies, this still is very different from rushing headfirst into battle. I do know, however, that viking society was far from the hollywood-fueled beserker suicide culture usually portrayed. They did very successfully go on many raids and were great warriors using superior tactics, however, they also explored the world to great lengths, and more than anything, they were farmers, traders and settlers.
Now it can also be said that if a society that held the highest honor in "heaven" or Valhalla, for dying in combat and being courageous, would only follow strong warriors into combat would at first glance be true, but they were strategic geniuses and might have seen a disabled but brilliant, "cruel and undefeatable" person as a free ticket to winning every war and battle, which would then grant them highest honors and give them the highest chance to be closest to their gods
oliskranz
They were traders and settlers. At times warriors and conquers. They did not had helmets with horns on them and didn't wield huge axes or went "berserk" in conflicts. Actually, i think they were quite normal for the time. I simply think that the ideas in this documentary are build up on more then flimsy evidences. So it seems to me at least.
kunstsein the theory that Ivar the boneless had brittle bone disease has been a strong one suggested by historians in this field specifically as early as 1949, Vikings did not always kill the handicap, there are known cases of retardation´s that were just taken care of by their brothers of family.
Since i accidentally deleted my long winded replay i will keep it short this time. I have seen this doc some time ago and read a bit on this legendary character on the net. And legendary is the key word here. It seems to me that the suggestion of an actual bone disease has very filmsy evidence behind it and is also contested by other scholars/historians. Which is normal i guess. I have no time right now to dwell in this subject matter, but if you have links to some good papers at hand i will come around and read them. So much for that. Cheers.
Imagine being a strong hardcore berserker killing anything in your path and then in the future they remember you as a brittle cripple because of some little delusional man...ain't that some shit
Haha :) BRAVO !!!! That's a good one :)
i know lol feel bad for the cripple bloke they think the found ivars grave and his skeleton was 9ft fs
Osteogenesis imperfecta? Good grief, what a preposterous notion! It is much more likely that a reputed giant had the hyperflexibility of Marfan Syndrome--like Abe Lincoln--than that he suffered a rare autosomal dominant affliction that leads to locomotory disabilities and short stature. The saga--not an indisputable historical record--provides Ivar with a brother named Sigurd Snake-in-the-Eye. Since Marfan can cause partial lens dislocation, the syndrome fits both.
I'm thinking that if he had OI, it would be very unlikely he would have survived his early childhood no matter what precautions where taken. Possible? Yes. Likely? Not so much.
punkrock patti Good point. I'd say his chances would have been zero.
I've read that the Scandinavians had a practice in which the father picked up a newborn he was willing to accept. If not ...
Medieval Christians did something similar, not baptizing those they intended to leave to die of exposure.
Infant mortality of all causes is a sad reality of societies in which they had inadequate medical care and could not afford to feed those with no hope of productivity.
Some societies still selectively abort and abandon unwanted females.
archanth thats a very good theory, since the name :beinlausi is plural ,and its suggest it means loose bones:like hypermobility, and by the way there is a town here in Denmark that is named Benløse :wich in english means loose bones, at least in that context..i dont get how they can translate it in to boneless...
Esther haveland That's very interesting, thanks.
I googled the town. Needless to say, my knowledge of Danish is less than minimal, so I asked Google to translate. It came up with this: "*Legless* was until the beginning of the 20th century, an ordinary village with church, grocery store and school around a pond."
In colloquial English, "legless" means very intoxicated.
Don't worry, I'd sooner believe your translation than Google's.
I supposed some scholar translated it as "boneless" either because it sounds like boneless (bone-loose too, for that matter).
Old Norse: Ívarr hinn Beinlausi; Old English: Hyngwar
So, I checked the Old Norse Word Study Tool.
"beinlauss boneless, without bones
beinlausi ... adj sg masc nom"
www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/morph?l=beinlausi&la=non&prior=%C3%8Dvarr
Since Old Norse was similar to Anglo Saxon, perhaps the meaning has shifted in the last 1200 years?
punkrock patti i have OI! and a lot of men with TYPE I Osteogenesis Imperfecta are average height, often being as tall as 6 ft. but saying this, i completely disagree with the theory he suffered from the same condition.
Well I for one respect the heck out of that gentleman. He had a theory and really followed up on it rather than just following the crowd of other historians as so many modern historians do today - the amount of revisionists decrease every year and I'm proud to still be in the skeptics camp when it comes to historical events large and small. However I believe that someone with that sort of disease in a warrior culture would NOT have been able to survive past a few weeks old, and would have died.
I've heard that what Ragnar actually say was "the pigs would grunt if they knew how much the old boar is suffering".
Son of Ragnar Lothbrok :)
The reason why Norwegians have the most beautiful women in the world and the Britain has the most ugly ones is because the Vikings kidnapped the beautiful ones and left the ugly ones when leaving to go back to Norway.
I like your theory
Vikings always took the fairest women from ALL the lands that they pillaged.
Ragnar, the father of Ivar was swedish. He was from Uppsala.
"I was in danger of breaking a rib or an arm, the force would do that"
The Force is weak within this one. A good Jedi, he would not have made
Sounds like Havelok, a Dane of exceptional size/extraordinary strength who married a Goldesburg and ruled in England for some time during the Viking period. Their descendants were known to belong to the House of Goldsborough/Goldsborough Hall.
Katharine Moseley ☝️
I finally found it I watched this when it first came out and haven't seen it since thanks for uploading it
I keep thinking, "Freud would have a field day!" - or any psychoanalyst, really.
The midget forgot to read the part where it says Ivar grew to big proportions, despite being crippled.
He also forgot, that while "beinlausi" can mean bone-less, it can also mean "loose-legs", as in a person who doesn't stand still, ie: travels alot. Or as a hypermobile person. Bein = bone or leg, laus = loose or -less.
Either way, the saga that specify him as legless says he grew very big despite of it. There's no chance for the arabic midgets theory.
Northern85Star I read it was bad translation. That beinlausi can also mean despicable and not boneless since the wording of those two words are similar in Nordic
charlie rosillo Always interesting to hear other theories! But i doubt that is true, since none of the "heroes" in the sagas has nicknames that are so negative - they're usually more specific regarding the characteristics of either the person, or regarding some great deed that made the person famous :) But of course i cant say for sure you're not right, without having studied the theory
Ivar the Boneless in Danish Ivar Benløs, it does not mean he was disabled, Boneless is a stupid translation Boneless/Benløs means litterally one who travelled far and wide. this is such a stupid documentary.
+Einheriar Benløs litteraly means Leg-less or bone-less, in modern danish, even the most basic google translate would show that, unless you meant in old norse or something.
+sae qwe This is not modern Danish and one would know that is was vest norøn spoken a 1000 years ago, iver benløs, ivar den langtrejsende.
great that makes a lot more sense :) this probably makes me a horrible person, but I cant take this serious and im almost about to laugh. Do you know how it became the boneless? is it those damned monks again trying to demonise the vikings?
+Einheriar According to Lodbrok saga, Ivar was said to have been carried around on a shield though. I'm just saying.
+Einheriar thanks for your extra wisdom,, Vest Noron, is not terribly available.. can you point me to some work on that? I find many modern usages, are mistaken due to " , sound-alikes" with modern languages.. the english word "bloody" has nothing to doe with blood it is a contraction of By Our Lady, good By from God be with you. thanks for the info
This is such a bizarre premise for a supposed documentary on Ivar, basically this guy's quest for self-actualization. Oh wait, it's Discovery, never mind.
A great documentary, looking at the past with modern glasses is something that is not done nearly enough. 5/5.
As Ragnarr Lodbrok said: "How the little piglets would grunt if they knew how the old boar suffered."
Could "boneless" mean that he had no courage. Him fighting with a bow referring to him fighting from afar, by directing armies. Him being carried into battle could be his visage or name on a flag, or his armies shields. He may not have wanted to suffer the same death his father did, unlike his brothers who seamed eager to fight.
In the ancient Nordic languages the wind is referred to as Mr.Boneless. So i assume it means he was fast or thread lightly with little sound.
To be cowardice would be referred to as having little body hair or being like a cowardice animal of the forest.
no, he was a berserker, a frothing at the mouth, psychotic killing machine - when the berserksgangr was in full flow they were unstoppable, literally fearless two legged tanks. By definition a berserker cannot be a coward - they looked for a fight, and often if the enemy was insufficient, a berserker could turn on his comrades, such was their killing rage.
A Coward Viking leader who was also a conquerer?!! Sorry mate, but Brittle Bone or Gigantism is more Likely than that!
Paul Reid A maniac in a spasm of rage is easy to kill. A cold hard man possessed of his senses would easily dispatch a raging madman. Any one who has done any kind of fighting knows that to be true.
Erg Budster
Yes cold hard man knowing and understanding what he is facing can dispatch frothing raging lunatic easily. Problem is that it is 21st century POV and 8th to 10th century POV would have been quite different, set of beliefs and general understanding of things would have be different then and seeing some thing like that coming at you you would have most probably thinked that it some kind of magic or monster and if you believe it to be magical or monster then how cold, hard and logical you could have remained ?
What annoys me is how historians, archaeologists and academics dismiss new theories on something just because it's not in their established theories...unless they were there, they don't know for sure...I'm open to new theories on anything that isn't proven fact and I'm just a lay-person. This is an interesting theory and I don't see why it shouldn't be true.
Are you serious?
They are historians. Their theories are based off the evidence that they have, which can be found via texts, relics, archaeological diggings etc.
People are free to make up whatever theories they want, but you can't seriously expect historians to believe your theory just because you think it possible? They never said it was impossible, but that they did not believe it was a realistic theory. I tend to agree with the historians on this one, since Vikings had lots of nicknames that were not supposed to be taken literally. The fact that they found a guy who could shoot a bow and was disabled, is simply not evidence enough for serious historians.
As an archaeologist I can say theories are not dismissed because they don't fit with 'established' theories, they are dismissed because they have no evidence to back them up.
calicheSCOT Even established "theories" have little or no evidence, that's why they are 'theories'. Unless someone finds proof, they will always remain exactly that. Therefore, although I know what you mean, new theories should never be summarily dismissed, just because the establishment doesn't like the idea.
Jennifer Hayes the theory that Ivar had brittle bone disease is about the strongest theory and has been suggested by historians as early as 1949.
liskran nope, read the sagas
I always open this by mistake when i want to watch something cool about Ivar.... then i give up...
As this figure lived many hundreds of years ago, we will never know. We have tales that he had to be carried into battle on a shield. It could be just as likely he was a tall man who had bad breaks that never healed properly. It is just as likely he had brittle bone disease without the dwarfism or had a degineritive disease of the muscles which cause his impotence
It's unfortunate they couldn't step outside a judeo-christian framework and do this without all the sensationalistic judgements. Oh well, that's what makes popular TV. Some decent info as far as chains Of events.
None of what this guy said is possible, he has not studied viking history enough.
it's a bit irritating to hear him referred to by two different names. Eevar and Ivar ? You'd think if they were going to make such a documentary they'd agree beforehand what his name was.
roontunes eevar is the correct pronounciation.
Both are correct depending on what language you prefer
Does anyone know if Nabil is still alive? If so, I wonder what he thinks of Alex Høgh Andersen's portrayal of Ivar on the TV series Vikings...
He's so obviously right, that the shame and disgrace on the professional academics is exemplary of the whole academic field.
I'd tend to sway twords he was a giant more than a dwarf. The Vikings were known for being big, ruthless tough men. And no disrespect but a man like the little guy could have easily been dispatched by a rival, so I don't believe they would be led by such a weak n physically challenged man... sorry
Yeah there's no way. In the beginning they mention the ancient indo European tradition of a strong, physically fit king. There's also an ancient indo European custom of discarding babies with any type of crippling birth defect. Ivar might have lost a leg, or been really tall. Or have problems with the ladies. All these theories are far more likely to be the case.
The above average height Vikings were like 168-170 cm and sure for the time it probably was taller than the average Anglo-Saxon but far from being giants
Little actor dude got a confirmation bias.
And everyone else in this story doesn't ?
It's funny that these "academics" seem to play into the modern stereotype that vikings were crude, vicious barbarians, and that someone with a physical disability would be exterminated. The actual history shows that the Norse were mostly agrarian farmers, practiced some form of direct democracy, and were more egalitarian than other cultures at the time, particularly when it came to gender roles (women who engaged in battle as shield maidens, for example). Given that the saga does describe a "boneless" man with withered limbs being carried into battle, and that Ivar was above all the royal son of a legendary king, and in a culture that allowed for a great degree of equality, I personally think the guy in this film has a solid case that Ivar had brittle bone disease.
Jeff Englehart a child born with obvious issues would have been left out for a night if they lived they would be raised
When ivar was a child he constantly fought other kids even killing several. Now if he truly had brittle bones his body would be in no condition to fight in adolescence. This guy's theory holds no water at all. He's just a sad little man looking for some way to validate his existence.
lol. tried to watch this for the second time. I can't get past the first few mins. so cringe
I think this is rather possible. The viking god Odin was not (primarely) the god of war, Odins primal attributes was knowlegde, yet he was the king of the gods... The vikings were not simple minded, drunk rapists who just attacked peacefull monks, they certantly had rather good knowledge and had strong millitary capacity. There is a reason why the vikings could DOMINATE most of europe for allmost 300 years.
Also if you look at a norwegian king, kong Sverre, you can see that he was a king of strategic and there is also accounts that he in some battles was not fighting (at least a lot) but rather was in the background commanding. Now i know that Sverre was a christian king while Ivar was not, but i think that in this time it hasd little impact, there were still people having trells in Norway 200 years afther christianity was official and one powerfull king also more or less told the pope to go fuck him self(they were not that pious), -> they had the same mindset of the vikings, they just prayed to a different god.(FYI they were also tales that Jesus or Kvite Krist went to Åsgard and took over it by force, there were also tales that people met Odin in person up in the 1600 in Norway).
I think he has support from the sagas, as there has been discovered that most of these text often have relatively high accuracy. In fact scientists ahve been able to locate forgotten cities and places by sagas and the bible.
I think its clear that the vikings valued more than just physical capasity, and that wisdom was highly regarded. If you looka t håvamål you can see that it relates to wisdom rather than how to kill, it states that the greatest treasure one can have is not gold or silver, nor power, but wisdom; as no one can ever tae your wisdom away from you.
Spiderman takes place in New York. According to your logic Spiderman is real.
Interesting doc. Perhaps he did have some type of disability. After all, there has been a few leaders/conquerors who would seem unlikely to lead and inspire armies, like Timur the lame or Richard III. Hell even Napoleon was kind of an unlikely leader because of him being short. But whether a person would be able to lead an army and conquer a lot of land with a condition as bad as Brittle Bone disease, I don't know. The truth is when you're talking about events and people that far back in history, the only way you'll know everything about them for sure is if someone invents a time machine.
Richard III wasn't disabled and Napoleon was 5ft 6 average/fairly tall as Freek says.The misconception comes from presuming French inches were the same as British inches, they are not, they are longer per inch. Claudius was disabled and he conquered the English, probs a better example for your interesting point.
somniumisdreaming I have heard the modern day spin on Napoleon not being short as has always been depicted but I'm not sure I believe it. The reason being is I've read a quite a bit about Napoleon and I have yet to hear anyone, his enemies or his followers, describe him as being tall or average height. Rather, everyone used words like short, puny, skinny, etc to describe him. His own men nicknamed him the little corporal which was probably a sign of affection but at the same time you have to ask yourself how could that not pertain to his height in some manner? If you want my opinion I think this notion of Napoleon being tall or average height was secretly started by the French so they could over time remove the one stigma that has tarnished their national hero through out history. But then again as I said earlier, the only way we can ever know everything about history for sure is if we build a time machine and go back to see for ourselves.
KillerFrank I know he was a rather ill looking fellow but there are also contemporary accounts that he was 5ft 2 in French inches and other eye witnesses who said he was average height but sickly looking. Nevertheless as you say we don't have a time machine.
Napoleon was 1.73m, pretty average. (still a manlet, lel)
KillerFrank its simple really, its called revisionist history or the old saying that the winner writes history not the facts. Were you readind primary sources?
as for the legend of the danish viking (in scandinavia more correctly pronounced "veeking", Regnar Lodbrok, (father of Ivar the Boneless) , who took for himself a young woman , Kraka, the daughter of a Norwegian "Odelsbonde" , living near by the sea in southern Norway, to be his wife: this legend is still remembered at the site where this famous encounter took place.
I love this man! The wave from on top of the Shield was just the most fabulous!
My family descend from Ivar and there is a genetic trait inherited by some of my family. They do not suffer from dwarfism but it has various forms including ill-formed legs.
Wow i would wish to have that acieant blood line be proud hold it to the highest
This is very interesting ... would you comment on how you were able to find out your family connection with Ivarr Ragnarsson; requiring certainly lots of hours and hours of reserarch ... you must really like History.
Your cannot possibly know that since the earliest church records in norway goes back only to the 1600's
and my family descend from Arthur Pendragon
Vikings never kept written records and I doubt you could substantially prove your claim. Go
Back to watching the history channel
I believe he was just an agile fighter....smaller than his Viking brothers...yet this is also plausable
Him being small has nothing to do with the name boneless tho.....
SImple question, how can a man with brittle bone disease has the strength to pull a longbow?
SkywalkerExpress pi tends to effect the lower limbs worse then the upper body
Not to mention if day to day life left one with broken bones their pain tolerance would be insanely high
Ivar ( Ivarr Ragnarsson ) was not a ''crippled'' Viking Warlord. He died in Dublin, Ireland around 873 !
AS the female historian just said the Vikings used opposite nicknames. therefore "boneless" might have been a lot of bones or huge bones supporting Ivarr as a giant.
GREAT JOB MAN! I LOVE THIS DOCUMENTARY!
Boneless = invinsible. forget your maggot theory...
@WhoDarestheMAN gamer listen the Vikings were the masters of hit and run tactics, how does stealth and not being seen not fit into that reputation.
@WhoDarestheMAN gamer I agree with Nicholas Maniccia, The Vikings were super crafty tacticians. One of their main objectives when warring in England was not to loose men. They could not afford it because their men could not easily be replaced. They would avoid pitched battles as much as possible, and would always employ some sort of a rouse - in conjunction with a rear, or flanking ambush tactic even when fighting in an open field. Other times they would devise some other sort of deception utilizing the lay of the land, tree cover, valleys, etc. But to give you a bit of credit, when the vikings were poised for attack, that attack came with the utmost viciousness and suddenness. They wanted to overwhelm the enemy as quickly as possible. the longer a battle went on, the worse it was for them - even if they were winning, because - again - they could not afford the casualties. One interviewee in this doc stated that the Vikings would fight or die trying to capture this land, but I disagree. They would in fact retreat swiftly if their band stood to take on too many casualties in a battle. They would retreat to their boats and ferry away up or down the coast to safety.
When you introduce your documentary as from the perspective of one who is very emotionally invested in being biased, you uproot the credibility of the documentary....
I don't think Nabil has a lot of evidence, on the other hand I do agree with him I do think the saga evidence is stronger in his favour than the nine foot giant bones. Just because a nine foot giant Vikingr in some authority in the Great Heathen Army was buried, does not in any way suggest that was Ivar.
Ivar the Short, or some variation thereof, could be an oblique ironic quip ... Ivar the Boneless ... nah, doesn't sound right to me. Also the saga references to him not being able to walk are fairly telling - why would a nine foot giant be remembered as a cripple?
There are also contemporary beliefs that alive is better than dead, no matter what. Allow me to quote from the Havamal;
The lame may ride a horse,
The handless may drive a herd,
The deaf may fight and do well;
A blind man is better
Than a burnt one;
The dead are of no use.
This I think really supports the Ivar being disabled, but very cunning, theory. It could well be true, which leaves me wondering ... who the frick was the nine feet tall Vikingr?!
well ivar had three other brothers all of them was supposed to be some mean motherfuckers
theMatt2610 At least three - the sagas are unclear and lots of people were said to be sons of Ragnar in later years. I did some research and interestingly one of those said to be a son of Ragnar was Ragnvaldr - King of Vestfold - called Heiðumhæri or 'Higher than the Hills'.
There's no evidence he was a real person and with the Great Heathen Army ... but the saga links to Ragnar and that nickname is pretty interesting.
The sagas don’t mention anything about 9 foot
Maybe Vikings had an unknown superstition that made them leave Ivar alive and ruling? Disabled people were normally killed but maybe in his case he wasn't because he was regarded as having some sort of supernatural advantage. Just a theory that occured to me, what do you think?
In the viking sagas there is another viking who is no other then ivar the boneless using another alias in his story there is plenty of indication he’s not a cripple from reading it out throughtly its possible ivar had joint and back issues which could cause him problems if he didn’t just use his legs for battling. That’s why it says ragnar carried him to battle its due to his joints and back pain not allowing him to travel and battle at the same time
The coolest part of this show was that bad-ass fireplace that 'historian' was sitting in front of. I'd like to find one of those.
So... a crippled dwarf is trying to claim Ivar, a known giant, was a crippled dwarf. That's as stupid as all the black people who think Jesus was black. Ivar was found with several of his men in a mass grave. Due to the size and unusual nature of the misshapen bones, his skeleton was taken. He was indeed a giant, and he suffered the same crippling issues modern day giants deal with.
Question what does it matter to you at all? Whatever he was? Btw all the black people who think that Jesus was black is not even near the European white descendants who think he was white. European whites were the first to make a likeness of Jesus and they had no idea how he would have looked so they painted a man who looked like them. They had absolutely nothing as an example. Jesus probably looked more like an Arab. Not even a modern day Jew because he would be more tanned skin from the sun and rough life. Sorry he is not Jeffrey Hunter. I would believe Ivar had a disability much more than Jesus being white!
Site people say Jesus was white but that's not true either. He was middle eastern. That was a poor comparison.
@@irresponsibleparent3 That comparison was not only poor, it was extremely ignorant. Reading that guy's comment just made me feel sorry for him. Obviously not very smart at all.