S03.E09: Breaking Point

[Bongo Fury]

Watched for a second time, and for those who think Ragnar is faking his injury I have to disagree. Bjorn is up and walking around even though he took two crossbow bolts to the body, so some time has passed since the first assault. Yet Ragnar is still spitting up and pissing blood, that is not good, he clearly has severe internal injuries. The whole baptism thing could be some sort of ruse to get into Paris. But given Eckbert's talk at the dinner table about passing his kingdom on to his son, the baptism could be a means for Ragnar to make Bjorn king. Ragnar is dying, so he gets himself baptized which he must know the other Vikings will not accept, which forces Bjorn to kill him and hence become king himself. This also explains Bjorn leading the attack on Paris shown in the preview. 

[MaggieG]

Rollo and his magnificent manbun and his tattoos and his muscles made me feel things. I enjoyed it in the previous episode and I was glad they kept it going. That is all.

[Suck It Trebek]

Rollo and his magnificent manbun and his tattoos and his muscles made me feel things. I enjoyed it in the previous episode and I was glad they kept it going. That is all.

Word!

[RiddleyWalker]

Watched for a second time, and for those who think Ragnar is faking his injury I have to disagree. Bjorn is up and walking around even though he took two crossbow bolts to the body, so some time has passed since the first assault. Yet Ragnar is still spitting up and pissing blood, that is not good, he clearly has severe internal injuries. The whole baptism thing could be some sort of ruse to get into Paris. But given Eckbert's talk at the dinner table about passing his kingdom on to his son, the baptism could be a means for Ragnar to make Bjorn king. Ragnar is dying, so he gets himself baptized which he must know the other Vikings will not accept, which forces Bjorn to kill him and hence become king himself. This also explains Bjorn leading the attack on Paris shown in the preview. 

I tend to think there are multiple levels to the baptism as well as Ragnar's injuries and mortality. I think there is at  least some honesty on Ragnar's part in him being baptized-- though I suspect Ragnar is just adding the Christian God to the pantheon of gods he worships. I do think it is a heartfelt homage to his friend Athelstan and a desire to see him again, if possible.

 

That being said, Ragnar is not above using the Franks perception of his baptism and his injuries in his own interests. He is certainly seriously injured, but as I mentioned in another post, he may be embellishing a bit and Hirst let us see a glimpse of that with his reaction to the Bishop. Hell, he may even think there's a fair chance he will die from these injuries, but he's also thinking, "Hmmmm…What if these injuries aren't fatal? How can I use this?" That of course makes him Ragnar and a truly Magnificent Bastard.

Edited April 18, 2015 by RiddleyWalker

[LittleIggy]

I thought maybe the thing about the dead conquering Paris means that plague (cholera?) they showed in the last episode.

[justawatcher]

Let's play out the long game for History Channel- call it Downton Abbey/Sons of Anarchy/True Blood syndrome:

Your little show that you really thought was only good for one season picks up steam and is a cult hit. You hire unknown actors at a relatively cheap price for three years. Your budget grows to a point where you can create this lavish setting but now has to pay the renegotiated salaries of the actors who have become more known through their work. These things really kind of peter out after 3 seasons but you keep going because it's popular, thus creating wildly improbable scenarios. Our creator is playing fast and loose with the original material and not following to script (which is fine).

 

If you're History Channel, how long do you drag it on? Do you time jump 10 years? Do you slog on year after year? Do people really care that much? Or would a title sequence over Rollo's wedding telling the end for the various folks do the trick- "Rollo's children begin the line of the Norman Dynasty, ending with William the Conqueror..." and such.

 

I wouldn't be surprised if this is it. The story is played out.

[whoknowswho]

Ragnar can not die, can he? He needs

King Aelle

to die as the legend goes that

King Aelle was the one that executed Ragnar in a snake pit

.

 

I like Lagertha's all-female commandos. However, I do not understand why it has to be all-female. Is it something historically valid with a good technical reason, or is it just for dramatic effect?

 

As well, I like the Franks' war engineering. From last week multi-spear launcher and this week spiked wheel of death.Meanwhile, the Vikings relies mostly on brute strengh.

 

I applaud the use of old French in the show. I do not understand the conversation among the Franks. Well, for that matter I do not understand the conversation among the Anglo-Saxons as well. Kudos for the use of old languages.

 

The Paris of this show, is it only l'Île de la Cité? That is the small island in the middle of the Seine. However, that island is far, far away from the sea. Watching Athelstan's explanation and the Vikings' approach to Paris, I have the impression that it is close to the mouth of the river.

I have a theory regarding the whole King Aelle thing. I don't know how to put a spoiler tag on, but I'm going to try a cut and paste.  Remember in Season 1  where

King Aelle had his own sergeant thrown into the pit of snakes because he had messed up

?

 

I think originally Vikings was meant to be a one off, one season mini series, and historical accuracy wasn't needed. They picked Ragnar's and then loosely built a show around him. Then- Holy poop- it was a very popular series- and they couldn't waste Ragnar so early, so they used a bit of history and swapped out the officer, thus saving Ragnar for another season.  Same way that they named Bjorn "Bjorn Ironsides" which is actually correct, and "Seighart (sp) Snake in the eye" another of Ragnar's kids, along with Ivar the Boneless (who I thought became a warrior?). I admit to being fascinated with Norse history and going hunting early in the series for information on Ragnar and his story.  Their's was not a written language, so their stories and legends only lived from the tongues of one person to the ear of another's. 

In real life, I believe the it was Bjorn Ironsides who blood eagled King Aelle for killing his father, or so the legend goes. I could  very well be wrong)

 

I think since early on in the first season the writers and director realized they have an interesting, beautiful, horrific and compelling show, and have had to try to bring it back to some semblance of history, but are not going to be successful because early on what should have happened, didn't happen. Or, maybe it will down the road if Ragnar doesn't die from internal injuries. 

I could be totally wrong and haven't read enough or heard enough to see why they are playing fast and loose with history- except that those early mistakes made, can't now be unmade.

Did that make any sense? 

And- how about that wheel of spikes? That was pretty intense!

Edited April 19, 2015 by whoknowswho

[green]

Let's play out the long game for History Channel- call it Downton Abbey/Sons of Anarchy/True Blood syndrome:

Your little show that you really thought was only good for one season picks up steam and is a cult hit. You hire unknown actors at a relatively cheap price for three years. Your budget grows to a point where you can create this lavish setting but now has to pay the renegotiated salaries of the actors who have become more known through their work. These things really kind of peter out after 3 seasons but you keep going because it's popular, thus creating wildly improbable scenarios. Our creator is playing fast and loose with the original material and not following to script (which is fine).

 

If you're History Channel, how long do you drag it on? Do you time jump 10 years? Do you slog on year after year? Do people really care that much? Or would a title sequence over Rollo's wedding telling the end for the various folks do the trick- "Rollo's children begin the line of the Norman Dynasty, ending with William the Conqueror..." and such.

 

I wouldn't be surprised if this is it. The story is played out.

 

It's already been renewed for Season 4 and there has been a casting call in Ireland where it is filmed for 8000 extras.  As for the time frame in next season. 

Hirst mentioned something that happens four years ahead that will be shown next season. Whether that means a time jump at the beginning of next season or a more gradual passing of years with that being more to the end of the season or something in between he didn't say.  But there is no massive time jump at least to start so I assume all the principle actors will be back.

 

And it's historical fiction, not a documentary.  So yeah there is a balance here.  But the major points that happen have happened and will probably continue to happen.  The timeline is what is being messed with the most.  Otherwise we would have to introduce 20 or 30 more different characters.  But I think that was the plan from the start when Hirst made Rollo Ragnar's brother for this series.  That already implied a time compression.  Also I think a brilliant move so that you have a more straight line in sorting all this out for the viewer.

 

I think Hirst does an excellent job mixing history and drama which is what good historical fiction is all about.

 

Some people were asking about Lagertha's team being all women.  I think that is simply her retinue (personal guards) that she has been shown with for several years now.  She no longer commands Hedeby's troops but her personal retinue is hers to command like Spartan kings could do with their personal 300 man retinues.  And she and her personal troops would be a cohesive group that had served together for years thus making them a good special ops team if you will.

 

I love how Hirst keeps doing the parallel stuff between Ragnar and Ecbert.  The last two episodes seem to have, among everything else, a good father-son comparison theme going on.  As Ragnar is showing increasing pride in Bjorn and seeing him become a fit leader in his own right, Ecbert wants to simply use his until little Alfred is ready to rule.  Which reminds me kudos to the actor playing Aethelwulf for using body language from the get go to show a real meathead.  The hulking, slightly bent shoulders is what I mean.

 

But why would Ecbert want to take out Aella when Aethelwulf is Aella's son-in-law and we have seen no indication Aella has any sons of his own?  Wouldn't there be a good chance Aethelwulf could just inherit Northumbria as it were.  Yeah Northumbrian nobles might not buy it but then you have a good excuse to invade to claim your inheritance during a period of chaos.  Of course a possible assassination of Aella as Ecbert suggested might just speed that scenario along.

 

Unfortunately Ecbert has too many irons in the fire I think.  Once Aethelwulf learns daddy is sleeping with Judith that will probably be the final straw in their relationship.  But I did love the "Daddy, were you sending me off to get killed just now."  "Huh?  Oh yeah, no ... no worries."  And Aethelwulf so wanted to be seduced once Crazy Queen found out he had a weakness for whips.  Dude is a walking time bomb.

 

Yeah there is a plague or disease of some kind breaking out in Paris so that has to figure into the storyline for sure or why show all that.

 

Sad to think next week is the last episode for this season.

Edited April 18, 2015 by green

[pasdetrois]

Random thoughts here...

 

Ragnar's crystal blue eyes ringed by black eyeliner, emerging from the darkness - what an effect!

 

As Rollo climbed over the spiked wheel, one of the impaled Vikings grabbed his arm. That was the part that freaked me out the most.

 

The Christian missionary's wig was notably awful. I was confused by two scenes of him carrying the hot metal.

 

For Lagertha fans, the actress appears with other women in a naked photo shoot in Allure magazine.

[Captanne]

No answers as to why Ecbert was quoting TS Eliot?  (See previous comment page.)  Hm.  I wonder if Hirst or anyone has mentioned this in an interview.  If I see anything I'll report back.

[Shermie]

The two scenes of the missionary carrying the hot metal are easy to explain. The first was in his imagination, "See, I'll carry this red hot poker in my bare hands with nary a singe, proving to these pagans that my god is the one and only!" The second scene was reality, where a red hot poker does, in fact, burn one's hands to a crisp, regardless of your faithfulness in your god.

The success of this show is not some huge surprise that showrunners don't know how to handle. Hirst has said that he hopes to carry the Viking story on for many seasons, even as far as having them reach Canada. That's a couple hundred years after Ragnar.

[fayster]

 

As for the missionary back home... He was typical of some pompous religious blowhards (they still exist) who just think that all they have to do is inform the unwashed masses about Jesus and bingo! Conversions for everyone!

 

What struck me was the difference between the missionary and Athelstan. Granted, Athelstan started out as a prisoner but even so never was pompous or preachy. The result was that he was, at the least, very grudgingly accepted and, in the case of Ragnar, actually made a convert. Of course, after his re-birth, he did become somewhat holier-than-thou and that's when Floki lost it. Maybe the lesson is that no matter what your religion, when you try to bang people over the head with it, it will backfire. See also: Floki's religious zeal making him over-confident of his plan to take Paris.

[Ohwell]

Kalf is hot.  I would totally have sex with him before I killed him.

 

Also, I agree about the Christian missionary's awful wig.  I was surprised the hairstylist on the set didn't do a better job.  

Edited April 18, 2015 by Ohwell

[Captanne]

I'm currently writing a paper on St. Francis' foreign travels to convert the Muslims.  He went in peace and was treated like a guest.  OTH, in Morocco, some Franciscans went to convert and they were beheaded.  No one can prove to any extent, but it seems the importance was "who, what, where and when".  Francis was a genius.  He was in Egypt during a time when the war was ongoing.  The Sultan, a nephew of Saladin, was open to listening.  Even though he graciously ushered Francis on his way back to Italy safely (unconverted), the Franciscans left such an impression that they were the only Order allowed to stay in Jerusalem after it fell.

 

So, my point being, Athelstan was the right person in the right place with the right King at the right time.  This poor schmuck was dealing with Auslaug and didn't have the charisma he clearly needed.  Wrong people, wrong time, wrong place.

[Ohwell]

Yeah but this missionary also had the wrong attitude.

[jnymph]

No answers as to why Ecbert was quoting TS Eliot? (See previous comment page.) Hm. I wonder if Hirst or anyone has mentioned this in an interview. If I see anything I'll report back.

To be honest with you.... I ignored it. I Felt it was making me think too hard (ouch LOL)

Anyone know who was standing looking at Ragnar when he was in the fetal position? Himself? I was confused by that too.

I felt sorry for random Christian guy. Even though he had bad hair, timing & attitude

Too bad Ragnar wasn't home at the time. Don't think he'd kill him.

Aslaugs daycare center. Hee.

Had a nightmare about the big spiked rolling ball thingy. Eek!

Edited April 18, 2015 by jnymph

[Captanne]

There were a lot of hallucinations.  That was Travis Fimmel as Ragnar looking at his own body in a foetal position in blood -- a "rebirth" if you will.*

 

I agree with whoever uplist said that Christianity was its own character in this episode.

 

The TS Eliot stood out to me because, as a child, I wrote the stanzas about "opening the door to the road we didn't take" in my bible.  I was young and had no idea what I was doing but the stanza confused me but appealed.  I had to suss it out in my own mind.

 

So when I heard Ecbert SAY it, I freaked out.  I'm 54 now but I remember those lines clearly.

 

I had to look up where they were from.

 

Weird, huh?

 

*Here's how I read that hallucination.  Ragnar is definitely dying.  He knows it.  He's in a fever dream -- plague or the fall he took off the ramparts?  Both?  Anyway, he sees Athelstan reaching out to him and he sees the Norse god of death also reaching for him.  Okay, so this is a battle between the religions in his heart and also a battle between his love for Athelstan and his Norse life.  Athelstan, in either role, is clean, healthy and bathed in light.  Norse Death (in either role) is a shadow, crotchety, dark and holding carrion crows**.  

 

Next thing we know, Ragnar is being baptized.  Long term gambit?  Most definitely.  No doubt Ragnar is playing a long game with Paris.  Victory of Athelstan over the old ways in Ragnar's heart?  I think so.  

 

**As you can tell by my avatar, I'm a raven/crow enthusiast -- but that doesn't mean I don't know their roles in history/mythology/plague stories.

 

http://livestream.com/accounts/7724020/events/3881308

Edited April 18, 2015 by Captanne

[nowornever]

Nitpick- Where do the vikings keep getting horses when they go on raids? They clearly weren't farm horses swiped form the locals- how are they getting them over there? Did they have other boats that brought the big items?

 

The wig on the Christian in Kattegat was really bad, but as a hairstyle, it still seems more plausible than the perfect coifs of Aslaug, Siggy, etc.  And speaking of hair, am I the only one who misses Ragnar's braid?   

[RiddleyWalker]

**As you can tell by my avatar, I'm a raven/crow enthusiast -- but that doesn't mean I don't know their roles in history/mythology/plague stories.

 

http://livestream.com/accounts/7724020/events/3881308

Very interesting! I read this bit awhile back and gained a new respect for those birds... and it also has made me a bit nervous when walking near flocks of crows. ;)   http://www.cracked.com/article_19042_6-terrifying-ways-crows-are-way-smarter-than-you-think.html

 

ETA: I suppose I should say, "...when walking by a 'murder' of crows."

Edited April 18, 2015 by RiddleyWalker

[whoknowswho]

Very interesting! I read this bit awhile back and gained a new respect for those birds... and it also has made me a bit nervous when walking near flocks of crows. ;)   http://www.cracked.com/article_19042_6-terrifying-ways-crows-are-way-smarter-than-you-think.html

 

ETA: I suppose I should say, "...when walking by a 'murder' of crows."

We have crows on our farm- they are old couples and their young- they come when they are called, as I feed them my old eggs. They know my face and my voice and even if I can't see them- they are present- let a hawk come near a chicken, and the crows will chase it from the skies overhead. Because they are so exceptionally smart, they also know how to hide the eggs I've thrown them, in clods of dirt made by the horses- and you CANNOT find them ,even if you are looking. We've tried. Outsmarted us. Crows and their raven cousins have my utter respect.

[Bongo Fury]

Nitpick- Where do the vikings keep getting horses when they go on raids? They clearly weren't farm horses swiped form the locals- how are they getting them over there?

 

The Vikings have been besieging Paris for many months. When they first arrived Count Odo told the king they had enough food to last the whole summer, and now they are almost out of food. Also, one of the vikings this episode mentioned that 'winter is coming'. So they have had ample time to loot the surrounding territory quite thoroughly.

[Captanne]

Yay for Corvid Love!  :-)

 

The length of the siege of Paris is how I answered an earlier question about why Helga is there.  This is a far more semi-permanent encampment than we've seen before on this show.

 

Notice, in this episode, before Ragnar has his "I Am King" temper tantrum, the men are complaining that they have lost 1,000 men to the siege.  Imagine what they started with.  So, this encampment is there for the duration.  That's why the non-fighting women are there.  Also, they have to be fed, somehow, so they probably brought an amazing amount of vittles with them -- now someone has to store it, cook it and serve it.  Someone who is NOT actively participating in the fighting, getting wounded and either dying or recovering.

 

IOW, they needed a very well-provisioned (with people, too) encampment to support this kind of siege.  

[Ohwell]

Also, they have to be fed, somehow, so they probably brought an amazing amount of vittles with them -- now someone has to store it, cook it and serve it.  Someone who is NOT actively participating in the fighting, getting wounded and either dying or recovering.

Yes, in one scene there was the Viking picnic and I realized that there are a lot of people who have to do stuff other than fighting.  The fighters have to be fed, nursed, and tended to, and someone has to watch the animals. 

[Captanne]

Not really very far OT:  A murder of crows.  An unkindness of ravens -- in ordinary activity.  A conspiracy of ravens -- a group scolding a perceived threat.  A constabulary of ravens -- specific to the ravens of the Tower of London.  Next time you're down the pub at Tuesday night trivia -- you may thank me!  :-)

Edited April 18, 2015 by Captanne

[Bongo Fury]

...  they have lost 1,000 men to the siege.  Imagine what they started with.  So, this encampment is there for the duration.  That's why the non-fighting women are there.  Also, they have to be fed, somehow, so they probably brought an amazing amount of vittles with them -- 

 

I think I read/heard somewhere that Ragnar started out with 100 ships and 2,000 men/women. There is no way they could have brought that much food with them so they are obviously looting the surrounding lands for their supplies (in the US Civil War, when Sherman was on his march through the south, they were completely cut off from northern supplies and survived solely on looted supplies, and the army never ate better). Also, they surely have scouting parties out in the surrounding area to do locate those supplies and also to make sure no relief army is coming to help Paris. In a long siege like this it is not unusual to have 2 support personnel (to run the camp and gather the supplies and scout and guard flanks) for every 1 fighter actually engaged in the siege.  

[culpeppercreatives]

Did anybody notice when Ragnar was having his visions in that puddle of blood that his eyes were so sunken in from his illness, then when he came up out of the water his eyes were clear and blue and he looked all glowy?

Edited April 19, 2015 by culpeppercreatives

[Lugal]

*Here's how I read that hallucination.  Ragnar is definitely dying.  He knows it.  He's in a fever dream -- plague or the fall he took off the ramparts?  Both?  Anyway, he sees Athelstan reaching out to him and he sees the Norse god of death also reaching for him.  Okay, so this is a battle between the religions in his heart and also a battle between his love for Athelstan and his Norse life.  Athelstan, in either role, is clean, healthy and bathed in light.  Norse Death (in either role) is a shadow, crotchety, dark and holding carrion crows**.

 

**As you can tell by my avatar, I'm a raven/crow enthusiast -- but that doesn't mean I don't know their roles in history/mythology/plague stories.

 

http://livestream.com/accounts/7724020/events/3881308

I have a friend who's been doing research into Corvid intelligence for years (turns out they are extremely smart)  Their role in the mythology was Odin's birds, two ravens who would fly all over the world and report everything they saw or heard.  The figure in Ragnar's hallucination was clearly Odin with the slouch-brimmed hat and the two ravens. I'm curious what the monster was but I'm guessing Fenrir.

 

I see Ragnar's baptism as keeping his options open.  I think he sees Christ as just another god, and to get to heaven he has to be baptized but that he's not necessarily turning his back on Odin.

[culpeppercreatives]

*Ragnar (autocorrect!)

[Captanne]

Mis-post, dammit. Let's try that again.

I wrote, That actually makes more sense in my interpretation, Lugal, that it was Odin rather than Death! :-)

We know that Ragnar is associated with Odin so that's whom he would hallucinate. Also, if Athelstan represents the Christian God (he looks like typical renditions of Jesus and would be Father, Son and Holy Ghost) then the logical Norse equivalent would be Odin!

I think we're on to something.

 

ETA:  I think his baptism served two functions.  1.  He forced Count Odo's hand and that is good for the long-term goal of capturing Paris and 2.  I think he truly believes in Valhalla and, as he does, he also believes in Athelstan's faith that he, Athelstan, went to his Christian heaven.  Ragnar wants to see Athelstan again and, so, the baptism is his first class ticket to see Athelstan in heaven.  (We know this as fact:  He talked at great length to Athelstan's grave on that hillside about his sadness -- that he loved Athelstan but would never see him in "his" heaven since he isn't granted admittance there.  The baptism solves that for Ragnar.  Now, according to his belief structure, as he will ultimately go to Valhalla, he now has permission to enter the Christian heaven.)

 

A third function, which I personally doubt, and we have yet to see -- is that Ragnar really has converted.  I don't think that is so.  But, it's a possibility.

 

I also noted that Ragnar, in his fever dream, never really "chose" either Athelstan or Odin.  In fact, Athelstan faded back into the light.  I don't remember what Odin did.  I might have to check that again.

 

ETA:  Lugal caught that it is Odin.  :-)  I think that makes even more sense and completely agree.

Edited April 19, 2015 by Captanne

[justawatcher]

The figure in Ragnar's hallucination was clearly Odin with the slouch-brimmed hat 

It also reminded me of Slash from Guns n Roses.

[whoknowswho]

It's already been renewed for Season 4 and there has been a casting call in Ireland where it is filmed for 8000 extras.  As for the time frame in next season. 

Hirst mentioned something that happens four years ahead that will be shown next season. Whether that means a time jump at the beginning of next season or a more gradual passing of years with that being more to the end of the season or something in between he didn't say.  But there is no massive time jump at least to start so I assume all the principle actors will be back.

 

And it's historical fiction, not a documentary.  So yeah there is a balance here.  But the major points that happen have happened and will probably continue to happen.  The timeline is what is being messed with the most.  Otherwise we would have to introduce 20 or 30 more different characters.  But I think that was the plan from the start when Hirst made Rollo Ragnar's brother for this series.  That already implied a time compression.  Also I think a brilliant move so that you have a more straight line in sorting all this out for the viewer.

 

I think Hirst does an excellent job mixing history and drama which is what good historical fiction is all about.

 

Some people were asking about Lagertha's team being all women.  I think that is simply her retinue (personal guards) that she has been shown with for several years now.  She no longer commands Hedeby's troops but her personal retinue is hers to command like Spartan kings could do with their personal 300 man retinues.  And she and her personal troops would be a cohesive group that had served together for years thus making them a good special ops team if you will.

 

I love how Hirst keeps doing the parallel stuff between Ragnar and Ecbert.  The last two episodes seem to have, among everything else, a good father-son comparison theme going on.  As Ragnar is showing increasing pride in Bjorn and seeing him become a fit leader in his own right, Ecbert wants to simply use his until little Alfred is ready to rule.  Which reminds me kudos to the actor playing Aethelwulf for using body language from the get go to show a real meathead.  The hulking, slightly bent shoulders is what I mean.

 

But why would Ecbert want to take out Aella when Aethelwulf is Aella's son-in-law and we have seen no indication Aella has any sons of his own?  Wouldn't there be a good chance Aethelwulf could just inherit Northumbria as it were.  Yeah Northumbrian nobles might not buy it but then you have a good excuse to invade to claim your inheritance during a period of chaos.  Of course a possible assassination of Aella as Ecbert suggested might just speed that scenario along.

 

Unfortunately Ecbert has too many irons in the fire I think.  Once Aethelwulf learns daddy is sleeping with Judith that will probably be the final straw in their relationship.  But I did love the "Daddy, were you sending me off to get killed just now."  "Huh?  Oh yeah, no ... no worries."  And Aethelwulf so wanted to be seduced once Crazy Queen found out he had a weakness for whips.  Dude is a walking time bomb.

 

Yeah there is a plague or disease of some kind breaking out in Paris so that has to figure into the storyline for sure or why show all that.

 

Sad to think next week is the last episode for this season.

Thank you, you put things in prospective nicely.

Can't believe the season's over next week!

[bandella]

I have a friend who's been doing research into Corvid intelligence for years (turns out they are extremely smart)  Their role in the mythology was Odin's birds, two ravens who would fly all over the world and report everything they saw or heard.  The figure in Ragnar's hallucination was clearly Odin with the slouch-brimmed hat and the two ravens. I'm curious what the monster was but I'm guessing Fenrir.

 

I see Ragnar's baptism as keeping his options open.  I think he sees Christ as just another god, and to get to heaven he has to be baptized but that he's not necessarily turning his back on Odin.

Could be Fenrir. Could also be one of Odin's wolves (dude was like a traveling zookeeper). 

 

Interestingly enough, the scenario you describe of Ragnar incorporating Christ into his pantheon instead of rejecting the Norse gods instead is pretty true to what a lot of pagans did. Some scholars believe that Baldur in the myths is a prime example, given some of the very Christ-like aspects of his story.

 

 

That actually makes more sense in my interpretation, Lugal, that it was Odin rather than Death! :-)

Odin was often claimed to be a god of death (among many, many other things), so actually, you're still right. :) Along with the valkyries, Odin himself was said to visit the battlefield sometimes to take dead and dying warriors to Valhalla. In the very first scene of the series, when Ragnar and Rollo are off fighting and Ragnar sees Odin walking around, that's exactly what's happening (or so Ragnar believes, anyway). 

 

I am intrigued to see how that plays out, and whether or not Ragnar was crying out to Athelstan or Odin not to abandon him. In light of his undying love for his poor lost boyfriend, I'm inclined to go with the former.

[whoknowswho]

I don't get on-demand, (nor have a vcr anymore) but am watching the previous episode again.

 

My random thoughts--

I thought when Ragnar hit the wall that way, that he must have one mean kidney injury, and again when he fell to the ground.  He's now holding his side, or his belly, or both.  He's in trouble, either by internal injury or plague or both.  I want to HOPE he lives...guess we find out next week.

 

Floki...I love him in a "maniacal little leprachauny- zealot weasel " kind of way.  But, I want him to die slowly. Flayed by fire would have been good, and he can still be slow-roasted.

:)

He's such a great character...I will miss him if he gets killed, but he can get killed any time now. I'm still pissed about Athelstan.

 

This is a series that you have to watch over and over as it's SO busy, so many things happen and you notice more every time you watch.

Princess Gisela-  I'm Canadian with an Francophone ex husband- so I have no problem understanding her.  I recognize it isn't a French- Canadienne accent-- it's "France-French." She does have a lisp in this show, I've never watched her in anything so don't know whether this is her normal accent.

 

I absolutely LOVE to loathe King Eckbert, who is so enigmatic. Love him. Just when I think he might be a tiny bit good, he proves that he is a diabolical bastard, but a delicious one.

 

 

 

[Schweedie]

I completely squealed with laughter at the Big Earls beheading trick - I pictured the Norse Gods all welcoming him to Valhalla whilst laughing hysterically

 

Laughing hysterically, slapping his back and bringing him pint after pint of mead, heh.

I completely cracked up at that moment, too. It seemed like such a hardcore viking thing to do!

[Captanne]

I don't love Floki at all.  He is too simple for me.  Too black and white.  And the actor is trying to channel Gollum (in my opinion) and the comparison is not apt.  The Floki character is more Wormtongue if he has to be compared to an LotR character.

 

He's a fail from every angle.

 

Really, for me, the only weakness in the series.  I can even understand Auslag, who is a close second in the "worst of show" category.

 

For me.  Only for me.

 

ETA:  I don't want Floki to die.  I want him to live a long life watching the fruits of his insanity flourish.  I would really enjoy watching his daughter call him a narcissistic simpleton, forgive him for his weaknesses, praise his strengths, and then go on with her life as if he didn't exist, becoming an abbess in a convent in Kattegat.

Edited April 19, 2015 by Captanne

[Ohwell]

I don't know what Ecbert's fate was historically, but while I have appreciated his oily bastardliness (or bastardly oiliness)--I am ready for him to be gone soon.  Preferably, by Ragnar's hands but if it's Athelwulf, then that's ok, too. 

[magdalene]

Historical Ecbert: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Egbert_of_Wessex

 

Putting my thoughts on historical Ecbert into historical spec thread.

[cathy7304]

I sort of view both King Ecbert and Emperor Charles as the same in that both would willingly sacrifice their child to the cause EXCEPT Ecbert would do it for the long cause of advancing his views where Charles would do it to save his own skin. This makes both of them bastards. Ecbert is magnificent and Charles is just, well, a bastard.

[Ankai]

First off, thanks to those who had addressed my questions about Old English and Old Frankish in the thread for the previous episode.

 

Speaking of the previous episode, the first time that I watched it, I thought that Ragnar deliberately fell off the wall, but then I sort of changed my mind when I watched it again and saw how he bounced off all of the hard surfaces. Watching the end of this episode, though, I went back to wondering if he had not deliberately thrown himself off and got those injuries on purpose. Sure, it would hurt a lot and take him out of commission for a while, but maybe he needed that to sell his decision to get Baptized and brought into the city. Of course, the Baptism may be genuine for him, but there is always an ulterior motive...or agenda.

 

I did kind of like the difference between him and Ecbert when it came to scheming. Ecbert tried acting all innocent and shocked that his son would even think that he was trying to pull something. Ragnar pretty much outright stated that he has a scheme and he is under no obligation to reveal it to anyone. That said, maybe one or two of them are in on it and are not telling the others.

 

So...conquered by the dead. That could mean Ragnar or it could mean the sickness that is...plaguing the Parisian populace. Or...there is still time for that other rather gross piece of speculation to be put into works. Perhaps that will not be necessary.

 

[Babalooie]

Just watched this episode for the fourth time before deleting and have to say...how awesome was Floki's self-imposed jail cell treehouse? 

Edited April 21, 2015 by Babalooie

[Ohwell]

I wouldn't be at all surprised if Floki grew a tail.

[GreyBunny]

I'm disappointed Lagertha hasn't cut off Kalf's head yet. Yeah, I know, he saved her from the rolling spikes but he still deserves to get his butt kicked.

 

I'm not sorry Athelstan is gone, after he had his last hallucination it looked like he toppled over into fanatic territory.  Bleh.

 

Siegfried stole the show. He managed to get in one last brilliant "Fuck you all!" before getting beheaded. I'll miss him.

 

Ecbert is so horrible he's a joy to watch.  MVP of season 3.

Edited April 22, 2015 by GreyBunny

[whoknowswho]

First off, thanks to those who had addressed my questions about Old English and Old Frankish in the thread for the previous episode.

 

Speaking of the previous episode, the first time that I watched it, I thought that Ragnar deliberately fell off the wall, but then I sort of changed my mind when I watched it again and saw how he bounced off all of the hard surfaces. Watching the end of this episode, though, I went back to wondering if he had not deliberately thrown himself off and got those injuries on purpose. Sure, it would hurt a lot and take him out of commission for a while, but maybe he needed that to sell his decision to get Baptized and brought into the city. Of course, the Baptism may be genuine for him, but there is always an ulterior motive...or agenda.

 

Bolded by me-

You know what? I have watched it twice, and wondered the first time what the heck happened-- I thought he had thrown himself off, as well.  First he was fighting, then he looked at the city, screamed and either fell or threw himself off. But bounced nastily off that rampart. He's such a skilled fighter and when he screamed I wondered how that could happen, it didn't even look like he'd hit anyone or was hit by anyone- but of course Rollo also fell, and he's superman.   I may have to watch it a third time. You may be on to something...

[green]

He definitely leaped over the wall.  He had looked at Odo and the Princess and saw the city then saw about a zillion Franks coming after him and knew he would be killed if he hung around so he made a calculated leap.  Just like back in Season 1 when it was off the cliff or the Earl's men would have taken him.

 

So to me, no Ragnar isn't a super Seer to know whether he would live or not let alone if his injuries could be used later.  He made a life and death decision as to what might prevent him from dying on the spot.  He gambled and won just like back at Kattegat that time.  And both times he had serious injuries but the lived to tell the tale.  That's how Ragnar rolls.  The instinct of a smart warrior takes over.

[Ankai]

I don't know. It looked to me like there were no more than a dozen soldiers between him and the princess. He could have gotten through them and taken her hostage, no?

[SingleMaltBlonde]

I don't know. It looked to me like there were no more than a dozen soldiers between him and the princess. He could have gotten through them and taken her hostage, no?

 

He's got 99 problems but this Princess ain't one...he knows what kind of trouble some women could be 

[Ankai]

Well, he does not need to keep her for long, just long enough for the Vikings to gain safe passage to the throne room.

[millennium]

I love history and historical accuracy is of paramount importance in non-fiction and scholarly works ... but in Vikings?   The historical inaccuracies don't bother me at all.    I tune in for the characters, the storyline, the action and the cinematography.   It's a beautiful, compelling show that never disappoints me.   Nothing they do on Vikings can change actual history, so why not take liberties if it propels the story in new and exciting directions? 

 

I liked that many of the interior scenes in France, and in the courtyard during the beheading, looked like Renaissance paintings, from the golden light to the rich colors of the garments worn by the extras.

 

I didn't like that Floki's hubris will apparently go unpunished. 

 

Is it just the letterbox format or is Ragnar getting thick around the middle?  Aslaug looked thickish in the waist too, which makes me think it's the letterbox format.

Edited April 27, 2015 by millennium

[Captanne]

I think season three Ragnar is HUGE compared to season one.  They all look like babies three years ago.  At least they do to me.  It's startling.

[Babalooie]

I noticed how thin Floki was in Season 1 compared to now, also.  Not that he's very thick now, either.  Just for fun, here's the Burger King in better days. 

 

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lothaire_Bluteau