Is there something wrong with “Vikings” that we got wrong ourselves or that we forgot? Speak up in the comments! For more content like this, click here: th-cam.com/video/xOoSG3dC6pY/w-d-xo.html Play our Daily Point Battles to earn MojoPoints and qualify for CASH BATTLES! Check it out: WatchMojo.com/play
I think I recall it also theorized that Ragnar Lothbrok is a legendary character that arises from merging the deeds of multiple people, some of whom were indeed named Ragnar. Which would explain why his sons were real and why deeds are attributed to him when there is more than a man's lifetime gap between them.
Historical inaccuracies within the show, doesn't mean Vikings "is wrong". It's not a documentary and never states it was. So while it's nice to learn about the differences between the show and history, don't call it "wrong". That's like saying Game of Thrones got the war of roses wrong. Though Vikings borrows way more from actual history than GoT.
Love the series, love finding historical inaccuracies, but never take them too seriously myself, instead I just try and enjoy the show for the entertainment it's supposed to be. 😊
We have learned more recently that at first we believe them to be very rare but we found that actually a lot of first perceived male bones have now been identified as female. They were just as big and scary as men. That’s why it was confusing at first their bones were huge.
Look at the lower lesser known goddess Hlin. She is depicted with seax and shield. Known as the protector of innocents (children, elderly and weaker women.)She was a great shield maiden.
@@amifyUo agreed if you read around d the world you’ll see how historically and modern women reflect strength and power. Meanwhile still told in fantastical ways
I mean for the crucifixion one; Peter, one of Christ’s own apostles, requested to be crucified upside down as he did not see him self as worthy enough to be crucified like Jesus was.
The languages spoken by characters by the Vikings, the Franks, and the non-English English would have all been very similar to each other in the 8th century. Old English and Old Norse belonged to the German language family, with Old English a West German dialect, and Old Norse being a northern dialect. However, they would have been much closer in the 8th century than the modern languages of English, Swedish, Danish, Norwegian, and Icelandic are today. In fact, scholars now believe that the English and the Vikings did understand one another and we have elements of their languages still present in modern English. As for France, in the 8th century its kings were Pepin the Short and Charles the Great, both of whom spoke Frankish- a West German dialect (Old French only started to appear in the 8th century.) Old French didn't completely take over France until much later. The 9th-century king, Charles the Bald or Charles II is depicted in the show speaking French. He was the grandson of Charles the Great and was born in modern-day Germany in the town of Frankfurt. Even if most of his subjects spoke Old French he would have spoken Old German, or perhaps even Frankish and maybe, possibly, Old French. This means that the Vikings, the not-English, and the Frankish King could all understand each other since they all spoke the same parent language family of Germanic languages.
Where did the Vikings who invaded England come from? Well, in the 8th century, the countries of Norway, Sweden, and Denmark did not really exist yet. The modern state of Norway traces its origins as a state back to the 9th century, while Denmark came together sometime around the 8th century, and Sweden only became a unified nation in the 10th century. The language spoken by these people was called Old Norse and hence they were sometimes just called the Norse based on their shared language and their lands simply Scandavia. The Vikings who settled in England were Danes. But this is around the time that the modern-day states of Norway, Denmark, and Sweden began to come together with Denmark existing possibly as early as the 8th century. Who were the Vikings who invaded earlier in the 8th century? That is a more difficult question to answer.
Like everything about their coatumes? The Vikings new how to make armor and they liked colors and knew what soap was and were known for their hygiene. Yet they all look like Mad Max characters with leather and shaved lesbian haircuts?
Like the Vikings never betrayed each other...What would you like them to do? Explore the world? I think that's a story line, Bjorn and ubbe both had those. Ivar main goal from the start was to rule, to show power just like ragnar told him to show no mercy. Hvitserk becoming a christian in the end to reinstate the partnership ragnar and ecbert had before.
@@ConservativeKetchup "They got ivar pretty close" Thing is this is not a documentary, they could have made ivar a farmer and even that would be fine, because in the end all of this is fiction it's just characters. Nobody knows how ivar was, and nobody will until someone goes back in time to find out.
But why does it matter? Everything that's on tv, is purerly fictional they cannot travel back in time and film what really happened there. And if it's fictional why does it then matter what someone's skin color is? If you wanted vikings to "historical" then explain to me athelstan's awakening, explain to me how ubbe, hvitserk,ivar, sigurd and bjorn could see odin?
This video is pointless. You’re saying these things are inaccurate but every entry you say that you don’t even know if the inaccurate statement is accurate itself.
The later seasons were egregious. The way legendary historical figures like the sons of Ragnar and Alfred the Great were portrayed was absolutely distasteful. Hormonal teenagers with screeching voices wearing fake beards. Disrespectful and disgusting. For me, this show ended with Rollo being acclaimed as Caesar by the Franks. Everything else that followed was utter nonsense.
I don't understand how you can be upset with a show that is clearly based on fiction. Calling it 'disrespectful and disgusting' seems excessive. To whom is it disrespectful? The events depicted occurred around 800 to 900 AD. Why should it matter now? Do you seriously believe the show needs a disclaimer stating it’s not historically accurate? If so, why aren't you criticizing the inclusion of Odin? After all, we don't see him in real life. Similarly, Athelstan's awakening is purely fictional and not historically accurate. Let's stop criticizing the show for not being something it never claimed to be.
@@user-kp8ic4wy9n It is not about historical accuracy, but authenticity, and a general respect for legendary historical figures. E.g. Gladiator is grossly historically inaccurate. But they were respectful of history in the portrayal of Marcus Aurelius. 300 is historical nonsense, but respectful in the characterization of Leonidas and the 300. On the other hand the Netflix show Barbarians got criticized for similar reasons for how they mishandled the character of Germanicus. The Vikings did a great job with Ragnar, Rollo, Lagertha etc. The events of Ragnar and Rollo's lives as depicted in the show are quite similar to history. It set a standard that it itself destroyed with Ragnar's sons. Ivar and Bjorn being played by children with fake beards is as egregious as race or gender swapping them. I bet you would have complained then.
What difference does that make? Not like he would start talking Danish, as all of them spoke either old Norse or just English. Even the city in Vikings isn't even real, Kattegatt never existed. But nothing of this even matters as all of it is fictional.
Doesn't matter what number view you are. Also if someone name black hat gives you one , they don't count just like your pointless comment. Also black hat is a bully and liar that will make false claims about others. He has 0 proof.
The way history downplays and discounts the contributions of women, especially in battle, and the relationships of queer people is not something we should accept. This is, and always has been, based on bias.
History hasn't underplayed Queens like Cleopatra, Lagaertha, or the Warrior Queen Boudica of Eirie. Granted they royally messed up a few like Cleopatra (looking at you Netflix), and Anne Boleyn of England and if the rumours are true DEIsney is going to ruin the Irish Pirate Queen Anne Bonney.
@@ConservativeKetchup There have been more than these women with power. Everywhere across the world graves and tombs of women are found with weapons and archeologists misgender the skeleton or come up with stories that still refuse to acknowledge that women can be warriors too. It doesn't just happen to ancient women. Women or those assigned female at birth and their military contributions are removed from history by narrow minded historians and archeologists, this video feeds into that. But why am I trying to reason with a racist?
![[Live] : ONE FIGHT NIGHT 24 วันนี้!! “จาร์เร็ด vs กุสตาโว”](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/ENNA-fsT67c/mqdefault.jpg)
Is there something wrong with “Vikings” that we got wrong ourselves or that we forgot? Speak up in the comments!
For more content like this, click here: th-cam.com/video/xOoSG3dC6pY/w-d-xo.html
Play our Daily Point Battles to earn MojoPoints and qualify for CASH BATTLES! Check it out: WatchMojo.com/play
I think I recall it also theorized that Ragnar Lothbrok is a legendary character that arises from merging the deeds of multiple people, some of whom were indeed named Ragnar. Which would explain why his sons were real and why deeds are attributed to him when there is more than a man's lifetime gap between them.
I miss when the history channel had shows like this 😢
What other shows were like this?
Historical inaccuracies within the show, doesn't mean Vikings "is wrong".
It's not a documentary and never states it was.
So while it's nice to learn about the differences between the show and history, don't call it "wrong".
That's like saying Game of Thrones got the war of roses wrong. Though Vikings borrows way more from actual history than GoT.
Then why that called "Vikings"?
@@Santia5a coz it depicts fictional Vikings inspired by history.
It's a story about them, not a documentary.
@@dkSilo this series originally aired on the HISTORY channel. The channel about history, not about fictional stories.
@@Santia5a They also aired a thing about dragons, if I'm not mistaken.
There's always going to be Historical Inaccuracies in any type of history.
Love the series, love finding historical inaccuracies, but never take them too seriously myself, instead I just try and enjoy the show for the entertainment it's supposed to be. 😊
Long live the memory of Ragnar Lothbrok!!! 🙌🏽🙏🏽🤘🏽🪽🐦⬛
Nice video and great series!!!!
Shieldmaidens may have existed, which I never knew, but their rarity is still stranger than fiction.
Shield maidens aren’t as rare as they think
We have learned more recently that at first we believe them to be very rare but we found that actually a lot of first perceived male bones have now been identified as female. They were just as big and scary as men. That’s why it was confusing at first their bones were huge.
Look at the lower lesser known goddess Hlin. She is depicted with seax and shield. Known as the protector of innocents (children, elderly and weaker women.)She was a great shield maiden.
@@amifyUo agreed if you read around d the world you’ll see how historically and modern women reflect strength and power. Meanwhile still told in fantastical ways
@@amifyUoNorse people weren't big powerful brutes. They were probably pretty lean and most definitely short.
Can we all just agree that Vikings was one of the best shows that history channel made
Hated Ivar!
I mean for the crucifixion one; Peter, one of Christ’s own apostles, requested to be crucified upside down as he did not see him self as worthy enough to be crucified like Jesus was.
The languages spoken by characters by the Vikings, the Franks, and the non-English English would have all been very similar to each other in the 8th century. Old English and Old Norse belonged to the German language family, with Old English a West German dialect, and Old Norse being a northern dialect. However, they would have been much closer in the 8th century than the modern languages of English, Swedish, Danish, Norwegian, and Icelandic are today. In fact, scholars now believe that the English and the Vikings did understand one another and we have elements of their languages still present in modern English. As for France, in the 8th century its kings were Pepin the Short and Charles the Great, both of whom spoke Frankish- a West German dialect (Old French only started to appear in the 8th century.) Old French didn't completely take over France until much later. The 9th-century king, Charles the Bald or Charles II is depicted in the show speaking French. He was the grandson of Charles the Great and was born in modern-day Germany in the town of Frankfurt. Even if most of his subjects spoke Old French he would have spoken Old German, or perhaps even Frankish and maybe, possibly, Old French. This means that the Vikings, the not-English, and the Frankish King could all understand each other since they all spoke the same parent language family of Germanic languages.
Pewds, is that you in the thumbnail? 🧐
Where did the Vikings who invaded England come from? Well, in the 8th century, the countries of Norway, Sweden, and Denmark did not really exist yet. The modern state of Norway traces its origins as a state back to the 9th century, while Denmark came together sometime around the 8th century, and Sweden only became a unified nation in the 10th century. The language spoken by these people was called Old Norse and hence they were sometimes just called the Norse based on their shared language and their lands simply Scandavia. The Vikings who settled in England were Danes. But this is around the time that the modern-day states of Norway, Denmark, and Sweden began to come together with Denmark existing possibly as early as the 8th century. Who were the Vikings who invaded earlier in the 8th century? That is a more difficult question to answer.
Watchmojo always crushing our dreams with these horrible facts
Why does that matter when it's all fiction. The show is a fiction, not a documentary.
I've never watched the show, but I like the list, Watchmojo. 🎉
Stupid comment from a stupid bot
Okay , so it isn't historically accurate. It's not a documentary.
Hail Ragnar! Hail Lagertha!
Like everything about their coatumes? The Vikings new how to make armor and they liked colors and knew what soap was and were known for their hygiene. Yet they all look like Mad Max characters with leather and shaved lesbian haircuts?
They ruined Ragnar's sons! Instead of their real interesting stories, they opted to have them fight and betray one another over and over again!
Like the Vikings never betrayed each other...What would you like them to do? Explore the world? I think that's a story line, Bjorn and ubbe both had those. Ivar main goal from the start was to rule, to show power just like ragnar told him to show no mercy. Hvitserk becoming a christian in the end to reinstate the partnership ragnar and ecbert had before.
They got Ivar pretty close. He was a delusional blood thirsty sociopath
@@ConservativeKetchup "They got ivar pretty close" Thing is this is not a documentary, they could have made ivar a farmer and even that would be fine, because in the end all of this is fiction it's just characters. Nobody knows how ivar was, and nobody will until someone goes back in time to find out.
Vikings Valhalla took the made up stuff to another level by making a black woman a Jarl. 😂
But why does it matter? Everything that's on tv, is purerly fictional they cannot travel back in time and film what really happened there. And if it's fictional why does it then matter what someone's skin color is? If you wanted vikings to "historical" then explain to me athelstan's awakening, explain to me how ubbe, hvitserk,ivar, sigurd and bjorn could see odin?
lol like anyone truly knows what happened.
Hello good morning 😮😮😮
I couldn't get past how all of the sons grew up but no one on the show bothered to try to age the actresses who played their mothers.
For goodness sake, it's a TV show meant to entertain, not a historical documentary. Now don't be like that.🙄
This video is pointless. You’re saying these things are inaccurate but every entry you say that you don’t even know if the inaccurate statement is accurate itself.
Don’t call Ragnar fake
Or what?
@@user-kp8ic4wy9n man get a real username before posting bait
The later seasons were egregious. The way legendary historical figures like the sons of Ragnar and Alfred the Great were portrayed was absolutely distasteful. Hormonal teenagers with screeching voices wearing fake beards. Disrespectful and disgusting.
For me, this show ended with Rollo being acclaimed as Caesar by the Franks. Everything else that followed was utter nonsense.
I don't understand how you can be upset with a show that is clearly based on fiction. Calling it 'disrespectful and disgusting' seems excessive. To whom is it disrespectful? The events depicted occurred around 800 to 900 AD. Why should it matter now?
Do you seriously believe the show needs a disclaimer stating it’s not historically accurate? If so, why aren't you criticizing the inclusion of Odin? After all, we don't see him in real life. Similarly, Athelstan's awakening is purely fictional and not historically accurate.
Let's stop criticizing the show for not being something it never claimed to be.
@@user-kp8ic4wy9n It is not about historical accuracy, but authenticity, and a general respect for legendary historical figures. E.g. Gladiator is grossly historically inaccurate. But they were respectful of history in the portrayal of Marcus Aurelius. 300 is historical nonsense, but respectful in the characterization of Leonidas and the 300. On the other hand the Netflix show Barbarians got criticized for similar reasons for how they mishandled the character of Germanicus.
The Vikings did a great job with Ragnar, Rollo, Lagertha etc. The events of Ragnar and Rollo's lives as depicted in the show are quite similar to history. It set a standard that it itself destroyed with Ragnar's sons. Ivar and Bjorn being played by children with fake beards is as egregious as race or gender swapping them. I bet you would have complained then.
Ragnar wasn't even nores he was danish
What difference does that make? Not like he would start talking Danish, as all of them spoke either old Norse or just English. Even the city in Vikings isn't even real, Kattegatt never existed. But nothing of this even matters as all of it is fictional.
Show might be fictional but most of the main characters were real people at one time in different places
I hate this show 🇺🇸✝️🛐🕊
It’s a bunch of made up mumbo-jumbo anyway lol
1st view..Give me a medal..😅😂
Grow up
Doesn't matter cause you get nothing for it.
Doesn't matter what number view you are. Also if someone name black hat gives you one , they don't count just like your pointless comment. Also black hat is a bully and liar that will make false claims about others. He has 0 proof.
@@King.Cinephile king spammer
I'm 4th 😊
Doesn't matter cause you get nothing for it
Nobody is impressed
Like always it doesn't matter what number comment you are. You will never get anything for it
@@King.Cinephile hello King spammer aka Murray king.
Loser
The way history downplays and discounts the contributions of women, especially in battle, and the relationships of queer people is not something we should accept. This is, and always has been, based on bias.
You didn’t watch Vikings, right?
History hasn't underplayed Queens like Cleopatra, Lagaertha, or the Warrior Queen Boudica of Eirie. Granted they royally messed up a few like Cleopatra (looking at you Netflix), and Anne Boleyn of England and if the rumours are true DEIsney is going to ruin the Irish Pirate Queen Anne Bonney.
@@ConservativeKetchup There have been more than these women with power. Everywhere across the world graves and tombs of women are found with weapons and archeologists misgender the skeleton or come up with stories that still refuse to acknowledge that women can be warriors too. It doesn't just happen to ancient women. Women or those assigned female at birth and their military contributions are removed from history by narrow minded historians and archeologists, this video feeds into that. But why am I trying to reason with a racist?