He orchestrated the massacre of the settlers who's land was won by their own blood in the war with Mercia and he is currently bedding his sons wife due to his fascination with anything Athelstan....yeah dudes shady yet brilliant defiantly one of more complete characters in the show
dmangoman1 vikings can gtfo of England. Thats just called strategy. Bedding the son's wife is a little shady, not sure why his character took a turn there.
+Cezariusz 88 He actually has great vision, it's his rule that was continued in part by his son, which culminated by the works of his grandson, who achieved the title "the Great", which only has been given 2 times in the history of Great Britain.
I love King Ecberts way of thinking. He thinks like a King and goes at War like a Tactcian. He knows his Enemy and he knows how to unite Britian under One King, the true king of Wessex
King Ecbert truly was a great friend and enemy to Ragmar, they were alike in so ways, he was basically the English version of Ragnar, smart, powerful, forward thinking, not bound by tradition or ways of the old, a true king to his people and wise man of his time. My favorite character, loved how he lived and composed himself.
@@AndrewBlack-jy1mq King Ecbert and Ragnar were both leaders of their people. Ragnar sought wealth and power FOR his people, Ecbert was the same. What was power back then? It was land, and both went about getting it in their own ways. Sure, they had different personalities, but both sought power in the form of expanding their kingdoms lands and wealth.
This scene is cool because it portrays King Ecbert as a kind of micro-sovereign in comparison to Charlemagne, but, nonetheless, a king with his own territory and people to protect. In other words, it shows him having to tackle the same issue as this famous emperor from history albeit on a much smaller scale.
Well, I fell in love with this character (more than with Ragnar or Floki) and it took just a little while... For me is Ecbert the best character of Vikings series and I think it's not going to change.
He's my most favourite character. Evil though but the Vikings truly deserved a man like him. He was wise and shrewd. He beat them hands down and outsmarted them. He would've done it again if he hadn't lost the will to live.
He and Emperor Charles are the best Christian monarchs in this series. Hands down. I wonder how a meeting between these two brilliant and smart men would have played out.
The way to defeat Vikings was literally what the French Dukes did, decentralised power from the King of France and bolster the power of autonomous Dukedoms. Improving and researching fortified castles and motte and baileys, this way Vikings will need to lay siege to critical areas that have resources which is their weakness. The lack of patience. Alfred the Great built many burhs that had walls and also fortified the Churches with stone masonry and made them into stone forts that the Vikings will be attacked through small gaps and be rained upon by arrows from high towers of the Churches. The church also carried lots of treasures and tithes and offerings which will attract the Vikings like bees to honey. That is where the kill zone is created and the local men and women and fyrdmen can gather and make a tough stand against lightning attacks. Unfortunately Ecbert did not devise this but was learned over the many decades with much bitter experiences before the development of mass castle building, thus heavily militarizing all of Europe. On TOP of the fortification building, Europe also changed her favoured fighting doctrine of heavy infantry in shield wall combat to that of mobile heavy chainmail cavalry warfare. These Porto knights would become the tank of their age. High speed, high armor, crushing charge that will buckle even the fiercest Viking shield wall with ease. As the Vikings fought in shield wall and were probably the best fighters of her age even beating the imperious Frankish infantry, the Frankish cavalry was the Super weapon against the unstoppable Vikings which will set the stage of the beginning of early medieval Europe and the beginning of the Knights and the courtly intrigue.
@@iammaxhammer It's from Notker the Stammerer's 'Life of Charlemagne'. Notker was a contemporary of Charlemagne. The quote in question I saw is cited by David Ganz's book: 'Einhard and Notker the Stammerer - Two lives of Charlemagne' page 105. The quote from Notker is that the emperor was crying by the window after the raid on Narbonne: 'he shed tears beyond price. And none dared speak a word to him; but at last he explained his actions and his tears to his nobles with these words: "Do you know why I weep so bitterly, my true servants? I have no fear of these worthless jokers doing any harm to me; but I am sad at heart to think that even during my lifetime they have dared to touch this shore; and I am torn by a great sorrow because I forsee what evil things they will do to my descandents and their subjects."
I live in a small town in Dorset.It was the capital of Wessex at the time.Two of King Ecbert's grandsons are buried at the Abbey in my town.Aethelbald & Aethelbert.Both of them Alfred the Great's brothers.Makes me proud to have so much history right on my doorstep.I will always honour the Golden Wyvern of Wessex!👑
Linus Roache as the Saxon King Ecbert steals quite a number of scenes in the series. I haven't watched him on stage, but I'm sure he plays an excellent Richard 3rd. Long speeches from wicked Kings and Queens are a mainstay of the Shakespearean acting tradition.
There are certain characters with a really dark side to them and despite knowing about their dark persona one can never hate them for their good overshadow the bad in them. King Ecbert was one such character in the Vikings.
I just love the difference between Ecbert and Aeele's courts in the show. Aelle is all fire and brimstone, faith and wrath, and constantly is beaten, and outsmarted to the point his nobles are too afraid to speak reason to him, and his aides just echo religious fervor to him Ecbert is calculated and instantly has a plan beyond "find and kill them all", with his nobles waiting to hear him instead of clamoring and crying in rage and fear. With his own bishop being politically savvy enough to be indispensible.
Ecbert was true Ruler, in that era Most RUlers were nothing more than pupets for priest/holyman and no one dared to challence holyman decisions. But Ecbert overruled his Bishop constantly and also overuled Monk who didnt want to teach woman. It showed Ecbert was a ruler, feared and loved.
@@g.9664 yea but he's telling the story from his own experience and trauma as a child. Also at the same time pouring whine to indicate the blood spilled from the raid.. so I conclude the sigh is traumatic experience.
I used to hate this guy but he grew on me. Same as his grandson Alfred on the last kingdom. Both were supporting characters that managed to have a bigger impact on the shows than the main character.
Here is one of many epic speeches from an epic character and tremendous actor from an epic show. However, the worst issue the show had was a strange and sudden lack of "internal" historical/temporal consistency with the introduction of the franks and particularly using Charles the Bald as Carolingian Emperor/King of West Francia, despite the fact that the show started in 793, and by keeping track of time using the ages of Ragnar's sons, by the time of the first raid on Paris, it should have been somewhere around 805-808 (maybe maximum circa 810)- which should have meant Charlemagne himself was the emperor/king of West+East Francia, not Charles the Bald (who wasn't even born until 823). Ironically, the show did at least get one thing right with Charles, despite him being the wrong emperor for the time period - he apparently wasn't actually bald, but was actually extremely hairy (the name being sarcastic, equivalent to calling a huge guy "tiny") How epic would it have been to have seen Ragnar face down Emperor Charlemagne/ Karl/ Carolus Magnus himself, instead of his weak and indecisive grandson?
John G Umm this show isn't even supposed to be historically accurate, it simply has a basis in history. With that said, historically Ragnar wasn't the first viking to sail to England, he was the first viking to leave settlements behind. I like how nobody complains about the mystical powers of the seers and how characters are able to see the future but oh look this scene doesn't correspond with history, that's must mean its a bad show
On the contrary, I still think it was a great show, I was just puzzled at why the intentionally put the Franks in a "fast-forwarded time capsule" about 30 years in the future to everyone else. Technically Ecbert should have been much younger, about 30 when Ragnar first met him, but I never complained about this, since Roache is just too good an actor to pass up.
The show is extremelly atemporal.. they compressed events that happend in the course of almost 2 centuries into a single lifetime... Even emperor Chareles himself was based not in one single real historical character, but a fusion of 3 different real kings of Frankia Charles the Bald, was the grandson of Charlemagne and had two brothers that ruled the other 2 parts of the empire, and faced the siege of Ragnar in 845. Charles the Fat was the one who reigned during the siege of Paris in 885 and commanded Count Oddo. Charles the Simple was the one who granted the lands of Normandy to Rollo and had a daughter named Gizla to who Rollo maried. This is just one of the many temporal inconsitencies of the show..
@John G I agree with you about all that you have written, except for about the frank monarch: i wouldn't call "weak and indecisive" a man who fought in the past against his half-brothers to gain his part of lands and inheritance and succeded; ironically, while we see Ecbert's attempts to gain his goal (ie becoming Bretwalda), Charles of this series had already gained his own (ie getting his kingdom). It's just that we didn't see Charles doing it, as we saw him already as an Emperor. Many people consider Charles the Bald of this show weak because he was afraid to fight against the norses, which is probably true, but they never consider that if he died, he would have left his reign and people in big more trouble, as they would have to face both the Vikings and Charles' real threat, his hated half-brothers ans gisla could not inherit his throne, although she would have been a wonderful empress and her father knows it very well. What he lacks in strenght, he gains in wisdom and cunnings: see how he got Rollo to his side and he outsmarted Odo, Roland and Therese. Have you ever thought that his weakness and undecisiveness might have been "smoke in the eyes", a bait to find out who were his allies and not? Emperor Charles is as wise, cunning and willingfull as Ecbert, he's just not so evident at first sight and therefore he is the most"there is more than meets the eye" character in this series. I really wouldn't underestimate a person like that.
Guess I’d say Alfred, with how he uses Eivor to destroy the order of ancients so he can begin the age of Templar, kinda same sorta plot twist with Ecbert having his son destroy Ragnar’s settlement, but nah, it is a loose comparison
@@Zav72 Alfred was great but I was thinking someone who would be also physically imposing and have that ruler/warrior aura. All the badass characters are danes in the game
Wait, what? Ecbert talks of Northmen raiding the coast of southern Gaul in the time of Charlemagne, and yet Björn is supposed to be the first Viking to discover the Mediterranean, and Ragnar the first to sail west? Makes no sense.
blub YOU make no fucking sense. This show isn't meant to be historically accurate. 90% of the shit in this show isn't historically accurate . They bend history in order to make the plot more interesting.
He's a very great actor and plays his role in a very believable way. I love watching him and the entire series of "Vikings" Of course I'm kind of partial. I have Viking ancestry making it very interesting for me!
It's funny that the people that Charlemagne talked about having 'wiped' to Ecbert, were actually Ecbert's own people, the Saxons.. only the continental pagan ones...
@@oswaldo7801 At that time, there were Anglo-Saxons (The English, Christians) and regular Saxons (North German pagans) but they weren't friends or anything, based on the fact they had different religions.
@Pammy Badger he was refering to pagans in general, but the only tribe he "wiped" were the saxons.. he fought some battles with the danes as long as I know, but didnt do to them what he'd done to the saxons in scale
@@bumblebeeeoptimus He did fight raiding parties from Jutland and nearby areas, he also organized flotillas to patrol the coastlines and engaging them at sea where possible. As soon as he died many of his initiatives ceased almost immediatly. His wars with the continental Saxons are another brutal mutter entirely.
I loved the ealry Ecbert character because he was mature, intelligent, and a 'good guy' which I thought would finally be the first time in TV series history we'd see two 'good guys' fight each other to the death. But nooo they had to turn Ecbert less likeable just to make him seem like the antagonist in the 3rd/4th season.
Yes he's extremely corrupt but I think he's more of a anti-hero because although he did shady stuff, his goal was to unite England and keep it safe from external forces which is a noble goal.
Thank you for making it possible to watch this great scene uncut. One question: What is he doing with those three objects? I thought they might be chess figures, but they can't be.
Cezariusz 88 I'm sorry but is this some kind of deleted version from the original speech he gives? i'm rewatching s02e03 and it's a lot shorter with no mention at all to the part where Charlemagne had tears running down his cheek.
Notice the three Vajra trinkets he has on his table. East asian imports ? Symbols of that which cuts, but cannot itself be cut . Not bad for a man like Ecbert
Lots of similarities if you think about it, what with him wanting to be King of all England, and his constant scheming. “Be prepared” with some modifications could suit him if you check the lyrics out and compare what he says.
I wonder what would've happened if all these places that got raided were just like "oh we can just give you guys what you want, that's probably easier"
Then they take everything. And then next time they take your land too. If you pay the dane-geld, you'll never get rid of the danes. King Alfred drove them out with the sword, and fortified the country, and was called "the great."
It actually did happen. Ragnar took Paris a lot easier than what the show portrayed, and the Franks did pay them off. Paris became a vacation destination for Vikings, because they knew they could simply go there, get paid off to leave and go back home. It’s why eventually they went to Rollo and asked him to defend them in exchange for lands and a title, and that’s how we got Normandy.
@@nraketh Not really, Alfred did have a lot of strategic wins in the battlefield, but the Vikings weren’t properly defeated. They simply faded out due to converting to Christianity and assimilation until they didn’t have much of a purpose anymore, with Hardrada being the last of them after his defeat by Harold Godwinson.
@@alexman378 Well: sleeping with his own son's wife... if that didn't make him a weasel, I don't know what could. I think (and hope) Godwin shall be more developed in the following season and we shall see his motivations more clearly.
Can anyone explain to me why and how Ecbert has Buddhist/ Hindu Vajras and Indian style candleholders on his table? 00:40 It's been bugging me for a long time and no one can answer that
It also seems like the director has some inclination to Buddhism judging by some episodes from the last season. They also reference it a lot with the quote that Largeta gave to one of its sons after or before she arrived at Kattegat to see Bjorn. Other phrases and conclusions said by other characters can also be found equal to those taught in Taoism.
Yeah they really screw with the chronology on this thing lol, they were actually born and died at really similar times (roughly a generation for both birth and death)
@@marcusmagnus1920 So is Ecbert supposed to be older or at least as the same age as Emperor Charles II of Frankia (who is stated to be Charlemagne's grandson)? I'm a little confused
@@cristinademartini1284 In between. Carolus Magnus or as we know him better as Charlemagne 748-814. Ecgberht of Wessex around 770 or 775 - 839. Charles the Bald of West Francia 823-877. It’s really hard for us medievalist to make peace with entertainment business, concerning historical accuracy. They took one character Ragnar and they used his life to tell Viking age storyline.
+Timothy Butler No, he was from what we call England today, but he lived several years at the court of Charlemagne in Aachen where he was able to study his tactics.
Of course it's possible to know that. Queen Elizabeth II can trace her ancestry back to Charlemagne as well. All she has to do is trace back to William the Conqueror and then from his back to Charlemagne. All you need to do is find the link between you and an old noble family. I myself can trace my line back through the Ribbing family to king Harald Fairhair, who united Norway. The thing is that, as you said, pretty much everyone today is a direct descendant of Charlemagne. That's just how ancestry works. The hard part is finding a clear line through history to prove it
yep. Problably he would. I wonder how he would react when he found out that a Viking (brother of Ragnar Lothbrok in this series any less) had married the daughter of his mentor's grandson and was given a duchy, andf his descendant will conquer his so dreamed united England? Uh, i'd pay gold to see his reaction XD!
No, he wasn't: Charlemagne had many sons, but Ecbert was never one, only his protegé (as his historical counterpart was exiled at Charlemagne's court for a while). Charlemagne's son and heir was Emperor Louis I the Pious, the father of frank monarch in this series
Ecgbert’s father was Ealhmund, who was the King of Kent. Ecgbert just spent his time in exile at Charlemagne’s court, who would have had a big impact of Ecgbert’s style of rule.
Murder and thieving are abominations even to those who do not believe in Christ (sin is a reproach to all peoples). Love your enemies, pray that they come to Christ, because those who theoretically reject God end up in the worst way possible. I sincerely believe God protected and prospered His people more so than what history says. The Norse were eventually Christianized. It is absolutely the duty of a nation to wage war boldly without fear to hault others committing such violence. Righteousness is only attained AS A GIFT FROM GOD. When u trust Christ, God forgets your evil because He loves u to the point of becoming the only Perfect sacrifice Who received torment that He didn't deserve (a Holy God must torment evil) so that He would treat us if we are not evil. Until a person trusts Christ, they are still viewed as the evil person that they are. Whenever the Bible talks about the righteous vs the wicked, it is distinguishing those who are of the True and Living God from those who do not. Left to themselves, all people are equally wicked and deserve eternal torment. God loves and dignified us with free will. Thus, He will not force His blessings unto those who reject Him.
@@earthwormchewer170 Ah shut up Christian, Norsemen were new "christianised". They're kings became Christians but they did not, Christianity is out of Europa and Paganism is coming back.
The Christian speaks of mercy and love but worships a God who is cruel and hateful. The Christian calls drag queens groomers but allows their pastors to rape children. The Christian is a hypocrite and a liar and deserves no tolerance. Christianity is a plague and must be wiped from this earth.
Yeah, after setting up events to fuck over the other kingdoms, so that his grandson can unite the country under one rule? even the vikings are used as a tool for his vision.
Had he been able to treat his son and heir with a little bit more of respect and affection, i would have liked him more. So for me, the title of the wisest (for what i've seen so far) goes to Emperor Charles. But I agree that Ecbert was a master in cunningness and smartness. And Linus Roache was outstanding in portraining him.
![Eminem - Houdini [Official Music Video]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/22tVWwmTie8/mqdefault.jpg)
Ecbert has really grown on me- his shady nature has made him one of my favorite characters
He is not shady.
He orchestrated the massacre of the settlers who's land was won by their own blood in the war with Mercia and he is currently bedding his sons wife due to his fascination with anything Athelstan....yeah dudes shady yet brilliant defiantly one of more complete characters in the show
dmangoman1 vikings can gtfo of England. Thats just called strategy. Bedding the son's wife is a little shady, not sure why his character took a turn there.
Ed Harley I wouldn't call him shady, rather a pure sociopath.
+Cezariusz 88 He actually has great vision, it's his rule that was continued in part by his son, which culminated by the works of his grandson, who achieved the title "the Great", which only has been given 2 times in the history of Great Britain.
I love King Ecberts way of thinking. He thinks like a King and goes at War like a Tactcian. He knows his Enemy and he knows how to unite Britian under One King, the true king of Wessex
Aethelwulf is here like "Holy shit hes so cool, and iam his son, fuck yeah!" :D
Here's a king who knows how to keep his court firmly in his hand
Wait to see Emperor Charles: they definitely are men who know how things worked out XD!
Great scene and great introduction for the King Ecbert
Amazing character
I miss the excellent story lines/acting. Now it's just battle, battle, revenge, battle....
I love any time Charlemagne is mentioned
Yeah, the producers of VIKINGS should make a show about him.
King Ecbert truly was a great friend and enemy to Ragmar, they were alike in so ways, he was basically the English version of Ragnar, smart, powerful, forward thinking, not bound by tradition or ways of the old, a true king to his people and wise man of his time. My favorite character, loved how he lived and composed himself.
I mean they were similiar but not the same Ragnar never had a lust for power, Eckbert did.
@@AndrewBlack-jy1mq King Ecbert and Ragnar were both leaders of their people. Ragnar sought wealth and power FOR his people, Ecbert was the same. What was power back then? It was land, and both went about getting it in their own ways. Sure, they had different personalities, but both sought power in the form of expanding their kingdoms lands and wealth.
This scene is cool because it portrays King Ecbert as a kind of micro-sovereign in comparison to Charlemagne, but, nonetheless, a king with his own territory and people to protect. In other words, it shows him having to tackle the same issue as this famous emperor from history albeit on a much smaller scale.
Well, I fell in love with this character (more than with Ragnar or Floki) and it took just a little while... For me is Ecbert the best character of Vikings series and I think it's not going to change.
One of the best characters in the show. Ecbert is better than ivar
Ecbert was an excellent character acted out very well. Vikings is no longer what it once was.
he was the wisest person in vikings
He got played in the end by Ragnar :)
@@iconicz6 No, he did not. He deceived the vikings just before his death.
@@oni2662 I know but Ragnar played him a step further
@@iconicz6 he didn't care what happened to his kingdom at that point
@@bonzaieditz4722 Yeah, he was my favourite character though
He's my most favourite character. Evil though but the Vikings truly deserved a man like him. He was wise and shrewd. He beat them hands down and outsmarted them. He would've done it again if he hadn't lost the will to live.
He and Emperor Charles are the best Christian monarchs in this series. Hands down. I wonder how a meeting between these two brilliant and smart men would have played out.
Probably wouldn’t have been able to outsmart Ivar the Boneless.
@@EduardoRodriguez-kb4gj Definitely could outsmart Ivar
Fact👌
when you understand king ecbert is a good player
Ecbert is so badass here
King Ecbert is badass af
So young here, still looking up to his idol Charlemagne, and the Roman Empire.
And yet so wise already
Early seasons Aethelwulf always looks like he knows something you don't and enjoys that fact.
So true! Amazing analysis
@@OutlawedSpank Thank you!
What a great scene.
Ecbert was cool and smart. He was doing what was right for his folk
Absolutely 💯
The way to defeat Vikings was literally what the French Dukes did, decentralised power from the King of France and bolster the power of autonomous Dukedoms.
Improving and researching fortified castles and motte and baileys, this way Vikings will need to lay siege to critical areas that have resources which is their weakness. The lack of patience.
Alfred the Great built many burhs that had walls and also fortified the Churches with stone masonry and made them into stone forts that the Vikings will be attacked through small gaps and be rained upon by arrows from high towers of the Churches. The church also carried lots of treasures and tithes and offerings which will attract the Vikings like bees to honey.
That is where the kill zone is created and the local men and women and fyrdmen can gather and make a tough stand against lightning attacks.
Unfortunately Ecbert did not devise this but was learned over the many decades with much bitter experiences before the development of mass castle building, thus heavily militarizing all of Europe.
On TOP of the fortification building, Europe also changed her favoured fighting doctrine of heavy infantry in shield wall combat to that of mobile heavy chainmail cavalry warfare. These Porto knights would become the tank of their age. High speed, high armor, crushing charge that will buckle even the fiercest Viking shield wall with ease. As the Vikings fought in shield wall and were probably the best fighters of her age even beating the imperious Frankish infantry, the Frankish cavalry was the Super weapon against the unstoppable Vikings which will set the stage of the beginning of early medieval Europe and the beginning of the Knights and the courtly intrigue.
Ecbert is awesome actor will always be close to my ❤️ forever
Hes my 2nd fave behind rahgnar .
Ragnar is grim compared to Ecbert. Both suffered in their lives but Ecbert chooses to remain enlightened and life of the party.
He is dammnnn so cool
Almost word for word taken from Charlemagne's biographer Notker the Stammerer, regarding the raid on Narbonne.
stammerer= studder prone
Do you have a link to more info on this?
@@iammaxhammer It's from Notker the Stammerer's 'Life of Charlemagne'. Notker was a contemporary of Charlemagne. The quote in question I saw is cited by David Ganz's book: 'Einhard and Notker the Stammerer - Two lives of Charlemagne' page 105.
The quote from Notker is that the emperor was crying by the window after the raid on Narbonne: 'he shed tears beyond price. And none dared speak a word to him; but at last he explained his actions and his tears to his nobles with these words: "Do you know why I weep so bitterly, my true servants? I have no fear of these worthless jokers doing any harm to me; but I am sad at heart to think that even during my lifetime they have dared to touch this shore; and I am torn by a great sorrow because I forsee what evil things they will do to my descandents and their subjects."
I'm in love with ecbert's scenes ..speech to the nobles,and this pretending ...he's my best
Every time i watch this opening scene for King Ecbert, it gives me chills!! This is by far the best TV Series to this day.
Until s4...
I live in a small town in Dorset.It was the capital of Wessex at the time.Two of King Ecbert's grandsons are buried at the Abbey in my town.Aethelbald & Aethelbert.Both of them Alfred the Great's brothers.Makes me proud to have so much history right on my doorstep.I will always honour the Golden Wyvern of Wessex!👑
You are very lucky. I love Dorset.
Linus Roache as the Saxon King Ecbert steals quite a number of scenes in the series. I haven't watched him on stage, but I'm sure he plays an excellent Richard 3rd. Long speeches from wicked Kings and Queens are a mainstay of the Shakespearean acting tradition.
Linus Roache, is an underrated actor, and much better than his father
There are certain characters with a really dark side to them and despite knowing about their dark persona one can never hate them for their good overshadow the bad in them. King Ecbert was one such character in the Vikings.
I just love the difference between Ecbert and Aeele's courts in the show.
Aelle is all fire and brimstone, faith and wrath, and constantly is beaten, and outsmarted to the point his nobles are too afraid to speak reason to him, and his aides just echo religious fervor to him
Ecbert is calculated and instantly has a plan beyond "find and kill them all", with his nobles waiting to hear him instead of clamoring and crying in rage and fear. With his own bishop being politically savvy enough to be indispensible.
Wow I Just realized he played Batman's dad in batman begins
Ecbert was true Ruler, in that era Most RUlers were nothing more than pupets for priest/holyman and no one dared to challence holyman decisions. But Ecbert overruled his Bishop constantly and also overuled Monk who didnt want to teach woman. It showed Ecbert was a ruler, feared and loved.
I think Ecbert was the only one who won this battle and ruled like a real leader. All rest of them were messed up in themselves.
Ragnar was my favorite restaurant.
@@spicypickle889 hahahaha that was typo buddy... Lemme correct
"These Ruffians, These Pagans."
Gotta admit I love his delivery of those words. There's a wicked posh charm in them
@@st.mephisto8564 Sounds like Gary Oldman and Michael Douglas in one person.
the sigh he does after "a lightning attack" is acting 101, its his character reliving the moment
I always felt like it was an "Impressed sigh" like he is amazed by their the strategy.
@@g.9664 yea but he's telling the story from his own experience and trauma as a child. Also at the same time pouring whine to indicate the blood spilled from the raid.. so I conclude the sigh is traumatic experience.
Ecbert is the cool dude turned into a King.
The moment when you realise, This the purifier out of Riddick.
+Greg Partridge Beards can do wonders...XD
+Greg Partridge And Batman's dad
Just realised from a clip, that Ecbert looked like...and was Law n Order's very own!! Respect
I used to hate this guy but he grew on me. Same as his grandson Alfred on the last kingdom. Both were supporting characters that managed to have a bigger impact on the shows than the main character.
The fact that the liquid left a small hole in the middle at 1:06 triggers me off so much for some reason lol
Zypher lol, same... everytime!
King Echbert and Prince Oleg hands down my two favorite antagonists in the show
What are you talking about, they are the protagonists
@@spawncampe Nah, I consider them antagonists. My point of view is that of the Vikings. I root for the Vikings, not the Christians.
That's some sharp writing and fine acting. No flab on this scene.
Also, Bruce Wayne's dad in Batman Begins
How much he looks like his son here! The eyes almost match
SONG- intro by Nyxon
Is only thing i could find
Great Ecbert !!!
I'm getting goosebumps watching this
Here is one of many epic speeches from an epic character and tremendous actor from an epic show.
However, the worst issue the show had was a strange and sudden lack of "internal" historical/temporal consistency with the introduction of the franks and particularly using Charles the Bald as Carolingian Emperor/King of West Francia, despite the fact that the show started in 793, and by keeping track of time using the ages of Ragnar's sons, by the time of the first raid on Paris, it should have been somewhere around 805-808 (maybe maximum circa 810)- which should have meant Charlemagne himself was the emperor/king of West+East Francia, not Charles the Bald (who wasn't even born until 823). Ironically, the show did at least get one thing right with Charles, despite him being the wrong emperor for the time period - he apparently wasn't actually bald, but was actually extremely hairy (the name being sarcastic, equivalent to calling a huge guy "tiny")
How epic would it have been to have seen Ragnar face down Emperor Charlemagne/ Karl/ Carolus Magnus himself, instead of his weak and indecisive grandson?
John G Umm this show isn't even supposed to be historically accurate, it simply has a basis in history. With that said, historically Ragnar wasn't the first viking to sail to England, he was the first viking to leave settlements behind. I like how nobody complains about the mystical powers of the seers and how characters are able to see the future but oh look this scene doesn't correspond with history, that's must mean its a bad show
On the contrary, I still think it was a great show, I was just puzzled at why the intentionally put the Franks in a "fast-forwarded time capsule" about 30 years in the future to everyone else. Technically Ecbert should have been much younger, about 30 when Ragnar first met him, but I never complained about this, since Roache is just too good an actor to pass up.
The show is extremelly atemporal.. they compressed events that happend in the course of almost 2 centuries into a single lifetime...
Even emperor Chareles himself was based not in one single real historical character, but a fusion of 3 different real kings of Frankia
Charles the Bald, was the grandson of Charlemagne and had two brothers that ruled the other 2 parts of the empire, and faced the siege of Ragnar in 845.
Charles the Fat was the one who reigned during the siege of Paris in 885 and commanded Count Oddo.
Charles the Simple was the one who granted the lands of Normandy to Rollo and had a daughter named Gizla to who Rollo maried.
This is just one of the many temporal inconsitencies of the show..
@John G I agree with you about all that you have written, except for about the frank monarch: i wouldn't call "weak and indecisive" a man who fought in the past against his half-brothers to gain his part of lands and inheritance and succeded; ironically, while we see Ecbert's attempts to gain his goal (ie becoming Bretwalda), Charles of this series had already gained his own (ie getting his kingdom). It's just that we didn't see Charles doing it, as we saw him already as an Emperor.
Many people consider Charles the Bald of this show weak because he was afraid to fight against the norses, which is probably true, but they never consider that if he died, he would have left his reign and people in big more trouble, as they would have to face both the Vikings and Charles' real threat, his hated half-brothers ans gisla could not inherit his throne, although she would have been a wonderful empress and her father knows it very well. What he lacks in strenght, he gains in wisdom and cunnings: see how he got Rollo to his side and he outsmarted Odo, Roland and Therese. Have you ever thought that his weakness and undecisiveness might have been "smoke in the eyes", a bait to find out who were his allies and not?
Emperor Charles is as wise, cunning and willingfull as Ecbert, he's just not so evident at first sight and therefore he is the most"there is more than meets the eye" character in this series. I really wouldn't underestimate a person like that.
Too bad there isnt a character like Ecbert in AC Valhalla
Guess I’d say Alfred, with how he uses Eivor to destroy the order of ancients so he can begin the age of Templar, kinda same sorta plot twist with Ecbert having his son destroy Ragnar’s settlement, but nah, it is a loose comparison
@@Zav72 Alfred was great but I was thinking someone who would be also physically imposing and have that ruler/warrior aura. All the badass characters are danes in the game
Too bad AC Valhalla sucks balls in general tbh.
Wait, what? Ecbert talks of Northmen raiding the coast of southern Gaul in the time of Charlemagne, and yet Björn is supposed to be the first Viking to discover the Mediterranean, and Ragnar the first to sail west? Makes no sense.
Ikr. Complete bullshit.
blub YOU make no fucking sense. This show isn't meant to be historically accurate. 90% of the shit in this show isn't historically accurate . They bend history in order to make the plot more interesting.
could be referring the the south western coast, south of the Loire.
first i was confused if that was Ben Foster Or Ryan Gosling . i didnt expect Linus Roache at all because he looks nothing like that without a beard
0:54 lightning attack
blitzkrieg
top scene !
yea the king of Wessex served Charlemagne when he was younger
Actually it would be cool to have a series based on Charlemagne.
@@antoniovaldespino6650 Wow, it would be wonderful! And maybe even getting to his grandson (Emperor Charles of this series).
He's a very great actor and plays his role in a very believable way. I love watching him and the entire series of "Vikings" Of course I'm kind of partial. I have Viking ancestry making it very interesting for me!
It's funny that the people that Charlemagne talked about having 'wiped' to Ecbert, were actually Ecbert's own people, the Saxons.. only the continental pagan ones...
Ecbert betrays charlomagne? D;
@@oswaldo7801 At that time, there were Anglo-Saxons (The English, Christians) and regular Saxons (North German pagans) but they weren't friends or anything, based on the fact they had different religions.
@Pammy Badger he was refering to pagans in general, but the only tribe he "wiped" were the saxons.. he fought some battles with the danes as long as I know, but didnt do to them what he'd done to the saxons in scale
@Crusader Knght thats exactly what I said..
@@bumblebeeeoptimus He did fight raiding parties from Jutland and nearby areas, he also organized flotillas to patrol the coastlines and engaging them at sea where possible. As soon as he died many of his initiatives ceased almost immediatly. His wars with the continental Saxons are another brutal mutter entirely.
Those that do not study the passed are doomed to repeat it 1:30
I loved the ealry Ecbert character because he was mature, intelligent, and a 'good guy' which I thought would finally be the first time in TV series history we'd see two 'good guys' fight each other to the death. But nooo they had to turn Ecbert less likeable just to make him seem like the antagonist in the 3rd/4th season.
Kind of like what happened to game of thrones season 5 onwards, then it all came crashing down at the season finale
To be honest though, it's not hard to see the Vikings as a 'bad guy' protagonist as well lol.
Best villain in the whole show!
Not really a villain
@@greyman8335 King Ecbert is not a villain? Are you serious? He's not pure evil of course but he is most definitely an antagonist.
@@ItachiUchiha-ut6xj An antagonist is not the same thing as a villain.
@@Mbrace818 I know yet I considered Ecbert a villain.
Yes he's extremely corrupt but I think he's more of a anti-hero because although he did shady stuff, his goal was to unite England and keep it safe from external forces which is a noble goal.
Thank you for making it possible to watch this great scene uncut.
One question: What is he doing with those three objects? I thought they might be chess figures, but they can't be.
Cezariusz 88 I assumed it was to represent the ships he was referring to in his story, and the red wine he spills signifies the blood in the water.
Richard Strong
Thank you so much. Ships.. Of course! I feel so dumm...
Cezariusz 88 I'm sorry but is this some kind of deleted version from the original speech he gives? i'm rewatching s02e03 and it's a lot shorter with no mention at all to the part where Charlemagne had tears running down his cheek.
Most of the seasons have extended dvd versions so you are probably right. This scene must be from that ext DVD.
but a good choice to cut it out. I hate when great emperrors are made too sentimental, it just doesnt fit i think.
basic cable TV doesn't get better than vikings
Notice the three Vajra trinkets he has on his table. East asian imports ?
Symbols of that which cuts, but cannot itself be cut . Not bad for a man like Ecbert
Linus Roache is a fucking prize bass, i say
am I the only one who thinks he's hot?😂
Julia M. No... He is perfection. Very sexy and he has amazing eyes
I love his voice!
I believe so m'lady, not great many women venture around these parts...
2:38 He sounds like scar form Lion King lol
In fact, I think if Scar were human this is what he would look like.
Lots of similarities if you think about it, what with him wanting to be King of all England, and his constant scheming. “Be prepared” with some modifications could suit him if you check the lyrics out and compare what he says.
I am the emperor of the Frankish Empire. God bless it.
What’s the soundtrack in this scene during Ecbert’s speech?
Dot
Darude-Sandstorm
This was a quote by Charlemagne of Francia, not Egbert of Wessex
What's the song ?
I wonder what would've happened if all these places that got raided were just like "oh we can just give you guys what you want, that's probably easier"
Well when it is your land and your woman they want. Negotiation tends to break down.
Then they take everything. And then next time they take your land too.
If you pay the dane-geld, you'll never get rid of the danes. King Alfred drove them out with the sword, and fortified the country, and was called "the great."
It actually did happen. Ragnar took Paris a lot easier than what the show portrayed, and the Franks did pay them off. Paris became a vacation destination for Vikings, because they knew they could simply go there, get paid off to leave and go back home. It’s why eventually they went to Rollo and asked him to defend them in exchange for lands and a title, and that’s how we got Normandy.
@@nraketh Not really, Alfred did have a lot of strategic wins in the battlefield, but the Vikings weren’t properly defeated. They simply faded out due to converting to Christianity and assimilation until they didn’t have much of a purpose anymore, with Hardrada being the last of them after his defeat by Harold Godwinson.
Anyone knows the damn soundtrack in the background?
I want to know it too, but sometimes not all the music that appears in the show is released in the soundtrack albums, shame. I will search on IMDB.
@@antoniovaldespino6650 Did you find it?
@@Bigkingmonster408 No mate.
Nyxon - I heathen.
But the soundtrack is only made for this part so unfortunatly you can't find it without King Ecbert's voice in it🥺
Wow
Wich episode Is?
Season 2 Ep 3
Does exist this soundtrack?
anyone else watched vikings valhalla and see the similarities between godwin and ecbert?
holy shit, you're right!
Perhaps, but Ecbert wasn’t as much of a weasel
@@alexman378 Well: sleeping with his own son's wife... if that didn't make him a weasel, I don't know what could. I think (and hope) Godwin shall be more developed in the following season and we shall see his motivations more clearly.
@@cristinademartini1284 That’s not being a weasel. It’s morally reprehensible, but he wasn’t a wimp.
Can anyone explain to me why and how Ecbert has Buddhist/ Hindu Vajras and Indian style candleholders on his table? 00:40
It's been bugging me for a long time and no one can answer that
Mars22 silk road trade route
Mars22 you should read “silk roads” from Peter Frankopan.
Thanks, I hadn't even thought of that. Makes sense now, lol
That's actually interesting. It's kind of an early reference to his interest in pagan tradition.
It also seems like the director has some inclination to Buddhism judging by some episodes from the last season.
They also reference it a lot with the quote that Largeta gave to one of its sons after or before she arrived at Kattegat to see Bjorn. Other phrases and conclusions said by other characters can also be found equal to those taught in Taoism.
So ecbert knew charlemagne?
Yeap , he spend some time at his court, think of it as Washington DC of late VIII and early IX centuary.
Yeah they really screw with the chronology on this thing lol, they were actually born and died at really similar times (roughly a generation for both birth and death)
@@TheOldBlackShuckyDog actually Echgbert spent time at Charlemagne's court in real life as well.
@@marcusmagnus1920 So is Ecbert supposed to be older or at least as the same age as Emperor Charles II of Frankia (who is stated to be Charlemagne's grandson)? I'm a little confused
@@cristinademartini1284 In between.
Carolus Magnus or as we know him better as Charlemagne 748-814.
Ecgberht of Wessex around 770 or 775 - 839.
Charles the Bald of West Francia 823-877.
It’s really hard for us medievalist to make peace with entertainment business, concerning historical accuracy.
They took one character Ragnar and they used his life to tell Viking age storyline.
Was King Eckbert a Anglo from Germania originally?
+Timothy Butler No, he was from what we call England today, but he lived several years at the court of Charlemagne in Aachen where he was able to study his tactics.
His a Saxon, not anglo, and was born in England. It was the barbaric tribals, the ancestors of the first anglo-Saxon kings, who came from Germania...
This scene reminded me so much of Sherlock.
¿Did Ecberto travel to France before?
yes: he and his father were exiled from Wessex for a period of time and came to Charlemagne's court, if i remember correctly
Yes he was in Charlemagne's Court.
So...... would ecbert be upset to find out my grandfather is rolo...Robert duke of normandy.... and my 45 grandfather is Charlemagne?
Grail Knight Well you’re not directly related to him.......
No one cares lmao
Of course it's possible to know that. Queen Elizabeth II can trace her ancestry back to Charlemagne as well. All she has to do is trace back to William the Conqueror and then from his back to Charlemagne. All you need to do is find the link between you and an old noble family. I myself can trace my line back through the Ribbing family to king Harald Fairhair, who united Norway.
The thing is that, as you said, pretty much everyone today is a direct descendant of Charlemagne. That's just how ancestry works. The hard part is finding a clear line through history to prove it
Doesn't matter if you're royal blood, it's not such a grand commodity these days
yep. Problably he would. I wonder how he would react when he found out that a Viking (brother of Ragnar Lothbrok in this series any less) had married the daughter of his mentor's grandson and was given a duchy, andf his descendant will conquer his so dreamed united England? Uh, i'd pay gold to see his reaction XD!
charlemagne was ecbert father i belive
caim Incorrect. He was Emperor Charles' (Holy Roman Emperor Charles II) grandfather
Charlemagne is my 45 grandfather and Ecbert is not there.
No, he wasn't: Charlemagne had many sons, but Ecbert was never one, only his protegé (as his historical counterpart was exiled at Charlemagne's court for a while). Charlemagne's son and heir was Emperor Louis I the Pious, the father of frank monarch in this series
Ecgbert’s father was Ealhmund, who was the King of Kent.
Ecgbert just spent his time in exile at Charlemagne’s court, who would have had a big impact of Ecgbert’s style of rule.
Murder and thieving are abominations even to those who do not believe in Christ (sin is a reproach to all peoples).
Love your enemies, pray that they come to Christ, because those who theoretically reject God end up in the worst way possible. I sincerely believe God protected and prospered His people more so than what history says.
The Norse were eventually Christianized. It is absolutely the duty of a nation to wage war boldly without fear to hault others committing such violence. Righteousness is only attained AS A GIFT FROM GOD. When u trust Christ, God forgets your evil because He loves u to the point of becoming the only Perfect sacrifice Who received torment that He didn't deserve (a Holy God must torment evil) so that He would treat us if we are not evil. Until a person trusts Christ, they are still viewed as the evil person that they are. Whenever the Bible talks about the righteous vs the wicked, it is distinguishing those who are of the True and Living God from those who do not. Left to themselves, all people are equally wicked and deserve eternal torment. God loves and dignified us with free will. Thus, He will not force His blessings unto those who reject Him.
I think your name fits the intelligence displayed in your comment
@@Davros539 flattery is a weakness. Thems are a smart choice and are brain food.
@@earthwormchewer170
Ah shut up Christian, Norsemen were new "christianised". They're kings became Christians but they did not, Christianity is out of Europa and Paganism is coming back.
Not every “pagan” was christianized so joke’s on you
The Christian speaks of mercy and love but worships a God who is cruel and hateful. The Christian calls drag queens groomers but allows their pastors to rape children. The Christian is a hypocrite and a liar and deserves no tolerance. Christianity is a plague and must be wiped from this earth.
HE DIES LIKE A BITCH IN HIS BATH. HAHAHAHAHA. HAIL RAGNAR.
What an unreasonably disrespectful thing to say about this character.
Jordan, it is truly an honour.
Hamza Changazi You are fucking stupid
Yeah, after setting up events to fuck over the other kingdoms, so that his grandson can unite the country under one rule? even the vikings are used as a tool for his vision.
King Ecbert is one of the best characters in the serie. its Coolbert
he was the wisest person in vikings
Had he been able to treat his son and heir with a little bit more of respect and affection, i would have liked him more. So for me, the title of the wisest (for what i've seen so far) goes to Emperor Charles. But I agree that Ecbert was a master in cunningness and smartness. And Linus Roache was outstanding in portraining him.