Hello Everyone around the middle there is a section that skips 44 seconds. Norways tourist industry just decided to copyright a VIDEO OF A CHURCH I used. So yay thank you norway for showing us how much you love history
I'm not asking you to help me but I'm just wondering if you can try to find the first bolt-action rifle of China (Qing Dynasty) in 1864?, I know your "favorite" war is the Taiping Rebellion ( Dec 1850 - Aug 1864) and I got interested and started studying it, I'm still a beginner at this rebellion so I still don't know a lot and still learning the most important and interesting parts, including the Third Battle of Nanjing in July 1864 (the last major battle) when you scroll all the down in Wikipedia on the Aftermath section you find "the first Chinese indigenously built bolt-action single-shot rifle appeared in 1864"
If you want to do battle analyses then maybe reach out to shadiversity as he already has a series as he does exactly that. Maybe you two could celebrate on an analysis
I appreciate you too, I love your content and your personality! You have a beautiful family and all have wonderful energy. I love history and you're by far my favorite source to learn things I haven't before. Thank you for the time and energy you put into giving us the education and your friendliness! Love from the Lakȟóta Nation ✊🏽 Mitáku'ye o'yásiŋ
There is a Stave Church in Minot, North Dakota (the Gol Stave Church to scale replica), it is the centerpiece for the Norsk Høstfest... in case you wanted to see one without leaving the country
Love u Stak ,great video as always. I was wondering what your thoughts are on the netflix show "The Last Kingdom" its such a good show. Just wondering the historical accuracy of it?
Maybe not worth whole videos in and of themselves, it would be great to hear your thoughts on accuracy (or not) of the setting in Netflix's Norse Men, and the history of the anime Vinland Saga :)
The fun thing about this is my nautical archaeology prof told us he'd been asked to be a consultant for the show. He declined, but proceeded to go over a ton of inaccuracies he'd found lol
@@kaptenlemper which would def take away from his credibility. I honestly love the show but as a successful professor I'm sure anything they put their name on is usually accurate to the best of their knowledge
I hope he said this to Micheal Hirst. Reading his interviews I found that he is absolutely clueless about history 😂 Of course that makes sense because the history channel is now garbage
I checked out after that over the top sexualized sacrifice scene with Lagertha carrying a fucking owl on her shoulder stabbing that guy while intercut that scene with Bjorn drilling Astrid. It was so cringe.
One thing i do love about the show is how it handles languages of different groups in the same scene together. When the Vikings are the POV characters, they speak accented modern English and the Mercians/Franks etc speak their Old English/Frankish etc. If the latter folks have POV, they speak English & the Vikings speak Old Norse. It emphasized the language barrier that’s often glossed over for viewer comprehension or ease of writing, and let us hear extinct languages
Language is another factor they get wrong though. There actually wasnt much of a language barrier between old Norse and Anglo-Saxon English. They would have been mostly mutually intelligable and would have communicated with each other without much difficulty at all. Both languages have the same Proto-German root and the area the Saxons originate from is literally on the border of Jutland. In fact the Saxons who didn't migrate/ settle in England still practiced the same German pagan religion as the Norse and frequently collaborated with them and even sought refuge in Denmark from Charlemagne and his expanding Christian Carolingian Empire. These people were ethnic and linguistic cousins to one another not totally alien foreigners as depicted in the show.
@@charlesmiller8718Exactly, while not perfectly one for one, the differences between Old English and Old Norse would probably be most analogous to modern day Swedish/Norwegian/Danish. While different enough to be considered different languages (debatably), they are similar enough to be mostly mutually intelligible. That whole first interaction scene between the Scandinavians and the Anglo-Saxons grossly misrepresents the languages involved.
@@charlesmiller8718 I wonder what was the language the Rus in last season(s?) were speaking... sounded like a mix of Russian and Serbocroatian, yet, it's not proto(old)-Slavonic...
The Anglo-Saxons were at least as hygienic as the Vikings - for example people in London regularly used the old Roman baths. The Church looked at it all a bit askance, not because they were opposed to cleanliness, but there was quite a bit of prostitution going on in the baths.
@@Aware_Bear I mean, that's because back then, sex meant consequences, unlike the modern day. So fucking around had more weight when all those chicks could die having your baby
@@Aware_Bear The Church has never hated sex, Scripture literally speaks of God commanding man to procreate. There is a difference between hating sex and advocating for prudence and reverence for the marital act
@Aware_Bear Christianity had never hated sexuality. It's commanded against prostitution, promiscuity, and degeneracy, but not sex. Self-righteous atheists are entirely ignorant of the existence of The Song of Solomon...an entire book in the Bible about sex.
The whole Hollywood girl boss look at historical female warriors annoys me a lot. I feel like it lessons the achievements of the women who actually picked up a sword and entered the battle field knowing they were smaller and weaker than everyone else there and did it anyway. The fact they were rare makes them cooler, it means they were willing to go against their societies norms.
"smaller and weaker than everyone else there" Smaller than most? Yes. Weaker than most? Potentially, but a woman dedicating herself to combat would probably be stronger in the relevant areas than for example a peasant levy Smaller and weaker than everyone else? No. Human sexual dimorphism isn't that pronounced. You always had taller women and shorter men
@@anna-flora999 I would also add that swords and melee weapons of the time actually balance the odds a fair bit (wrt to size and strength) in combat too. HEMA actually have mixed competitions where women and men compete and both men and women win.
@@anna-flora999@chrisellis8089 well it would be rare for women to have sword it would also be rare for men having swords the few swords in Scandinavia was mythologied for a reason because they were incredibly rare. It was for me odd the rarity of spears in the show. And the women. The shield maiden that would participate in raid often was from well off or Nobel families so they wouldn't be on the Frontline. So their strengths wouldn't matter unless they were in a one on one duel. Yes they would be maybe stronger than a malnourished peasant levy but that is not what we are debating.
@@anna-flora999Well yes, but a man who dedicates himself to war will certainly have more pronounced musculature. The whole height thing doesn't translate to strength, but simply being in that time period is going to make the men far more built, due to the environment they were in predisposing them to be strong. In short, the difference was a bit more pronounced hundreds of years ago, we just don't have any high quality realistic depictions left to confirm it. You are correct, though "most" does count for a considerable bit, considering how life was at the time. The women and men were far more concerned with their skill in battle anyways, because that would be the most important.
It's funny how vikings, famously depicted as wearing helmets and other armor into battle, are completely naked in a history drama. But the Greek, who famously have depictions of warriors running into battle stark naked (probably a dramatic depiction but still), are always wearing full body bronze armor.
You could justify it by saying since its a TV show they want the actor’s faces to be seen but they could still implement workarounds like specific markings on the helmets even if it’s still breaking accuracy for sake of identification.
Nothing wrong with that, it's a decently good show for the first few seasons. Kinda has the game of thrones issue where it starts tapering off in quality.
I agree, this show was never meant to be a documentary, not like njinga or Cleopatra. I think they did a good job at putting together historical events into a story. Considering the scarcity of known things about historical characters of that age, the only other option would have been to make self contained episodes with the story of a particular character, but that would likely not yave been so great
If this is going to be a series, it's probably a good idea to give it. Name like "Media Misconceptions:Vikings" or something, might help with algorithmic stuff
@@stakuyi Sorry i meant if you're doing historical breakdowns of other media, have that at the start of the video title. So Media Misconceptions:Vikings, Game of thrones, Lord of the Rings, etc. so the stupid algorithm knows its a series of videos and keeps it in reccomended
I was told, by a person who works in the industry, that the reason you so rarely see people in helmets is because they want you to see the actor's faces - especially if they are recognizable actors.
That's fine but helmets in this period didn't cover the face. At most you might have a nasal guard and of course there are some with the eye glass protections, but the fully enclosed helmet doesn't come around until after the Norman Conquest. In fact just from a material standpoint those "Italian Renaissance" helmets that the "English" in the show have look to be more expensive than a period correct one would be!
As someone who loved the series, one of the things that always annoyed me was Kattegat. Kattegat was the ocean between Denmark and Sweden, not a city. Ragnar Lothbrok, if he was real would most Likely have been from Denmark. Ironside was a king in Sweden, Snake in the eye was most Likely one of the kings in the Danish area at the time if he existed. And the fact that Ragnar etc Ride on horseback from Hedeby to Kattegat is so weird since Hedeby was a town in Denmark and Kattegat was located in Norway
Not only that. The word Kattegat isn't even old Norse, it's a Dutch word meaning "cat hole" so named because the three straights leading south out of Kattegat are very narrow and hard to navigate for large sailing vessels. So narrow only a cat could slip through them.
I can't belive he doesn't think "skin head biker" is the perfect modern aesthetic for historical vikings. your telling your audiance "hey i know some of them are played by handsome actors, but these people are thugs and bullies" instantly with the clothing. history buffs seem to always miss instances when "innaccuracy" conveys a truth to the audience in a clearer way than "accuracy" would. like your calling for wool clothes for historical accuracy, but all those clothes would tell the audience is that "norway is cold" and they probly know that already. instead we see ragnar and bjorn atop a cliff in a snow storm in only leather and i think "these guys are like those dam canadians, out in shorts and a tee with snow on the ground, true notherners"
@@peterjacoby8019 Or you could just show the Vikings burning, looting, and pillaging to get across the “truth” that they’re thugs and bullies. Real historical Norse clothing looked way cooler than whatever try hard cringe the goobers in the show are wearing.
I remember one of my friends who was studying Anglo Saxon noticed that after the danelaw fell there was a flurry of letters bitching about pulling down the earthworks the vikings put up every where. One of them described a village of about 100 families and how they had to tear down walls sourounding every home, palisades around every field, a town wall and even walls within the home walls and small towers, and this was the norm for scandinavian settlements in the Danelaw I think it took them almost up until 1066 to tear them down and the Norman's didn't want to deal with what was left so they just kicked all the people out and made them forts or burnt everything down
Dude... it is so saddening to see what they've done to our once beloved History Channel... "Look how they massacred my boy..." History Channel was a HUGE influence for my LOVE of world history and my unquenchable thirst for knowledge pertaining to history. I was born in 1991 and can't remember a time when History Channel wasn't in a regular rotation for my TV watching, even as a child. Those 1990s era history documentaries with Leonard Nimoy, absolutely killing it with his undefeatable narration skills, still keep my attention to this day exactly as they did the first time I viewed them as a child/adolescent. Rest In Paradise, Unspoiled History Channel, you made learning enjoyable and didn't deserve the foul things that were done and continue to be done to your cold and lifeless corpse.. Rest Up, King..
I was very much in the very very late enshittification of history. Back when actual educational factual stuff was airing alongside fucking Ancient Aliens.
The biggest problem with Ragnar is we know his sons were real but the man himself we don't know anything about. Also side note Ragnar is mentioned before The Sons Of Ragnar in the Gesta Danorum. Lagartha seems to be a mix of mythical characters in Norse folklore that being Brynhildr and the more violent depictions of valkyria and dís. One thing that really bugged me is that the sons of Ragnar has visions of Oden yet they never actually explain why but in the sagas Ragnar comes from the top of lengendary kings as he is claimed to be the son of Sigurd Hringr the king of kings the man the Scyflings pledged their loyalty to and both of them can trace their lineages back to the gods themselves.
Yeah, I am familiar with Ragnar's "irl" lineage, and was kind of annoyed they didn't lean into that (in the beginning at least, didn't watch too much of the show) if they were already taking a more creative approach to the series
I enjoyed the way the intertwined the "historical" character with the mythical character like when Ragnar tells young Bjorn about how he met his mother
There is some dispute about whether Rollo was Norwegian or Danish. Which is just one of many such disputes. Let me set the stage by telling an old Scandinavian joke. Three authors were commissioned to write a zoology book about elephants. An American a Brit and a Norwegian. First the American presented his book he had titled it: Elephants, The Great Strong Beast of the Savanna. When the British author revealed his book he had called it Elephants, The Gentle Wise Giants of India. Finally the Norwegian revealed his book and It was called: Norway and we Norwegians. As an independent country, Norway is a younger nation than even the USA and they are in desperate search of a national identity. For many this identity is tied up in the vikings. So they lobby historical institutions around the world hard to make sure that Norway gets all the credit for all viking accomplishments, to the great annoyance of all other Scandinavian countries, especially Iceland. The truth is that vikings back then weren't very nationalistic so unless a king is involved it's very hard to tell where anyone really came from.
Saying that Norway has been desperate for its own national identity is simply laughable, considering the norwegian identity has existed for almost as long as the danish and swedish identity. Even when Denmark owned Norway for several hundred years there were clear and distinct differences between a dane and any norwegian from the eastern mountains and western coast. I think you’re more looking at how Norway was struggling to put together a norwegian writing language consdering all the different dialect were so different. But to say that Norway was in «desperate» need of a national identity is just laughable cause the norwegian identity can be traced back to 1500-1600. The reason why Norway tends to get most of the «credit» for the viking stuff is because in most of the sagas the famous vikings mostly came from either Norway or Iceland (were of the people there came from Norway). It was a good joke tho, cause yes us Norwegians can be pretty patriotic at times.
@@nkkenlken3220 I am afraid the only laughable thing here is your ignorance. The sagas were mainly *collected* from Norway and Iceland. That does not mean they originate from there unless it specifically says so in the saga. They were collected by the order of the king of Denmark-Norway (and Iceland) specifically to forge a common Nordic national identity between the three countries. Unfortunately, as you put it, "patriotic" Norwegians are now using it for the exact opposite end. I suppose I should have said that they are looking to assert their national identity rather than create it, but the need to do so is very likely to stem from having been a vassal state of either Denmark or Sweden for a very long time. You see this same tendency in all newly independent nations who gained their independence through a nationalist movement. Having to share a cultural heritage with the old "oppressors" feels like the old colonial ball and chain is still firmly in place and that is something no nationalist can easily deal with. But thank you, you just helped me realize something about cultural appropriation that I've been pondering for quite some time.
@@Fangs1978 but thats the thing my dear friend, it says itself in the sagas that those famous Vikings coming from several different parts of Norway and iceland most of the time. If thats the truth or not is up for debate, whats not up for debate is the content within the sagas we know which tells about many famous Vikings from places like Hordaland, Trondheim and Iceland. I didnt have many things I disagreed with you beside the comment where you are implying that Norway lacked a national identity which is just flat out false, what Norway has been struggling with is figuring out what part of their national identity is «norwegian» and not just danish/swedish influence.
@@nkkenlken3220 That is what I was saying I meant a uniquely Norwegian national identity, everyone has a national idetity so I thought it would go without saying. So I guess we don't disagree except on one semantic misunderstanding. Må du ha en god dag.
It’s kind of believable. According to geneticist Adam Rutherford, there’s a genetic choke point for people of European descent where everyone born after the choke point is a descendant of everyone born before. That choke point sits at 1000 CE
I would genuinely love to see you continue this “series” and long-form format for historical fiction shows like this! 😊 Likewise for your suggestion of doing videos on battle analyses from these kinds of shows or epic fantasy shows like GoT that are more or less mimicking historical armies and their tactics. Sieges seem to be the most common thing Hollywood gets wrong, as an action/fantasy writer myself, siege/battle in accuracies are something I’m always keen to learn about. Hearing a history-informed person like yourself properly criticising the realism of sieges and battles from popular shows and movies would be both educational and entertaining!
The only previous experience that I have on the Viking TV show is my medieval history professor pointing out how bad the crucifixion scene was for the exact same reasons you pointed out in this video.
my favorite part is how christians, uhh, deify(?) their saints with whatever fucking killed them. broke on a wheel? they’re the patron saint of travel now. set alight? patron saint of cooking. like, just why would the give martyrdom to a heretic?
Honestly I'm just happy to learn about whatever it is you wanna tell us. I had two wonderful history teachers in my high school days and loved going to their classes everyday. Your history content has brought back that joy of learning after suffering from massive burnout in college and I'm able to enjoy it even more since there's no tests or essays thank god.
I do have one small correction. The current British royal family is Saxon. As in from Germany. They were the rulers of Saxe-Gotha originally but George the V took over from the house of Hanover. In 1917 the house of Windsor changed their Germanic name due to a little problem they were having with Germany at the moment. Thats why they are now called Windsor. The Norman line died out DIRECTLY with King Stephen. INDIRECTLY William has very vague relations with them. Thats a huge story on its own. On another note I am related to Rollo myself which isnt a surprise as my grandmothers family came from central Normandy.
It depends on what you mean by DIRECTLY, when you talk about the Norman line ending. The next king after Stephen was Henry II and he was a direct descendant of the Norman line via his mother Matilda. She was the daughter of Henry I after all. If we use the same logic that a royal line is only descended from a male line then the present king, Charles III, is not of the the house of Windsor, but is of a new house started by by his father Prince Philip. Henry II is of course classed as the first Plantagenet though. I too am a direct descendant of Rollo. Twice over actually. Once via a daughter of King John and a second time by a daughter of Edward I
Id love to hear your take on Vikins Valhalla. Also, The Last Kingdom. I do personally prefer your longer videos. Admittedly i listen to them rather than watch them like a podcast.
7:17 that's crazy because this part of the video with Rollo is good enough to be a 30-minute video on its own I completely spaced on the fact that William the conqueror's bloodline still sits on the throne
I'd be really interested in seeing you cover the first season of Lost Kingdom, unlike Vikings it's based on proper history despite the fictional nature of the main character.
@thomascoffin3292 that's an odd stance to take. All adaptions cut things from the source material. It's OK to be annoyed by it, but to disregard the show all together because of it? Seems a little OTT. It should be enjoyed on its own merits. The books still exist, so what's the big deal?
@@arthurfisher1857when you read the books you kinda realise that the show is really bad tbh... i watched the first 4 seasons of the last kingdom before i read the books and i actually liked it. BUT after reading the show was just bad....
@arthurfisher1857 why would I need to watch it? I already know what happens. The entire relationship between Ragnar the Elder and Uhtred is skipped. As is the relationship between Uhtred and Ubba. And Uhtred and Brida, and Uhtred and Ragnar the Younger and Uhtred and Kjartan the Cruel and his son. And all of that is important foundational information for later story points. They set out to make a TV show out of a 13 book series and couldn't even be bothered to go a whole episode before deviating wildly. Shit at least Game of Thrones waited a few seasons before turning to shit. (Although I ruined that one for myself my reading ahead too.)
@@thomascoffin3292 the show is great. It's just different. That's why I said to just treat it as it's own thing. It's OK if you're not interested. I just think it's a little silly to reject the show just because it's different than the books. But you do you.
10:15 - hi, student of Old English here - Cwenthryth would be pronounced as quen-thryth (with the "y" pronounced like the german ü if you're familiar with it). In IPA it would be /kwɛnθryθ/. Cynethryth is pronounced with a k-sound, approx. kynn-uh-thryth (again, with the german ü for y) - /kynəθryθ/. Eadburh would be eh-ad-boorkh, with the kh being pronounced like the ch in "chutzpah" - /ɛadbʊrx/
at the village being raided scene i am 99% sure that the vikings irl would had build was is called a ringborge or in english a ring fort wich was hills made of dirt to make a fort and the hills then filled with spikes to stop anyone from climbing them
I did enjoy the show but part of that enjoyment came from discussing what was inaccurate or wrong about it. Also, I have to point out how much I laughed when you said "All these things are being slaughtered" when referring to villagers and civilians. Chef's kiss.
How ive always seen it and i think the creator said is because they never claimed to be historically accurate, more as authentic as possible and wanting to cover certain events, they had to change the stories a bit, like Ragnar and Rollo being alive in the same century
I remember watching the channel as a kid because I loved learning about the ancient world, then it pivoted to WW2, which was still interesting, but that was the only thing they focused on eventually. The alien stuff was entertaining. Then Ice Road Truckers came out and I bounced.
26:21 I'm no history scholar, etymologist or anything of the like - but I have a simple theory of the origin of the term 'viking' simply from how it functions in the language today, and probably did back then as well. I think "viking" is a simple demonym. A noun describing where someone is from. "Vik" is a word for inlet or cove, and is a typical suffix for place names of such locations where settlements were raised (Reykjavik, Gjøvik, Ullsteinvik, etc.) The people who went out to explore, trade, raid and settle would naturally come from a settlement in such a location. A person from Gjøvik is referred to as a Gjøviking, and a person from Ullsteinvik an Ullsteinviking. Was probably the same back then.
There is one aspect of the show that does feel accurate to me (particularly in the early seasons of the show) which is that religion actually seriously impacts the characters in the show and how they make their decisions, for example Rollo's baptism seems to have a genuine effect. Where as a lot of shows which are more accurate in other aspects (not exactly a challenge) often view the religious convictions of people as more set dressing as opposed to something which is genuinely engrained in their character.
Ya know, it just hit me how ridiculous it sounds that a Norwegian became the Duke of a province in France then his lineage became the royal family of England
Athelstan in the tv show and the one in real life are as indifferent as chalk and cheese. The real athelstan was a warrior who would go on to become the first anglo Saxon king and the first ever recorded king of England, not the submissive wimp they disrespectfully portrayed him as!
Honestly, A video of more of the actual real historical facts and events of old Norwegian history would be amazing. This video fascinated me already, my husband sent it my way. My family on my mom's great great grandmother's side were straight from Norway. I would adore learning what kinds of lives they REALLY might have lived, and the history of where my ancestors came from on that side. More information on what "real" Viking history was, more history of other Scandinavian peoples from that time, and the Nords/Danes. That kind of thing would be so cool, especially to follow from this. Also, good luck working around the algorithm. I know there are quite a few other RUclipsrs on here who have tried to get at the roots of what it does and why it kills some things or not (kind of like.... How to "get around/hack the system", so to speak) Im not sure if those materials may be helpful, but ive seen them floating about. 😟
As soon as i saw a man being crucified in the name of Jesus, the law of Moses still being carried out, and men hurting themselves in Jesus name, I knew this wasn't about historical accuracy or proper representation of Christians, but it's Hollywood, what do you expect?
It’s funny when I was younger I really liked the Viking TV series and watched it all the way through but as I got older, I started realizing the inconsistencies in it with like you know how they portrayed stuff in the armor and things to where the newest series of it like in Valhalla, I watched the first season. It was OK, but the second season I just couldn’t get into it the way that they depicted things with armor and stuff. I start getting very frustrated because I knew that’s not how it looked I also watch a lot of RUclipsrs and talk about history and armor and things and I feel like as I’ve gained the knowledge of these time. I can’t really enjoy dramas and stuff that depict history because they change it so much and add unbelievable armor looks and stuff.
On what you were saying about how there’s multiple interpretations of how the word viking came to be in the first place. I’ve actually looked into that a few times since every source I can find about my last name says it kind of came from the word viking, and a lot of what I’ve found points to Viking meaning pirate. Hicken, and similar Irish names like Higgins or Hickman originated in Gaelic as O Huigin. This was derived from the Gaelic word Uiging, (meaning pirate) which itself comes from the Norse word Víkingr (where we get the word viking). The Norse Víkingr has the route word Vík, meaning bay or inlet, adding to the reading as pirate. The rabbit hole goes deeper with possible routes in Proto Germanic, but everything beyond that seems to be speculative. I guess piracy is pretty similar to going raiding as you mentioned, but either way it’s really interesting to learn the origins of the words we use today. Great video as always, keep it up!
Loved this! I don’t know much about Vikings but a lot of my ancestry comes from that area so it’s fascinating. What about doing a video about some of the top documentaries/docudramas on any historical subject that you would recommend as actually being accurate?
@stakiyi not sure if you watch anime or have ever talked about this but what are your thoughts on Vinland Saga and how historically accurate is it? I'm assuming not very but I also have no idea other than some of the people in the show were actual people
I just happen to be watching the last season of Vikings, and while I find it extremely entertaining, I also find myself shaking my head and googling historical events and how they actually occurred. I would like to have a reputable source provide some accurate details about the main characters (more so than what was provided in this video) because even their myth is really fascinating.
I have no idea if it was shown elsewhere, but here in Canada, History would occasionally show episodes of a series called "Real Vikings," produced concurrently with the fictional series. Each episode would focus on a particular aspect of Viking culture, pointing out the differences between the historical inspiration and how it was depicted in the fictional series. Michael Hirst could be seen repeatedly saying variations on "Yeah, we decided to change that for the show; we condensed those events to streamline the storyline," and so on.
This show is one of my favorites and I can't say how much I enjoy seeing it go through a meatgrinder of fact checking! Always fun. I'd love to see more content like this but I'm also curious as to what movies/shows you'd recommend that portray ancient warfare in a more accurate light? Cause God knows I need some in my life after suffering through horror show battlefields like The battle of winterfell...
I love the show. My ancestry has been traced back to Charlemagne. So, seeing some of my ancestors (Rollo and his Francian wife) was fun. Sure, the timeline and all kinds of stuff doesn't line up but I really dig seeing them portrayed in some capacity.
@@timmysvensson4902I know it's the same as most of Europe. I just take pride in the fact that it's actually been traced all the way back. Medieval baptism records and stuff like that are hard to find. Not everyone actually manages to see where their ancestry diverges from others. Not all come through Rollo's wife, smartass.
You got a great sense of analyzing History and Historical works. I'm a fan of your channel! Do you cover recent History? Like stuff from the 50s, 60s and 70s? I would like to see your reaction to GodFather of Harlem
I’d love to see you talk more about historical accuracy and inaccuracy like in Vikings now I’m not a historian but I feel like some things In the show are accurate like you said they mix some stuff together and I’d love to hear more about it even if the video is shorter I’d love to see what was accurate in the show or movie you chose after the video with the inaccuracy I’m a huge fan of history and you and don’t worry about the ranting it’s fine I do it too lmao
Most myths and legends tend to have a simple seed of truth burried under layers of telling and retelling, editing and reediting. Someone like Achelies or Ragnar may vary well be based upon a true person, but over time their truth became folk tale became fairy tale becomes legends and thusly myths and sometimes even they become Faith.
@@historyofeverythingpodcastThe lack of helmets in Viking burials has many archeologists speculating that Vikings did not use helmets. Since the grave typically contains all belongings from the dead the lack of helmets makes many question if Vikings did have helmets. Art from the time depicts Vikings with helmets and some wooden statues show Vikings with helmets. Earlier periods earlier such as the Vendel age have beautiful helmets.
@@historyofeverythingpodcastSo overall your points were valid. But the one with the helmets is not a fault. Since many historians seriously believe Vikings lacked helmets.
I’d love to see a video on Vinland Saga. It exaggerates the way certain characters fight, some warriors are on the level of mythical heroes, but as a whole I think it’s historically accurate. It’s an anime yet it does Nordic culture and history more justice than Vikings does
I rememebr Michael Hirst saying in an interview that he originally thought Vikings would only be one season so he tried to condense a lot. Then, when it was picked up again, he was able to expand the story with more charactors.
This show when it first came out reinvugorated my love of history and legitimately helped push my academic career in university Buuuuuuut as I kept watching the show and reading more history at university, I quickly started seeing the many liberties the show took with actual viking history. I still love the show and think it's good entertainment, but yeah you kind of have to keep in mind that the show is very much historical *fiction*
In reference to the stave churches, there's an exact replica of one in Fargo, ND. I live 2 hours from it, but haven't had the chance to check it out. Seems the only time I have time to go is in winter, when it's closed.
Thank you for the video. I got srsly mad when i saw the first few episodes of the show and comparing it to the stuff that was told us in pre-production (proper research at the larg viking museums like Ribe or Haithabu). I do reenactment for the better part of my life now. As a dane from around 950 to 1000 a.D. . I researched all the stuff myself. That was a hard job to do before the scene got more connected and the availability of scientific material got better. But nowadays, speaking of the time since 2010 it´s not that difficult to do research on this topic and i don´t know where the producers did a wrong turn instead of portraying the erly medieval scandinavian culture as it was. Ceramics, colors, materials, behavior, the whole culture in general.... just everything is off. And now its our burden as reenactors to re-educate our audience and most of the beginners in our hobby. Thanks for nothing History Channel....
the religious bit can be easily understood by the fact that the show went very woke. example- they shit on christianity, but when they raid some north african settlement they respectful to islam, heck they made it look like floki would convert to islam! luckily they figured out how stupid that was and let him be.
There was nothing 'woke' about any of it (also being anti-christian has nothing to do with being 'woke') . Athelstan chose christianity at the end remember? The only remotely 'woke' thing about it was the portrayal of woman on combat, and thats actually feminist, not 'woke'. Whats with the persecution complex anyway? Just like every other religion (and humans in general) Christians did a lot of horrible shit over history too you know.
This exactly. It was sort of transparent when they spared the people praying at the mosque when they had several scenes massacring churches and monasteries.
@@Alvosploio did they or did they not massacre the rest of the settlement and take the woman as slaves? Honestly the 'woke' seeking complex you guys have is cringe af
Cool video! Another wildly inaccurate thing in the show is the naming conventions, "Lothbrok" actually translates to "shaggy breaches " (loosely) and it was a nickname Ragnar had. The show acts as if it's a last name, and even go as far to call Rollo "Rollo Lothbrok". Besides nicknames ( like Ironside or Lothbrok) the only other last name (so to speak) would be names such as Ragnarsson or Bjornson, basically the Son or Ragnar or Bjorn. I enjoyed the show but this is a small detail they could have easily added that would have actually been historically accurate
I would love to watch videos of you doing battle analytics!! You should do a series on it, there are so many shows and movies that I would love to see analyzed! I love all your stuff and hope you keep up the excellent content!
I’ve only seen half this series, and plan on watching the rest. Love this analysis/breakdown! Thankfully for my historically knowledge, when I watch something about history (or okay something like Assassin’s Creed) it causes me to look into the events and do my own research so I can see what really happened and what was changed. But it’s a bummer that people can’t seem to make historical series remotely well.. historical.
I found Vikings to be entertaining and nothing more. I used to be glued to History Channel, but when they stopped doing History, and floundered into reality garbage, I quit them. They aren't worth beans anymore.
I would love to see you take on Valhalla. I loved Vikings as a show but it did start to go downhill once Ragnar died. I couldn't make it through the first season of Valhalla.
There is mention in one history book about clothing and hairstyles about Norse priests of Odin shaving sides of their heads, but that wasnot something normal people would do.
For an Icelandic pagan, i got to commend you for actually be the first that I hear that apoligizes for pronouncing Icelandic(Old norse) badly :) you are awesome to listen to and are really accurate and on point ;)
History of everything podcast good video been really getting into your content lately, a lot of what you did here was very informative and pointed out very inaccurate things but I got to ask (And sorry I know this will come off as insulting) but did you watch the show before doing this, my man the village the Briton Calvary attacked wasn't invaders who for some reason didn't there'd be retaliation, they were settlers brought in as part of a peace deal, that doesn't change the fact they should have these defenses you are right, but it does at least make a bit more sense as to why they were so complicit they thought they were in safe territory where the ruling monarch had just offered his protection
You are so spot on about modern TV and film about medieval or older history. The worst was Braveheart. The first main battle in the film was the battle of Stirling Bridge. In the film "THERE WAS NO FECKING BRIDGE!!!!!" That's one of the reasons the scots won the battle. Also, the first battle in Gladiator. The roman army would not have broke formation, also when the germanic forces charge the roman forces didn't loose the pilums
Hello Everyone around the middle there is a section that skips 44 seconds. Norways tourist industry just decided to copyright a VIDEO OF A CHURCH I used. So yay thank you norway for showing us how much you love history
I didn't do it.
Time stamp 19:57
It's always the damn Norwegians
I'm not asking you to help me but I'm just wondering if you can try to find the first bolt-action rifle of China (Qing Dynasty) in 1864?, I know your "favorite" war is the Taiping Rebellion ( Dec 1850 - Aug 1864) and I got interested and started studying it, I'm still a beginner at this rebellion so I still don't know a lot and still learning the most important and interesting parts, including the Third Battle of Nanjing in July 1864 (the last major battle) when you scroll all the down in Wikipedia on the Aftermath section you find "the first Chinese indigenously built bolt-action single-shot rifle appeared in 1864"
If you want to do battle analyses then maybe reach out to shadiversity as he already has a series as he does exactly that. Maybe you two could celebrate on an analysis
Thank you all for watching. I appreciate all of you and you being here means the world to me
SO MANY PEOPLE IN MY LIFE THINK THIS IS ACCURATE AND IT'S PAINFULLY NOT! SENDING THEM ALL THIS VIDEO. THANK YOU, STAK, THANK YOU!!
I appreciate you too, I love your content and your personality! You have a beautiful family and all have wonderful energy. I love history and you're by far my favorite source to learn things I haven't before. Thank you for the time and energy you put into giving us the education and your friendliness!
Love from the Lakȟóta Nation ✊🏽
Mitáku'ye o'yásiŋ
There is a Stave Church in Minot, North Dakota (the Gol Stave Church to scale replica), it is the centerpiece for the Norsk Høstfest... in case you wanted to see one without leaving the country
Love u Stak ,great video as always. I was wondering what your thoughts are on the netflix show "The Last Kingdom" its such a good show. Just wondering the historical accuracy of it?
Maybe not worth whole videos in and of themselves, it would be great to hear your thoughts on accuracy (or not) of the setting in Netflix's Norse Men, and the history of the anime Vinland Saga :)
The fun thing about this is my nautical archaeology prof told us he'd been asked to be a consultant for the show. He declined, but proceeded to go over a ton of inaccuracies he'd found lol
He probably knew that the showrunners would just ignore his concerns but keep his name in the credits to give themselves credibility.
@@kaptenlemper which would def take away from his credibility. I honestly love the show but as a successful professor I'm sure anything they put their name on is usually accurate to the best of their knowledge
I hope he said this to Micheal Hirst. Reading his interviews I found that he is absolutely clueless about history 😂
Of course that makes sense because the history channel is now garbage
I have to admit, i adored Vikings until the 5th season... but i really just cared about Lagertha, Ragnar, Athlestan and Bjorn
Athlestan!
Once the sons took over, the show died. Same way TWD did when Rick left the show.
I checked out after that over the top sexualized sacrifice scene with Lagertha carrying a fucking owl on her shoulder stabbing that guy while intercut that scene with Bjorn drilling Astrid. It was so cringe.
Lol never understood this because Ivar was the best character despite a lot of the cringe acting by the actor himself.
@@ruthlessgaming3869 I think that's what got me
One thing i do love about the show is how it handles languages of different groups in the same scene together. When the Vikings are the POV characters, they speak accented modern English and the Mercians/Franks etc speak their Old English/Frankish etc. If the latter folks have POV, they speak English & the Vikings speak Old Norse. It emphasized the language barrier that’s often glossed over for viewer comprehension or ease of writing, and let us hear extinct languages
Language is another factor they get wrong though. There actually wasnt much of a language barrier between old Norse and Anglo-Saxon English. They would have been mostly mutually intelligable and would have communicated with each other without much difficulty at all. Both languages have the same Proto-German root and the area the Saxons originate from is literally on the border of Jutland. In fact the Saxons who didn't migrate/ settle in England still practiced the same German pagan religion as the Norse and frequently collaborated with them and even sought refuge in Denmark from Charlemagne and his expanding Christian Carolingian Empire. These people were ethnic and linguistic cousins to one another not totally alien foreigners as depicted in the show.
@@charlesmiller8718Exactly, while not perfectly one for one, the differences between Old English and Old Norse would probably be most analogous to modern day Swedish/Norwegian/Danish. While different enough to be considered different languages (debatably), they are similar enough to be mostly mutually intelligible.
That whole first interaction scene between the Scandinavians and the Anglo-Saxons grossly misrepresents the languages involved.
@@charlesmiller8718 I wonder what was the language the Rus in last season(s?) were speaking... sounded like a mix of Russian and Serbocroatian, yet, it's not proto(old)-Slavonic...
The Anglo-Saxons were at least as hygienic as the Vikings - for example people in London regularly used the old Roman baths. The Church looked at it all a bit askance, not because they were opposed to cleanliness, but there was quite a bit of prostitution going on in the baths.
Sexuality of any kind they really hated.
@@Aware_Bear I mean, that's because back then, sex meant consequences, unlike the modern day. So fucking around had more weight when all those chicks could die having your baby
@@Aware_Bear The Church has never hated sex, Scripture literally speaks of God commanding man to procreate. There is a difference between hating sex and advocating for prudence and reverence for the marital act
@@Aware_Bear prostitution mean selling sex not sexuality you D███
@Aware_Bear Christianity had never hated sexuality.
It's commanded against prostitution, promiscuity, and degeneracy, but not sex.
Self-righteous atheists are entirely ignorant of the existence of The Song of Solomon...an entire book in the Bible about sex.
The whole Hollywood girl boss look at historical female warriors annoys me a lot. I feel like it lessons the achievements of the women who actually picked up a sword and entered the battle field knowing they were smaller and weaker than everyone else there and did it anyway. The fact they were rare makes them cooler, it means they were willing to go against their societies norms.
Can I also just ask for you to make a video about real women in history who were warriors.
"smaller and weaker than everyone else there"
Smaller than most? Yes. Weaker than most? Potentially, but a woman dedicating herself to combat would probably be stronger in the relevant areas than for example a peasant levy
Smaller and weaker than everyone else? No. Human sexual dimorphism isn't that pronounced. You always had taller women and shorter men
@@anna-flora999 I would also add that swords and melee weapons of the time actually balance the odds a fair bit (wrt to size and strength) in combat too. HEMA actually have mixed competitions where women and men compete and both men and women win.
@@anna-flora999@chrisellis8089 well it would be rare for women to have sword it would also be rare for men having swords the few swords in Scandinavia was mythologied for a reason because they were incredibly rare. It was for me odd the rarity of spears in the show. And the women. The shield maiden that would participate in raid often was from well off or Nobel families so they wouldn't be on the Frontline. So their strengths wouldn't matter unless they were in a one on one duel. Yes they would be maybe stronger than a malnourished peasant levy but that is not what we are debating.
@@anna-flora999Well yes, but a man who dedicates himself to war will certainly have more pronounced musculature.
The whole height thing doesn't translate to strength, but simply being in that time period is going to make the men far more built, due to the environment they were in predisposing them to be strong.
In short, the difference was a bit more pronounced hundreds of years ago, we just don't have any high quality realistic depictions left to confirm it.
You are correct, though "most" does count for a considerable bit, considering how life was at the time.
The women and men were far more concerned with their skill in battle anyways, because that would be the most important.
It's funny how vikings, famously depicted as wearing helmets and other armor into battle, are completely naked in a history drama. But the Greek, who famously have depictions of warriors running into battle stark naked (probably a dramatic depiction but still), are always wearing full body bronze armor.
omg hi xD I've never found a friend in comments in the wild! Also a very good point you made lol
@@mukina A wild Muki! Miracles do happen.
You could justify it by saying since its a TV show they want the actor’s faces to be seen but they could still implement workarounds like specific markings on the helmets even if it’s still breaking accuracy for sake of identification.
history channel being factual is an oxymoron
Especially now
History itself comes to us from biased and unreliable sources so yes it is an oxymoron
I am old enough to remember when the History Channel had actual history on it.
Now they're just another entertainment venue.
@@MonkeyJedi99 now that too is history…
… maybe they’ll dramatise it one day 😅
@@MonkeyJedi99 I'm only old enough to remember the History Channel being 24/7 WWII footage.
I know how inaccurate this show is, but I love this show. To me it's pure fiction
Also I wanna know just how historically bad is the Spartacus TV show. I love the show, but it's gotta be just as bad historically as Vikings.
Nothing wrong with that, it's a decently good show for the first few seasons. Kinda has the game of thrones issue where it starts tapering off in quality.
And we can't forget how inaccurate but spectacularly Black Sails was made
Any show that doesn't have ancient aliens is a step up for them.
I agree, this show was never meant to be a documentary, not like njinga or Cleopatra. I think they did a good job at putting together historical events into a story. Considering the scarcity of known things about historical characters of that age, the only other option would have been to make self contained episodes with the story of a particular character, but that would likely not yave been so great
If this is going to be a series, it's probably a good idea to give it. Name like "Media Misconceptions:Vikings" or something, might help with algorithmic stuff
Could be an idea but we did this as the full series rather than an individual episode
@@stakuyi Sorry i meant if you're doing historical breakdowns of other media, have that at the start of the video title. So Media Misconceptions:Vikings, Game of thrones, Lord of the Rings, etc. so the stupid algorithm knows its a series of videos and keeps it in reccomended
Yesss like Vikings: Hollywood Edition 🤣
I was told, by a person who works in the industry, that the reason you so rarely see people in helmets is because they want you to see the actor's faces - especially if they are recognizable actors.
Sylvester Stallone in judge dredd comes to mind.
That's fine but helmets in this period didn't cover the face. At most you might have a nasal guard and of course there are some with the eye glass protections, but the fully enclosed helmet doesn't come around until after the Norman Conquest. In fact just from a material standpoint those "Italian Renaissance" helmets that the "English" in the show have look to be more expensive than a period correct one would be!
One thing wrong with that: If you can see the actors' faces, you can also see the stunt doubles' faces.
It's a stupid rule that needs to go. Like most of the industry.
@@soupordavethey bought left over props from the Tudor’s
this video had so many tech difficulties and took AGES besties don’t let it flop 😅
Liked...comment to follow...
I'll just set my phone to watch it on a loop if I've got to I've been waiting forever for this.
Did a great on the editing, anyway. Well done! Your husband's content is top-tier in it's field!
As someone who loved the series, one of the things that always annoyed me was Kattegat. Kattegat was the ocean between Denmark and Sweden, not a city. Ragnar Lothbrok, if he was real would most Likely have been from Denmark. Ironside was a king in Sweden, Snake in the eye was most Likely one of the kings in the Danish area at the time if he existed. And the fact that Ragnar etc Ride on horseback from Hedeby to Kattegat is so weird since Hedeby was a town in Denmark and Kattegat was located in Norway
Ocean?
@@Mag_ladroth sea or whatever it's called in English it's a large body of water in the North Sea between Denmark and Sweden
@@kristianjohansen5561As an American I had no ideas about this.
Thanks for the information.
Not only that. The word Kattegat isn't even old Norse, it's a Dutch word meaning "cat hole" so named because the three straights leading south out of Kattegat are very narrow and hard to navigate for large sailing vessels. So narrow only a cat could slip through them.
not to mention they "walk" to Uppsala just like it just took like 3 days
Stakuyi being angry at leather continues to be an enriching source of history.
"Stakuyi Yells at Leather: The Series"
"Episode 1: Cleopatra"
"Episode 2: Vikings"
"Epoisode 3: To be announced"
@@willmfrank hyped for episode 3
I can't belive he doesn't think "skin head biker" is the perfect modern aesthetic for historical vikings.
your telling your audiance "hey i know some of them are played by handsome actors, but these people are thugs and bullies" instantly with the clothing.
history buffs seem to always miss instances when "innaccuracy" conveys a truth to the audience in a clearer way than "accuracy" would.
like your calling for wool clothes for historical accuracy, but all those clothes would tell the audience is that "norway is cold" and they probly know that already.
instead we see ragnar and bjorn atop a cliff in a snow storm in only leather and i think "these guys are like those dam canadians, out in shorts and a tee with snow on the ground, true notherners"
@@peterjacoby8019 Or you could just show the Vikings burning, looting, and pillaging to get across the “truth” that they’re thugs and bullies. Real historical Norse clothing looked way cooler than whatever try hard cringe the goobers in the show are wearing.
Man, I love your everything wrong series. In general, I really prefer your longer videos over the short ones. Keep it up good work man! ^^
That is the idea now. We will be doing longer videos on full stories and topics
I remember one of my friends who was studying Anglo Saxon noticed that after the danelaw fell there was a flurry of letters bitching about pulling down the earthworks the vikings put up every where. One of them described a village of about 100 families and how they had to tear down walls sourounding every home, palisades around every field, a town wall and even walls within the home walls and small towers, and this was the norm for scandinavian settlements in the Danelaw
I think it took them almost up until 1066 to tear them down and the Norman's didn't want to deal with what was left so they just kicked all the people out and made them forts or burnt everything down
Dude... it is so saddening to see what they've done to our once beloved History Channel... "Look how they massacred my boy..." History Channel was a HUGE influence for my LOVE of world history and my unquenchable thirst for knowledge pertaining to history. I was born in 1991 and can't remember a time when History Channel wasn't in a regular rotation for my TV watching, even as a child. Those 1990s era history documentaries with Leonard Nimoy, absolutely killing it with his undefeatable narration skills, still keep my attention to this day exactly as they did the first time I viewed them as a child/adolescent. Rest In Paradise, Unspoiled History Channel, you made learning enjoyable and didn't deserve the foul things that were done and continue to be done to your cold and lifeless corpse.. Rest Up, King..
I was very much in the very very late enshittification of history. Back when actual educational factual stuff was airing alongside fucking Ancient Aliens.
The biggest problem with Ragnar is we know his sons were real but the man himself we don't know anything about. Also side note Ragnar is mentioned before The Sons Of Ragnar in the Gesta Danorum. Lagartha seems to be a mix of mythical characters in Norse folklore that being Brynhildr and the more violent depictions of valkyria and dís. One thing that really bugged me is that the sons of Ragnar has visions of Oden yet they never actually explain why but in the sagas Ragnar comes from the top of lengendary kings as he is claimed to be the son of Sigurd Hringr the king of kings the man the Scyflings pledged their loyalty to and both of them can trace their lineages back to the gods themselves.
Yeah, I am familiar with Ragnar's "irl" lineage, and was kind of annoyed they didn't lean into that (in the beginning at least, didn't watch too much of the show) if they were already taking a more creative approach to the series
I enjoyed the way the intertwined the "historical" character with the mythical character like when Ragnar tells young Bjorn about how he met his mother
And then his mother died young and his father married Robin Sparkles.
Is a show!! A damnd good Show! What you think for exakt History??
Wen interessiert das? Was stimmt denn nicht mit Euch??😮
There is some dispute about whether Rollo was Norwegian or Danish. Which is just one of many such disputes. Let me set the stage by telling an old Scandinavian joke.
Three authors were commissioned to write a zoology book about elephants. An American a Brit and a Norwegian. First the American presented his book he had titled it: Elephants, The Great Strong Beast of the Savanna. When the British author revealed his book he had called it Elephants, The Gentle Wise Giants of India. Finally the Norwegian revealed his book and It was called: Norway and we Norwegians.
As an independent country, Norway is a younger nation than even the USA and they are in desperate search of a national identity. For many this identity is tied up in the vikings. So they lobby historical institutions around the world hard to make sure that Norway gets all the credit for all viking accomplishments, to the great annoyance of all other Scandinavian countries, especially Iceland. The truth is that vikings back then weren't very nationalistic so unless a king is involved it's very hard to tell where anyone really came from.
Saying that Norway has been desperate for its own national identity is simply laughable, considering the norwegian identity has existed for almost as long as the danish and swedish identity. Even when Denmark owned Norway for several hundred years there were clear and distinct differences between a dane and any norwegian from the eastern mountains and western coast.
I think you’re more looking at how Norway was struggling to put together a norwegian writing language consdering all the different dialect were so different.
But to say that Norway was in «desperate» need of a national identity is just laughable cause the norwegian identity can be traced back to 1500-1600.
The reason why Norway tends to get most of the «credit» for the viking stuff is because in most of the sagas the famous vikings mostly came from either Norway or Iceland (were of the people there came from Norway).
It was a good joke tho, cause yes us Norwegians can be pretty patriotic at times.
@@nkkenlken3220 I am afraid the only laughable thing here is your ignorance.
The sagas were mainly *collected* from Norway and Iceland. That does not mean they originate from there unless it specifically says so in the saga. They were collected by the order of the king of Denmark-Norway (and Iceland)
specifically to forge a common Nordic national identity between the three countries. Unfortunately, as you put it, "patriotic" Norwegians are now using it for the exact opposite end. I suppose I should have said that they are looking to assert their national identity rather than create it, but the need to do so is very likely to stem from having been a vassal state of either Denmark or Sweden for a very long time. You see this same tendency in all newly independent nations who gained their independence through a nationalist movement. Having to share a cultural heritage with the old "oppressors" feels like the old colonial ball and chain is still firmly in place and that is something no nationalist can easily deal with.
But thank you, you just helped me realize something about cultural appropriation that I've been pondering for quite some time.
@@Fangs1978 but thats the thing my dear friend, it says itself in the sagas that those famous Vikings coming from several different parts of Norway and iceland most of the time. If thats the truth or not is up for debate, whats not up for debate is the content within the sagas we know which tells about many famous Vikings from places like Hordaland, Trondheim and Iceland.
I didnt have many things I disagreed with you beside the comment where you are implying that Norway lacked a national identity which is just flat out false, what Norway has been struggling with is figuring out what part of their national identity is «norwegian» and not just danish/swedish influence.
@@nkkenlken3220 That is what I was saying I meant a uniquely Norwegian national identity, everyone has a national idetity so I thought it would go without saying. So I guess we don't disagree except on one semantic misunderstanding.
Må du ha en god dag.
@@Fangs1978 du og.
Well, as far as I know, the royal line continuing from Rolo up until today is utter bogus, since the ruling house had changed numerous times actually.
It’s kind of believable. According to geneticist Adam Rutherford, there’s a genetic choke point for people of European descent where everyone born after the choke point is a descendant of everyone born before. That choke point sits at 1000 CE
@@GratiaCountryman Yes, but a genetic chokepoint does not equal "the same family".
I would genuinely love to see you continue this “series” and long-form format for historical fiction shows like this! 😊
Likewise for your suggestion of doing videos on battle analyses from these kinds of shows or epic fantasy shows like GoT that are more or less mimicking historical armies and their tactics.
Sieges seem to be the most common thing Hollywood gets wrong, as an action/fantasy writer myself, siege/battle in accuracies are something I’m always keen to learn about. Hearing a history-informed person like yourself properly criticising the realism of sieges and battles from popular shows and movies would be both educational and entertaining!
I'm impressed how you glossed over episode 1 making it seem like they had no idea Great Brittan existed, or how to get there.
The only previous experience that I have on the Viking TV show is my medieval history professor pointing out how bad the crucifixion scene was for the exact same reasons you pointed out in this video.
my favorite part is how christians, uhh, deify(?) their saints with whatever fucking killed them. broke on a wheel? they’re the patron saint of travel now. set alight? patron saint of cooking.
like, just why would the give martyrdom to a heretic?
@@oscaranderson5719the term for someone becoming a saint is being canonized, eg, added to the Christian canon
@@chillyavian7718 ah, thenk’e
@@oscaranderson5719 you are welcome, spreading niche terms is a good joy
@@oscaranderson5719 Mostly Catholics do such
Honestly I'm just happy to learn about whatever it is you wanna tell us. I had two wonderful history teachers in my high school days and loved going to their classes everyday. Your history content has brought back that joy of learning after suffering from massive burnout in college and I'm able to enjoy it even more since there's no tests or essays thank god.
I do have one small correction. The current British royal family is Saxon. As in from Germany. They were the rulers of Saxe-Gotha originally but George the V took over from the house of Hanover. In 1917 the house of Windsor changed their Germanic name due to a little problem they were having with Germany at the moment. Thats why they are now called Windsor. The Norman line died out DIRECTLY with King Stephen. INDIRECTLY William has very vague relations with them. Thats a huge story on its own. On another note I am related to Rollo myself which isnt a surprise as my grandmothers family came from central Normandy.
It depends on what you mean by DIRECTLY, when you talk about the Norman line ending. The next king after Stephen was Henry II and he was a direct descendant of the Norman line via his mother Matilda. She was the daughter of Henry I after all. If we use the same logic that a royal line is only descended from a male line then the present king, Charles III, is not of the the house of Windsor, but is of a new house started by by his father Prince Philip. Henry II is of course classed as the first Plantagenet though.
I too am a direct descendant of Rollo. Twice over actually. Once via a daughter of King John and a second time by a daughter of Edward I
At least vikings wasn't listed as an documentary
I just took it as Game of Thrones, but what if it was set on Earth around the Viking era instead.
Id love to hear your take on Vikins Valhalla.
Also, The Last Kingdom.
I do personally prefer your longer videos. Admittedly i listen to them rather than watch them like a podcast.
Do you mean there are people out there that watches RUclips instead of listening like a radio?
What?? You're telling me Rollo didn't live 150 years?
7:17 that's crazy because this part of the video with Rollo is good enough to be a 30-minute video on its own I completely spaced on the fact that William the conqueror's bloodline still sits on the throne
I'd be really interested in seeing you cover the first season of Lost Kingdom, unlike Vikings it's based on proper history despite the fictional nature of the main character.
I couldn't watch that show after they just threw out about the first 200 pages of source material in the first episode
@thomascoffin3292 that's an odd stance to take.
All adaptions cut things from the source material. It's OK to be annoyed by it, but to disregard the show all together because of it? Seems a little OTT. It should be enjoyed on its own merits. The books still exist, so what's the big deal?
@@arthurfisher1857when you read the books you kinda realise that the show is really bad tbh... i watched the first 4 seasons of the last kingdom before i read the books and i actually liked it. BUT after reading the show was just bad....
@arthurfisher1857 why would I need to watch it? I already know what happens.
The entire relationship between Ragnar the Elder and Uhtred is skipped. As is the relationship between Uhtred and Ubba. And Uhtred and Brida, and Uhtred and Ragnar the Younger and Uhtred and Kjartan the Cruel and his son. And all of that is important foundational information for later story points.
They set out to make a TV show out of a 13 book series and couldn't even be bothered to go a whole episode before deviating wildly. Shit at least Game of Thrones waited a few seasons before turning to shit. (Although I ruined that one for myself my reading ahead too.)
@@thomascoffin3292 the show is great. It's just different. That's why I said to just treat it as it's own thing.
It's OK if you're not interested. I just think it's a little silly to reject the show just because it's different than the books. But you do you.
10:15 - hi, student of Old English here - Cwenthryth would be pronounced as quen-thryth (with the "y" pronounced like the german ü if you're familiar with it). In IPA it would be /kwɛnθryθ/.
Cynethryth is pronounced with a k-sound, approx. kynn-uh-thryth (again, with the german ü for y) - /kynəθryθ/.
Eadburh would be eh-ad-boorkh, with the kh being pronounced like the ch in "chutzpah" - /ɛadbʊrx/
at the village being raided scene i am 99% sure that the vikings irl would had build was is called a ringborge or in english a ring fort wich was hills made of dirt to make a fort and the hills then filled with spikes to stop anyone from climbing them
Keep the videos coming. We need another real history channel that's not degraded into reality TV.
I did enjoy the show but part of that enjoyment came from discussing what was inaccurate or wrong about it. Also, I have to point out how much I laughed when you said "All these things are being slaughtered" when referring to villagers and civilians. Chef's kiss.
How ive always seen it and i think the creator said is because they never claimed to be historically accurate, more as authentic as possible and wanting to cover certain events, they had to change the stories a bit, like Ragnar and Rollo being alive in the same century
I remember watching the channel as a kid because I loved learning about the ancient world, then it pivoted to WW2, which was still interesting, but that was the only thing they focused on eventually. The alien stuff was entertaining. Then Ice Road Truckers came out and I bounced.
It went from actual history and facts to straight up conspiracy theory shit.
I would love to see you focus in more on certain things, take your time and go into deep dives, as your passion is infectious.
Great video as always. And I can’t even begin to describe how infuriating the biker leather stuff is anytime I see it
26:21 I'm no history scholar, etymologist or anything of the like - but I have a simple theory of the origin of the term 'viking' simply from how it functions in the language today, and probably did back then as well.
I think "viking" is a simple demonym. A noun describing where someone is from. "Vik" is a word for inlet or cove, and is a typical suffix for place names of such locations where settlements were raised (Reykjavik, Gjøvik, Ullsteinvik, etc.)
The people who went out to explore, trade, raid and settle would naturally come from a settlement in such a location. A person from Gjøvik is referred to as a Gjøviking, and a person from Ullsteinvik an Ullsteinviking. Was probably the same back then.
There is one aspect of the show that does feel accurate to me (particularly in the early seasons of the show) which is that religion actually seriously impacts the characters in the show and how they make their decisions, for example Rollo's baptism seems to have a genuine effect. Where as a lot of shows which are more accurate in other aspects (not exactly a challenge) often view the religious convictions of people as more set dressing as opposed to something which is genuinely engrained in their character.
Ya know, it just hit me how ridiculous it sounds that a Norwegian became the Duke of a province in France then his lineage became the royal family of England
My question is how accurate was his friendship with the priest Athelstan
Athelstan in the tv show and the one in real life are as indifferent as chalk and cheese. The real athelstan was a warrior who would go on to become the first anglo Saxon king and the first ever recorded king of England, not the submissive wimp they disrespectfully portrayed him as!
Honestly,
A video of more of the actual real historical facts and events of old Norwegian history would be amazing.
This video fascinated me already, my husband sent it my way. My family on my mom's great great grandmother's side were straight from Norway. I would adore learning what kinds of lives they REALLY might have lived, and the history of where my ancestors came from on that side.
More information on what "real" Viking history was, more history of other Scandinavian peoples from that time, and the Nords/Danes.
That kind of thing would be so cool, especially to follow from this.
Also, good luck working around the algorithm. I know there are quite a few other RUclipsrs on here who have tried to get at the roots of what it does and why it kills some things or not (kind of like.... How to "get around/hack the system", so to speak)
Im not sure if those materials may be helpful, but ive seen them floating about. 😟
I don't expect media to be 100% historically accurate but at a certain point it gets so bad that I just can't enjoy it
Still love the show and last kingdom
I dont care as long as authors make it obvious its fiction based on history, especially for dumber individuals who then go and spread bullshit .
I found your channel recently and I'm loving the longer content.
From one history nerd to another, good luck!
Speaking of History and Animal Planet, could you please tell us the History of The Legendary Steve Irwin?
Steve Irwin was a legend
My childhood hero and yea that sounds like a great story
He looked at a dangerous animal with amazing teeth. Quite a lot.
@@historyofeverythingpodcastyou should be the ceo of history Channel
As soon as i saw a man being crucified in the name of Jesus, the law of Moses still being carried out, and men hurting themselves in Jesus name, I knew this wasn't about historical accuracy or proper representation of Christians, but it's Hollywood, what do you expect?
It’s funny when I was younger I really liked the Viking TV series and watched it all the way through but as I got older, I started realizing the inconsistencies in it with like you know how they portrayed stuff in the armor and things to where the newest series of it like in Valhalla, I watched the first season. It was OK, but the second season I just couldn’t get into it the way that they depicted things with armor and stuff. I start getting very frustrated because I knew that’s not how it looked
I also watch a lot of RUclipsrs and talk about history and armor and things and I feel like as I’ve gained the knowledge of these time. I can’t really enjoy dramas and stuff that depict history because they change it so much and add unbelievable armor looks and stuff.
On what you were saying about how there’s multiple interpretations of how the word viking came to be in the first place.
I’ve actually looked into that a few times since every source I can find about my last name says it kind of came from the word viking, and a lot of what I’ve found points to Viking meaning pirate.
Hicken, and similar Irish names like Higgins or Hickman originated in Gaelic as O Huigin.
This was derived from the Gaelic word Uiging, (meaning pirate) which itself comes from the Norse word Víkingr (where we get the word viking). The Norse Víkingr has the route word Vík, meaning bay or inlet, adding to the reading as pirate.
The rabbit hole goes deeper with possible routes in Proto Germanic, but everything beyond that seems to be speculative.
I guess piracy is pretty similar to going raiding as you mentioned, but either way it’s really interesting to learn the origins of the words we use today.
Great video as always, keep it up!
I watched the show from a mythical, saga like form.
Sure there were inaccuracies, but the show was pretty entertaining though.
At least somebody understands that all these needs in the comments clearly don’t
It's too hot to go outside in SC right now. I'm just glad i have stakuyi to watch while I'm in the AC.
I shall watch this video 12 times to support the channel
lol thanks for the support
Touch you are a beautiful man
Loved this! I don’t know much about Vikings but a lot of my ancestry comes from that area so it’s fascinating. What about doing a video about some of the top documentaries/docudramas on any historical subject that you would recommend as actually being accurate?
@stakiyi not sure if you watch anime or have ever talked about this but what are your thoughts on Vinland Saga and how historically accurate is it? I'm assuming not very but I also have no idea other than some of the people in the show were actual people
The line “ I have no enemies” is historically correct.
I just happen to be watching the last season of Vikings, and while I find it extremely entertaining, I also find myself shaking my head and googling historical events and how they actually occurred. I would like to have a reputable source provide some accurate details about the main characters (more so than what was provided in this video) because even their myth is really fascinating.
Poor stakuyi absolutely losing it over Italian helmets 😂
I have no idea if it was shown elsewhere, but here in Canada, History would occasionally show episodes of a series called "Real Vikings," produced concurrently with the fictional series. Each episode would focus on a particular aspect of Viking culture, pointing out the differences between the historical inspiration and how it was depicted in the fictional series. Michael Hirst could be seen repeatedly saying variations on "Yeah, we decided to change that for the show; we condensed those events to streamline the storyline," and so on.
This show is one of my favorites and I can't say how much I enjoy seeing it go through a meatgrinder of fact checking! Always fun.
I'd love to see more content like this but I'm also curious as to what movies/shows you'd recommend that portray ancient warfare in a more accurate light? Cause God knows I need some in my life after suffering through horror show battlefields like The battle of winterfell...
Conclusion: Watch it for entertainment and drama, deny most of the history and ignore the timeline
I love the show. My ancestry has been traced back to Charlemagne. So, seeing some of my ancestors (Rollo and his Francian wife) was fun. Sure, the timeline and all kinds of stuff doesn't line up but I really dig seeing them portrayed in some capacity.
Congratulations, your Ancestry is th same as whole Europe.
@@timmysvensson4902I know it's the same as most of Europe. I just take pride in the fact that it's actually been traced all the way back. Medieval baptism records and stuff like that are hard to find. Not everyone actually manages to see where their ancestry diverges from others. Not all come through Rollo's wife, smartass.
Great video and I would love to hear about big battles and how they played out!
Norway they could get so much wrong
The pun though
You got a great sense of analyzing History and Historical works. I'm a fan of your channel!
Do you cover recent History? Like stuff from the 50s, 60s and 70s?
I would like to see your reaction to GodFather of Harlem
I’d love to see you talk more about historical accuracy and inaccuracy like in Vikings now I’m not a historian but I feel like some things In the show are accurate like you said they mix some stuff together and I’d love to hear more about it even if the video is shorter I’d love to see what was accurate in the show or movie you chose after the video with the inaccuracy I’m a huge fan of history and you and don’t worry about the ranting it’s fine I do it too lmao
Awesome content Stak. Still love these shows.😂 don’t necessarily watch TV for historical accuracy.
If you could do Black Sails that would be awesome 😃
I asked you before to talk about the ottomans show on netflix and i'm gonna ask you again to do that please. Hope you read this, love your vids!
I would love a look at Rome (the show) and how inaccurate and accurate the show is
Would love to see you break down the Last Kingdom with Uthred of Bebanberg. Love your work man!
Most myths and legends tend to have a simple seed of truth burried under layers of telling and retelling, editing and reediting.
Someone like Achelies or Ragnar may vary well be based upon a true person, but over time their truth became folk tale became fairy tale becomes legends and thusly myths and sometimes even they become Faith.
I really wish that we could know for certain but you are right
this is absolutely right. We see that repeated a lot throughout history with many different cultures and time periods
@@historyofeverythingpodcastThe lack of helmets in Viking burials has many archeologists speculating that Vikings did not use helmets. Since the grave typically contains all belongings from the dead the lack of helmets makes many question if Vikings did have helmets. Art from the time depicts Vikings with helmets and some wooden statues show Vikings with helmets. Earlier periods earlier such as the Vendel age have beautiful helmets.
@@historyofeverythingpodcastSo overall your points were valid. But the one with the helmets is not a fault. Since many historians seriously believe Vikings lacked helmets.
@@stakuyi Only if we could build a Mirror to gaze back through the mist of time.
Time travel itself has to many implications
I really liked it when you used to post the podcast episodes here with the cam on! maybe you could do some more of those? two birds with one stone
I’d love to see a video on Vinland Saga. It exaggerates the way certain characters fight, some warriors are on the level of mythical heroes, but as a whole I think it’s historically accurate. It’s an anime yet it does Nordic culture and history more justice than Vikings does
I rememebr Michael Hirst saying in an interview that he originally thought Vikings would only be one season so he tried to condense a lot. Then, when it was picked up again, he was able to expand the story with more charactors.
This show when it first came out reinvugorated my love of history and legitimately helped push my academic career in university
Buuuuuuut as I kept watching the show and reading more history at university, I quickly started seeing the many liberties the show took with actual viking history.
I still love the show and think it's good entertainment, but yeah you kind of have to keep in mind that the show is very much historical *fiction*
In reference to the stave churches, there's an exact replica of one in Fargo, ND. I live 2 hours from it, but haven't had the chance to check it out. Seems the only time I have time to go is in winter, when it's closed.
0:08 cat :)
Thank you for the video. I got srsly mad when i saw the first few episodes of the show and comparing it to the stuff that was told us in pre-production (proper research at the larg viking museums like Ribe or Haithabu). I do reenactment for the better part of my life now. As a dane from around 950 to 1000 a.D. . I researched all the stuff myself. That was a hard job to do before the scene got more connected and the availability of scientific material got better. But nowadays, speaking of the time since 2010 it´s not that difficult to do research on this topic and i don´t know where the producers did a wrong turn instead of portraying the erly medieval scandinavian culture as it was. Ceramics, colors, materials, behavior, the whole culture in general.... just everything is off.
And now its our burden as reenactors to re-educate our audience and most of the beginners in our hobby. Thanks for nothing History Channel....
the religious bit can be easily understood by the fact that the show went very woke. example- they shit on christianity, but when they raid some north african settlement they respectful to islam, heck they made it look like floki would convert to islam! luckily they figured out how stupid that was and let him be.
There was nothing 'woke' about any of it (also being anti-christian has nothing to do with being 'woke') . Athelstan chose christianity at the end remember?
The only remotely 'woke' thing about it was the portrayal of woman on combat, and thats actually feminist, not 'woke'.
Whats with the persecution complex anyway? Just like every other religion (and humans in general) Christians did a lot of horrible shit over history too you know.
This exactly. It was sort of transparent when they spared the people praying at the mosque when they had several scenes massacring churches and monasteries.
@@Alvosploio did they or did they not massacre the rest of the settlement and take the woman as slaves? Honestly the 'woke' seeking complex you guys have is cringe af
Great Video, hoping you do 1 on Vikings Valhalla as well
Please talk about The Last Kingdom. Also loving the longer form content and series
Cool video! Another wildly inaccurate thing in the show is the naming conventions, "Lothbrok" actually translates to "shaggy breaches " (loosely) and it was a nickname Ragnar had. The show acts as if it's a last name, and even go as far to call Rollo "Rollo Lothbrok". Besides nicknames ( like Ironside or Lothbrok) the only other last name (so to speak) would be names such as Ragnarsson or Bjornson, basically the Son or Ragnar or Bjorn. I enjoyed the show but this is a small detail they could have easily added that would have actually been historically accurate
I would love to watch videos of you doing battle analytics!! You should do a series on it, there are so many shows and movies that I would love to see analyzed!
I love all your stuff and hope you keep up the excellent content!
I’ve only seen half this series, and plan on watching the rest. Love this analysis/breakdown!
Thankfully for my historically knowledge, when I watch something about history (or okay something like Assassin’s Creed) it causes me to look into the events and do my own research so I can see what really happened and what was changed.
But it’s a bummer that people can’t seem to make historical series remotely well.. historical.
I’d love to see you do a video like this in Deadwood, Rome, and Boardwalk Empire.
I found Vikings to be entertaining and nothing more. I used to be glued to History Channel, but when they stopped doing History, and floundered into reality garbage, I quit them. They aren't worth beans anymore.
I would love to see you take on Valhalla. I loved Vikings as a show but it did start to go downhill once Ragnar died. I couldn't make it through the first season of Valhalla.
It’s rough the pacing is so rough I pushed through it out of curiosity
There is mention in one history book about clothing and hairstyles about Norse priests of Odin shaving sides of their heads, but that wasnot something normal people would do.
29:22 The only practical reason that comes to mind is for the cast's comfort, so they don't overheat while filming.
I would be interested in seeing you do this for the last kingdom.
For an Icelandic pagan, i got to commend you for actually be the first that I hear that apoligizes for pronouncing Icelandic(Old norse) badly :) you are awesome to listen to and are really accurate and on point ;)
Icelandic pagan? Why aren’t you Christian like the rest of Icelanders ?
The parody "Northmen" is more historicallly accurate
Fantastic rant. I loved it.
What are your thoughts on the Blood Eagle scene?
I love the Viking Era, and I am always disappointed by how badly it is portrayed in modern media. Good video.
Amazing episode!!
It would be awesome to see you do an episode on the Last Kingdom if you ever have time :)
History of everything podcast good video been really getting into your content lately, a lot of what you did here was very informative and pointed out very inaccurate things but I got to ask (And sorry I know this will come off as insulting) but did you watch the show before doing this, my man the village the Briton Calvary attacked wasn't invaders who for some reason didn't there'd be retaliation, they were settlers brought in as part of a peace deal, that doesn't change the fact they should have these defenses you are right, but it does at least make a bit more sense as to why they were so complicit they thought they were in safe territory where the ruling monarch had just offered his protection
You are so spot on about modern TV and film about medieval or older history. The worst was Braveheart. The first main battle in the film was the battle of Stirling Bridge. In the film "THERE WAS NO FECKING BRIDGE!!!!!" That's one of the reasons the scots won the battle. Also, the first battle in Gladiator. The roman army would not have broke formation, also when the germanic forces charge the roman forces didn't loose the pilums
This video is great! It's nice to know that I'm not the only one that gets bugged to hell with these historical inaccuracies