Another strong episode of Vikings tonight - 1.4 - featuring excellent battle scenes, treachery, doubt of the gods, but most of all a good twist involving Rollo, whom we see in the coming attractions being tempted by Haraldson.
The background begins with Lagertha walking in on Knut (Haraldson's agent on this raid, who turns out not only to be the Earl's "friend" but his half-brother) raping a Saxon woman. Lagertha tells Knut to stop - whether all Viking women were against rape of conquests or this is a special case is unclear. Knut does stop, but turns his rage on Lagertha, who narrowly escapes being raped herself and kills Knut.
Obviously, Haraldson does not take kindly to this when Ragnar's party returns. Now, Ragnar could have lied about Knut's death and attributed it to the savage attack of the Saxons which the Vikings repelled - with a brilliant shield-wall defense (better known as the Roman testudo formation) - but I guess Ragnar didn't want to lie like this in front of his men. So he lies in a different way and says he came upon Knute raping his wife and killed him. Since there was no one there other than Lagertha to contradict this account, it's a fairly good lie.
But not good enough to satisfy Haraldson, who is already out for blood when it comes to Ragnar. In a crucial moment in Ragnar's trial, Haraldson calls upon a surprise witness to the event - Rollo - who says he saw what actually happened (surprise witness indeed, because we know that Rollo wasn't there). Looks like bad news for Ragnar, since we saw Rollo just the night before smiling as Haraldson all but offered Rollo succession to the crown if Rollo would turn on his brother. But - Rollo's testimony supports Ragnar 100%. Haraldson's so surprised and unnerved by this that in a later scene he doubts the existence of the gods (though he might have always felt that way, and Rollo's unexpected support of his brother may have just brought out Haraldon's doubt).
And this is a good twist for us, because, let's face it, we don't know Rollo well enough at this point in the series to think with confidence that he would never betray his brother. To the contrary, we know he covets Lagertha, and when he tells her at the end that he testified to save not Ragnar but Lagertha, it rings true. Family first - but shield-maiden sister-in-law more than than brother in this story.
The history continues to be accurate and rewarding in Vikings, though the Saxons were known to use the shield-wall defense, too. But, hey, who's to say that Ragnar's party didn't use it in this case, and prevail so impressively in their battle by the sea.
See also Vikings ... Vikings 1.2: Lindisfarne ... Vikings 1.3: The Priest ... Vikings 1.5: Freud and Family ... Vikings 1.7: Religion and Battle ... Vikings 1.8: Sacrifice ... Vikings Season 1 Finale: Below the Ash
The background begins with Lagertha walking in on Knut (Haraldson's agent on this raid, who turns out not only to be the Earl's "friend" but his half-brother) raping a Saxon woman. Lagertha tells Knut to stop - whether all Viking women were against rape of conquests or this is a special case is unclear. Knut does stop, but turns his rage on Lagertha, who narrowly escapes being raped herself and kills Knut.
Obviously, Haraldson does not take kindly to this when Ragnar's party returns. Now, Ragnar could have lied about Knut's death and attributed it to the savage attack of the Saxons which the Vikings repelled - with a brilliant shield-wall defense (better known as the Roman testudo formation) - but I guess Ragnar didn't want to lie like this in front of his men. So he lies in a different way and says he came upon Knute raping his wife and killed him. Since there was no one there other than Lagertha to contradict this account, it's a fairly good lie.
But not good enough to satisfy Haraldson, who is already out for blood when it comes to Ragnar. In a crucial moment in Ragnar's trial, Haraldson calls upon a surprise witness to the event - Rollo - who says he saw what actually happened (surprise witness indeed, because we know that Rollo wasn't there). Looks like bad news for Ragnar, since we saw Rollo just the night before smiling as Haraldson all but offered Rollo succession to the crown if Rollo would turn on his brother. But - Rollo's testimony supports Ragnar 100%. Haraldson's so surprised and unnerved by this that in a later scene he doubts the existence of the gods (though he might have always felt that way, and Rollo's unexpected support of his brother may have just brought out Haraldon's doubt).
And this is a good twist for us, because, let's face it, we don't know Rollo well enough at this point in the series to think with confidence that he would never betray his brother. To the contrary, we know he covets Lagertha, and when he tells her at the end that he testified to save not Ragnar but Lagertha, it rings true. Family first - but shield-maiden sister-in-law more than than brother in this story.
The history continues to be accurate and rewarding in Vikings, though the Saxons were known to use the shield-wall defense, too. But, hey, who's to say that Ragnar's party didn't use it in this case, and prevail so impressively in their battle by the sea.
See also Vikings ... Vikings 1.2: Lindisfarne ... Vikings 1.3: The Priest ... Vikings 1.5: Freud and Family ... Vikings 1.7: Religion and Battle ... Vikings 1.8: Sacrifice ... Vikings Season 1 Finale: Below the Ash
6 comments:
The history is far from accurate in this show as really shown tonight, never mind that no "shield maiden" ever went on a raid why in the world would she interrupt a Saxon getting raped/ Not only is the ultimate bad ass against men twice her size but she is a defender of women's rights as well! This is only the worse of the inaccuracies.
That being said I love the show but let's not pretend it bears much resemblance to history.
You make your criticism of Lagertha as if I didn't already mention it in my review :)
Honestly the way you defended your review after the last comment I am reticent to make this post, but the facts are facts.
Clearly you enjoy the series and are promoting it, but they are truly NOT accurate in their history, and until you stated so and then responded to the first comment I wasn't planning to write at all.
In truth if you want to be accurate you would note Bernard Cornwell and his Last Kingdom series. In doing so you would know that the so called Vikings were in fact Danes and called themselves Danes not Vikings. This story is being told from the Danes perspective but names with the Anglo word for them -Viking.
Also while i have no comment on the women fighting in the shield walls I have no reservation in believing that all Anglo raided women were raped... and conversely slaves were a commodity and not hung for no reason. Slaves were in fact taken but they didn't take them all back north to hang them. That's just silly... And just a couple more notes on accurate history. The burial at the seashore of the fallen Viking had a horse head in the grave. While the Danes would in fact do this they didn't bring an horses or use an in this raid. So why bury an Anglo horse with the fallen to be sent to Valhalla..? And also the Viking hordes were buried in England when they weren't sending them back so why would Harralson take the plunder he stole from Ragnar and bury it in his back yard...?
Not going to go on though I think I could. But when you say the History is accurate you open yourself to all sorts of criticism and therefore in my mind sacrifice the option of a disclaimer when someone posts a comment pointing out such problems.
So I'm not attacking you or your opinion, but clearly they have, and will continue to take many liberties with this "history"
Several points, Don -
1. If you're "reticent," that's too bad. Learn to have some confidence ib your opinions, or don't post them.
2. Where do you get the idea that I'm "promoting" the series? I'm reviewing the series, and calling what I see as I see it.
3. You're entitled to your opinion, but you have a narrow view of history. The reality is even the most factual accounts from a period that long ago leave a lot out and undergo constant evolution. The facts are that no one can say with certainty what did or did not have happen on a given raid at the microlevel we're discussing. That said, I maintain the general, larger historical currents on Vikings - the larger truths - are historically accurate, in the areas I indicate in the reviews. And the points you make in this comment - for example, Danes not Vikings - are trivial or irrelevant.
Paul,
My reticence was not in my opinion which I stand by but in the aspect of the way you seemed to take minor offense with the earlier comment.
Apparently I was at least partially correct as it turns out because my comment also seemed to upset you it appears that a gone who disagrees with you has to be irrelevant...?
Anyway, just to be clear because I may have been ambiguous earlier. When I used the word promote, I meant it only in the sense that you seemed to enjoy it and promoted that aspect. That you enjoyed it.
Trying to be more respectful, I would only submit that if you were going to stick to TV critiques that is obviously your talent, but making the claim that the program is historically accurate and then use the inaccuracies of history in your rebuff of my comment... well you lost me there.
I was only making my opinion of your comment and it's too bad that you felt a need to lash out.
Either way, I don't want to be "that guy" in the comments section of a blog, but I did want to clear up my use of the word promote. I apologize if you took offense at it's meaning as none was intended. I hope that clears it up for you and anyone reading.
My disagreement with your comment wasn't meant to immune your integrity.
But by all means if you feel the program is indeed accurate in it's history, then clearly no one can tell you you're wrong. I mean you do write a blog about TV... :-)
Good luck to you Sir. And if you do enjoy the subject I reiterate my recommendation of the Last Kingdom. You don't have to take my word for it, it has been critically acclaimed... although maybe not from a TV blog.
Thanks your opinion, Don, but I'm afraid you're misreading my comments here if you think I'm "taking offense" or "lashing out". Saying a point you make is "trivial or irrelevant" is basic, straightforward criticism. Surely you agree that offering a criticism is not the same as being offended?
Nor is it the case that "no one" can tell me that I'm wrong" - if you read more thoroughly in this blog, or any of my books, you'll see there are lots of places in which I not only admit but welcome someone pointing out an error. For example, in my book New New Media, I thank Rich Sommer, actor in Mad Men, for coming by here and pointing out that I got something wrong in my review of an episode. And my first book, about philosopher Karl Popper, was all about how we learn from criticism and the errors we make.
But that does not mean that all criticism is worthy, or is itself beyond criticism. And, alas, your criticism is itself in error and laden with defensiveness.
And that's a point I'm making as a criticism, not because I'm in the slightest offended :)
Post a Comment