The Unhistorical Aesthetics of Assassin's Creed Valhalla - Reviewing Fictional Viking Age Clothing
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 8 ธ.ค. 2020
- My guest, Isabel, and I briefly and somewhat pedantically point out inaccuracies within the clothing of Assassin's Creed Valhalla. Our opinions on the costumes in this video in no sense reflect our overall opinion on the game or Ubisoft.
Consider helping the channel grow by using my Amazon affiliate link.
- www.amazon.com/?&_encoding=UT...
▼ Follow me
Instagram - bradleygear...
Twitter - bradleygearhar7?l...
BitChute - www.bitchute.com/channel/MIqG...
Public Facebook Page - / bradleyegearhart
Consider joining my Patreon! - / bradleygearhart
Amazon Affiliate Link - Please use this link if you plan on making an Amazon purchase. I will get a small cut of your purchase and by doing so, you are helping me be able to make more videos :) - www.amazon.com/b?_encoding=UT...
#AssassinsCreedValhalla #FashionHistory #VikingHistory - เกม
![[TH] 2024 PMSL SEA W3D1 | Summer | เริ่มต้น สัปดาห์ตัดสิน](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/pWsl9LhC2Uk/mqdefault.jpg)
Great video. I was waiting for you to break it down.
Thanks man! The game’s not bad but it’s got its problems.
Fictional Vikings are fictional and let's be glad. For everything Valhalla gets right, so much is wrong. You two are spot on regarding unhistorical aesthetics.
Hey! i would just like to say that Asgard is made up of how Eivor wouldve imagined it, so her mind pulled inspo from stuff around her in the world. And those were roman ruins! so there is an actual explenation why they are in asgard. its a deliberate decision and not just "they look cool"
The same eivor who lived 95% of their life in Scandinavia envisioned it as a classical greek statue laden, stave churchen fantasy 18th century Bavarian Castle filled, Thor love & thunder marvel movie-esque sci-fi fantasy land, with bald blue dudes wearing "barbarian" garb, and wielding volcanic weapons, magma weapons & magic(I DOUBT the guys EVER seen volcanoes), and badass basim with his fantasy falchion scimitar shit.
Hell, he's never even met the seers mother, yet she's fucking freyja!
In all honesty, that weird free add-on dlc stuff was pretty lazily patched together of existing assets.
Personally, I thought all of the Asgard free dlc stuff was crap, beyond the rogue like mode, which was kinda fun.
But... You don't actually get any of the armor sets!
.and for the svarflheim DLC, they don't let you keep the god damn magic you spent HOURS grinding for. Fuck you, ubisoft
Oh boy. Here we go. This video itself has some inaccuracies. My issue is not with the information presented but with the way it's presented. There is this assumption that just because we have a lack of evidence for something that that thing did not exist. And often it is assumed that because we have evidence of something, that it was wide-spread.
Take lamellar armour for example. It was mentioned in one of the sagas but it was not a common armour type worn by Scandinavian people in the Viking Age. To extrapolate that it was common enough to give it a pass in the video is inaccurate. Too many NPCs in the game have lamellar.
Hoods. We absolutely do have evidence of hoods in the Viking Age, such as the Skjoldehamn Hood, dated to 1050-1090 Ad/CE. That is the late Viking Age. Maybe you specifically only meant in the 9th century but the game does not occur solely in the 9th century as later you go to Vinland, only discovered around 1000AD/CE. Not to mention that a chunk of the game is present day. The whole damn past sequence is a computer simulation and time is a little....weird.
Belts. Two belts are, in my opinion, fine. I would even say they are historically likely. Particularly if these belts are the propper thinner belts you find in the time period. I am a HEMA practitioner, reenactor, and history nerd and have experience that you might call "experimental archaeology". I find that, if you are carrying more than one weapon and one of your belts is needed to more evenly distribute the weight of maile, 2 belts is perfectly reasonable and not at all restricting. Typically you'd have one belt that holds a knife, such as a Viking Age seax horizontally. This belt would also probably cinch the maile at the waist. Slipped through that belt would be the baldric for your sword (if you were rich enough to own one), with the baldric itself over the shoulder. You may even have an axe in a loop on the other side.
But if you wanted anything else, a pouch, a waist fastened quiver, or so on, you might need another belt.
No, no gambesons. I wish there were. I love gambesons. But we may find something in the future, either material or written. I hold out hope.
Seeresses. They dressed to evoke power and mysticism. Not for practicality. They were most often called the Völva. I can give them a pass for that antlers and fur. Those were ritualistic accoutrements worn to evoke the essence and spirit of an animal or a spirit such as a fylgja. But they should have had a distaff-like wand as one of their main items. We have a pretty detailed description of how a Völva would have likely dressed in the Saga of Erik the Red, though, and the rest of what is shown in AC Valhalla is pretty inaccurate.
Basim, the assassin, I give a pass. He and the style of the assassins are the core conceit of the games. Their equipment is influenced by a race that isn't even human. You can't put too much historical logic on that. The hidden blades are made out of super-metals.
Another core conceit of the AC series is that the gods weren't gods. They were a precursor race to humans. You can't really say that Thor is inaccurate because he's supposed to be undefeatable because he clearly isn't. Hell, if you even look at the mythology I think Jormungandr would have something to say about how "undefeatable" Thor is. That is, of course, once he stops coughing bits of him up long enough to tell you about it.
This is not to say that the game is accurate. Gods no. It's terrible in so many ways. What is frustrating about it is that there are these sparks of genius, these points of beautifully realised historical accuracy hidden in the rest of the mess and it makes it all the more bitter by showing you what the game COULD have been.
I literally stopped playing it when I found out that I could not wield a simple shield and ONE-HANDED SWORD. That I had to take the perk to wield a TWO HANDED sword in one hand to do it.
Two-handed swords DID NOT exist yet. At least not in Viking Age Europe.
I appreciate the engagement with the video. You provided a lot of content here so ill just let you know what came to mind as I read your comment. (also apologies if I'm repetitive - I don't remember everything in the video.)
I'm familiar with the first point you made. The video was made unrehearsed and offhandedly so much of what we judge to be accurate is not down to a mathematical formula but I still think it's evident that we kept this in mind during the recording.
The existence and rareness of lamellar were mentioned in the video. You are completely right though, lamellar is vastly over-represented in the game and the concept art.
We also mention evidence of hoods emerging in the 11th century.
Also (minor spoiler) Valhalla allows you to travel to Vinland almost 100 years since even the birth of Leif Erikson. This is something I should have mentioned in the video as it's kind of infuriating. There is no way the Norse were in America by the time Iceland was just beginning to be settled by them. So the game, as far as I know at the moment only takes place in the 9th century and in the present day.
I understand having seeresses wearing animal adornments but I guess my main problem with the horns and antlers being worn in the concept art was that the characters did not seem to be emulating a certain animal by say, wearing two of the same horns or antlers. Instead wrapped around the skull is many unsymmetrical and unrelated animal spikes. A bit picky I know but this is just my reasoning behind it. I do not give the seeresses a pass because of their mystic nature - I mean they are still wearing skirts, East European headdresses, zebra stripes, and carabiners hanging from rope between their legs.
You're right about the gods in a sense - we should not prescribe the aesthetics of Abrahamic divinity to them. Still, the gods would surely stand out from other commoners just for the sake of their attributes. Freya should be beyond beautiful, Tyr should show signs of a warrior, and Thor should have Járnglófar and Megingjörð.
Again thank you for the comment. It's always nice to reexamine things. I completely agree with what you said at the end. The game has some really good touches but unfortunately, its historical thoughtfulness is not distributed equally.
Thank you for a more reasonable reply than the tone of my initial comment warrants. I didn't intend to come off so snappy and I'm not sure why I did.
I can't say that I disagree with anything you said really.
A point about the seeresses. I was only giving a slight pass about the horns and furs. But you're right, the way they did it was very hodgepodge. That's why I included the description of the Völva from Erik the Red's Saga as an example. If you read it it seems that they don't dress too much different from the average Viking Age woman. Lots of amulets, beads, and so on but that isn't too strange. I would only apply animal headdresses (which we do have direct evidence for from the Nordic Bronze Age) to a ritual setting as well. Certainly not normal wear.
I'm pretty sure they did it this way because the first initial concept art drafts looked too "boring" to uneducated eyes and the developers, only interested in money, said they needed to be more exciting. I believe you fight the seeresses in the game, which is very unusual, and they wanted them to look dangerous and exciting.
To ultimate take away is that this isn't a game for history pedants (I say that being one myself). Assassin's Creed has veered further and further away from historical accuracy. They were never totally historically accurate but this is too much.
Sorry,I misunderstood the point about hoods in the 11th century. I thought it was said as though that wasn't the Viking Age (Tail end of it). It isn't 9th century certainly. I still don't get time in the game. I think they wanted to smoosh every exciting Viking Age moment into one period. I guess, again, the game was just never concerned with accuracy.
I, too am disappointed in the gods. I am even a heathen recreationist so I definitely noticed how bad that was. Freyja should be.....not so plain looking, Thor should be red-headed, Odin should look...better. It's hard to put my finger on what I mean by that. But again I think their intent was to show that they aren't truly gods. That they are just the precursors.
It keeps coming back to my earlier point: this game wasn't made for us. You have to enjoy it for what it is or not enjoy it at all. For me, I haven't played since getting frustrated at being unable to use a simple one-handed Viking Age sword with my shield.
@@Rune_Scholar As a former Assassins Creed fan and a history lover, all I can really say is this: The AC series used to be so accurate up to the point that any inaccuracies were actively explained by the creators as being understandable choices related to the story they were trying to tell. It was for that reason alone I could give them a pass with those inaccuracies. I found they grew increasingly historically inaccurate once Patrice left Ubisoft and it just got worse and worse. Unity was when they truly began to spiral out of control because suddenly, they became historically inaccurate enough (and lazy enough), that I was rudely yanked out of the environment of the game on a constant basis. Odyssey was......I have no words for the disaster that it was. I'm no expert on Ancient Greece but I knew enough to know what they were doing was a travesty all around. The viking age is the age I am the least familiar with, so I really can't say anything one way or another. All I know is that they went back to trying to re-create an atmosphere and make it *seem* historically accurate, even when it wasn't. They used to be very good at creating the feeling of authenticity, but that was only when good people were at the helm.
But at this point, Ubisoft has driven the series into the ground. The company has made it clear they care little about even the coherency of their stories and consistency of the lore, much less historical accuracy at this point. And to talk about their lack of ethics - from their blatant money grabbing to how abominably they treat their employees - is another story entirely.
*That* being said, reading your comments were really educational!
Super late but they do have one hand swords now
@@jackieboymc1754 never too late. I may re-download and have a look.
Will edit as I watch, 11mins in.
Your video is... Wrong. Sorry.
I will add a reply with image example links underneath, and a separate one discussing how they actually should have looked based on my understanding from what art/finds I have seen, and those from earlier and later periods, or neighbouring regions,
and 1 with my personal "best" sets in the game for achieving nice medieval(weird anachronistic mismatched) vikingish looks(you can FORGET historical Vikings. You CANT make them in game.. sorry. Fuck, there are NO aesthetically historical looking NPCs in this game. Even the better ones, such as the English, are still WRONG).
I'll work my way through. But I will start with my opinion.
The Vikings looked like everyone else in Europe at the time. You look at art from across central, southern, and western europe, Visigoths in Iberia, and the eastern roman empire itself... They all wore pretty much the same shit.
There was some minor perculiarities, but in common:
Long tunics(usually knee length, sometimes full on robes. long sleeves. Rarely doublets/short sleeves ones),
fitted pants with cloth/rope ties/leather roping around them just under the knees, above ankles, and sometimes up the legs to the knee, or no pants at all(you see such variations in the Carolingians alone.. pants ARE optional. Especially considering this was a WARMING period! Not the little ice age in the 12-14th centuries).
And.. a fucking shoulder broached cloak, like the aztecs.. WHY DOES NO GAME EXCEPT CRUSADER KINGS 3 FUCKING HAVE THEM?!?!?! And why only give them to Carolinians? Shoulder capes all round! Shoulder capes in battle, while tilling the field! Only exception are the ceremonial toga style drapes for some epic christen rituals.
And finally... Ankle/lower height leather shoes/cloth shoes, or... Up to knee length cloth shoes(there are a LOT of images with cloth looking shoes, including having them as one with the trousers like tights.
You see the above in nearly ALL European cultures, and even quite a bit of African/near east art during this period.
Why think Vikings would be any different?
Now, to the rant!
1. Trousers. The ones in the game look AWFUL, aswell as the shoes. And your statements aren't correct.
"Barbarians"(most of Europe, except the Mediterranean apparently) have had access to trousers(fitted ones...) since neolithic, and probably into paleolithic....
Vikings... Are no exception. Look at the mammen prince, as an example. Hell, look at the germanics, gauls, and other european groups depicted in roman and Greek art back in their "tribal" origins.
Baggy pants... Don't show. They are more likely an eastern Scandinavian, and probably far more likely Russian, or from the permian people's inhabiting there(such as the "finns"). Personally, I've never seen finds of baggy viking pants.. and I don't really see it in any art across Europe. I've also never looked at Russian stuff, so from what I know, it could even be some 1700s invention based on the piratey looking "cossack's" or some such. Which the nationalistic eastern Europeans, and modern Scandinavians can't stop riding.
If people have evidence, feel free to place
2. Tunics.. as the top.
3. From my understanding, women were the main textile labourers, with a wife's duty being the repair and creation of homespun clothing in poorer families, while richer ones certainly had their stuff bought and made, likely from female or slave laboureres.
4. Fur sock wrappings..
Basically no evidence of it from what I know.. and probably didn't exist.. sorry.
I have seen modern re enactors use textile ones, and I think they look cool, and would love for them to be historical but.. its not shown in any art I've seen from anywhere.
5. Belts. This is really just to add on to what you said. I'm personally sick of seeing powerlifter belts on historical people.
But, moving on, they have both lovely lavish cloth belts, aswell as thin leather, sometimes lavishily made & decorated ones. Want them in the game!
6. Gambesons.. um, I personally don't think the diamond quilted garments are necessarily meant to be armor. And.. I've actually seen them, diamond quilted tunics, in art from around this period, hilariously enough(2 examples from central European art). It surprised the hell out of me, and even though I think they look quite ugly, I sometimes like to have a laugh at myself whenever I think(that's way too ugly to be historical!), with that example.
Another one is the double bidden battleaxe... They existed all over Europe, from bronze until at least the 11th century(if not beyond).
They are incredibly bizarre things, and very rare in finds and art, but EVER present battle scenes, and in weapon varieties, rather than just felling axes, which are a lot heftier.
7. Hoods. Now, this 1 I find annoying. Mostly because I'm sick of seeing Victorianesque hooded cloaks on every fucking fantasy and "historical" European character, like they're from lord of the rings.
I personally haven't seen them in art during the medieval period(although they may be a thing during the 1100s+)
As for Valhalla, all of the cloaks are a fucked up combo of the capes(hoods that later doubled as sexy chaperones when inverted), and fantasy cloaks, making you look like a Victorian detective, noble or magician..
But. Hood/cloaks WERE a thing. The Romans wore massive raincloaks, for example(poncho style! Cool European flavour! Put it in the game!!!), with other European cultures having their own variants, if not the same. And, seeing as fashion really hadn't changed..... At all since pre/post roman europe, up to pretty much 1100. I see no reason why they wouldn't have the same in Scandinavia during the viking era.
Oh.. and just a final add-on. I personally won't really address mentions of armour comments you guys made. From what I can tell, you have very little to no knowledge on medieval arms and armour, and debatably contemporary architecture & art(from the little I saw at the end for architecture/art, and your completely inaccurate ideas in general for knowledge of contemporary art.).
In general I think anything you guys said about dates, or pieces for armour especially, were just wrong.
Because of this, I don't see much point in going over every mistake...
You also seem to mention a lot of things being beyond their technology, such as quilting... Which, as I stated above, existed. and spaulders/pauldrons... Which also existed before the viking period, aswell as pre 14th century(you sometimes see them on effigies of knights in the 1200s).
Look at the Mycenaean armour sets, such as their epic tub armour with weird bone scaled helmets, for example, aswell as the germanic peoples, both pre, and post Romans(celts aswell), such as the Visigoths, and... The Romans and Eastern Romans(the "byzantines").
In Carolingian art you see your fair share of them, although debatably for artistic anachronism, rather than historical use. And, if you look at the celts, they've had close to full sets of iron armour at times, such as the famous example of the unstoppable moving tank, who was both invulnerable... And... Immobile lol.
Having simple overlapping plates, and pieces was certainly in their crafting capabilities... But. There is basically NO evidence that the Scandinavians during the viking period did such, beyond some weird long metal lames, which might be for forearm/shin protection? and, of course the lamellar sets that seem to be attributed to varangian/byzantines, or easterners.
Based on art though, I'd say scale armour is completely in their realms of reality, as it & mail seem incredibly common everywhere else. Maybe even more common than no armour at all.
Something to note though, just to clarify some things. It was very difficult in the earlier periods to forge very large iron plates, hence the use of spangenhelms, with multiple plates riveted or bolted together.
You see that in earlier Celtic and roman armours as well, such as lorica segmentata.
Having the plates both overlap, and cording them together, such as in lamellar makes a big difference..
Although, I think the examples from the game look more like far later, and romanticized eastern designs.
Oh, and on that note.
No, nothing in this game resembles medieval pauldrons, spaulders, etc. it is all fantasy trash.
They also love to give everyone shitty waist cloths, which no one ever used, and sam-rai shit tassets(suspended waist armor), aswell as ugly trenchcoats/waistcloth trenchcoats. Did the same shit in Odyssey too.(aswell as every other assassin's creed).
And to finish it off, there is nothing historical about any of the assassin's designs in any of the assassin's creeds games, barring maybe odysseys "unclothed" tunic outfit, which is probably also not completely accurate. Or really MOST of the other crap, besides a good portion of the architecture, and some of the background NPCs.
Can't vouch for the pre modern garbage, or Egypt, which I don't care about. Nor Greece, which I don't have enough interest in either.