Show Vision vs Actual History: Accuracy, Inaccuracy, and Conversation

[orza]

The show is entertainment, not scholarly work. It is also a for-profit business. It costs money to hire linguists and speech coaches to work with the actors and it also takes up production time that could be better spent on filming and other essential production steps. It does not make business sense to devote a lot of resources to one aspect of the show that only a miniscule minority of viewers care about. The majority of viewers are not complaining and the show is a critical and commercial success even with this "flaw".

 

The show is produced for the international English-speaking market, Keeping most of the dialog in English using modern pronunciation maximizes accessibility for even non-native speakers of English. That has nothing to do with laziness or imperialism.

[green]

But it`s so basic. In the case of Norse people still speak it on Iceland and you could just ask them. To me this is the laziness of some Anglos who imagine that English is the only language ever to exist. And if I made an English period piece and mispronounced half the words you`d laugh at it. And I laugh at Vikings. It could have been good but is not, mostly because of this stuff. Vikings didn`t have "an accent". They spoke Norse. And yes it is a language. Contrary to what British imperialists tried to convince people several languages except English exist in the world. Who knew right!.

 

If a Scandanavian production set in England and using English for some weird purpose instead of Norse made a mistake, no native English speaker would care a fig.  They would assume it was a Scandavian accent with the actor and no big deal.  Max Von Sydow always had a very slight accent when playing Americans and Brits and so forth and it was cool.  No one thought it was weird at all to hear him speak.  Rather most people enjoy a slight accent like that.

 

Also English has about a zillion different accents so English speaking people are used to all sorts of accents being used.  Or actors of one English speaking ilk flub accents of another.  The old time Irish accents in classic films from the 30's up to fairly recently give modern day Irish a good giggle I've been told by Irish friends.  But they never get upset or offended about it, just amused.  

 

And again, the Norse spoken over 1200 year ago wouldn't have the same accent as modern day Norse.  No one knows how they actually sounded because there were no recordings or even a written language to try and piece it out with.  There is absolutely no way to tell how it sounded except that it would have definitely not sounded like modern day Norse.  They may have not have had "the great vowel shift" English did but every single language on earth changes over the years let alone the centuries.

 

I didn't even know if the Viking "accent" in this show was suppose to be a Norse accent when I started watching it.  I just thought they went with a different English accent to try and make them sound somewhat different than the Saxons (who didn't remotely sound like they sound on the series except in the few lines they sub-title spoken in Old English),  Or later the Franks whose French-accented English accent isn't 800's accurate either.  No different than Romans sounding British and rebels fighting Romans sounding American in a lot of productions (see/hear Kirk Douglas' Spartacus).  It's just been common film-making practice.

 

As for English language imperialism?!?   If a production is made by English language people for English language networks they tend to speak English in it.  Same with films.  I can't begin to imagine watching David Lean's Doctor Zhivago in Russian or Lawrence of Arabia in mostly Arabic.  Though I did hear a slight Arabic accented Doctor Zhivago, heh.  But everyone loved Omar Sharif's accent, part of his charm. 

 

You don't go to the movies or watch shows to get linguistic lessons.  In the end it's an entertainment and a darn good one, not a linguistic lesson.  I'm just sorry you are so invested in accents to not enjoy the series.  Everyone to their own tastes though so peace out like they say.

Edited July 29, 2015 by green

[Haleth]

Moved from Episode 4 thread:

Gee so all these people saying that there is JUST NO WAY a woman could have been ruler back then are basing that statement purely on speculation and not any real understanding of actual history? 

 

Aethelflaed acted as her father's proxy in Mercia.  She had autonomy but Alfred was ultimately in charge, according to a biography of Alfred that is right in front of me now.

MAGDALENE, ON 13 MAR 2016 - 8:07 PM, SAID:

England as we know it didn't exist yet. Unless I am missing something here. The area we know as England, wasn't it once ruled by the Celts? And then the Saxons and the Angles came and bye-bye Celts.  But if I remember right the Celtic people had female rulers - there was a famous queen who tangled with the Romans.

 

<--  Yes.  Boudicca.  Model for my avatar.
 

[LilyoftheValley]

She was a still a ruler who was making decisions.  Just because they were on someone else's behalf does not mean that she was not in charge.  Look, I agree that women could never wield a great deal of power because power back then inextricably linked to leading warriors.  But most people's ideas of what the middle ages were like stems from Victorian era propaganda about the middle ages and not reality.  

[LilyoftheValley]

At any rate, if it suited the king of Wessex and the king of Northumbria to have female ruler of Mercia then why would't they support her?  Would it perhaps be to their benefit to have a ruler of the kingdom sandwiched between them unable to effectively lead armies of her own?  I dunno, maybe.  Again, it is not as though these guys are doing this because they are motivated by women's rights.  They see some benefit in it for themselves.  

Edited March 14, 2016 by LilyoftheValley

[LittleIggy]

I recently read that Alfred the Great's mother was Osburh, Aethulwulf's first wife. Judith was his Frankish second wife. Wonder why they changed the names. They've never been scared off by unusual names before.

[LOA-maker]

80 per cent accurate imho.

 

The real history is something like this:

 

- 793 CE raid on Lindisfarne

- Rollo was Duke of Normandy but never knew Ragnar

- Ragnar did attack England and Francia but lived decades before Rollo did. It's not even sure if Ragnar existed, he may just be a legend.

- Ragnar had many sons, Bjorn Ironside, Sigurd, Ivar, Hvitserk (called Halfdan also), Ubba

- Bjorn Ironside did sail around the Meditteranean.

- There was a King Horik, not sure if he and Ragnar were allies and then enemies.

[PatsyandEddie]

Some info about Guthrum

 

http://www.britannica.com/biography/Guthrum

[green]

From the article:

 

 

Guthrum went to England in the great Danish invasion of 865, and in mid-January 878 he attacked Alfred’s kingdom of Wessex. Although all Wessex was overrun, a successful counterattack by Alfred in May brought Guthrum to terms. While negotiations were in progress, Guthrum allowed himself to be baptized under the name Aethelstan, with Alfred as his godfather.

 

Whoa.  Awesome.  And in the series I can imagine Alfred as Guthrum's "godfather" would want to to honor the father he never knew but his mother will tell him about by suggesting that very name to Guthrum.

[PatsyandEddie]

Fascinating isn't it!

 

Here is another link to a site I found while surfing one day. It's based on the general myths surrounding different cultures. Kind of fun to read!

 

http://mythologian.net/history/ 

[Haleth]

One thing I learned in a book I just read about the descendants of all these people is that Gisla died before giving Rollo a son.  After her death he married a Danish woman named Poppa who produced at least one boy.  I'm not sure if the writers will keep spunky, sexy Gisla or have a storyline where she dies tragically, leaving Rollo broken.

[gwhh]

Cool videos with this article.

http://www.ign.com/articles/2016/04/08/how-vikings-pulled-off-that-impressive-boat-moving-sequence

Edited April 17, 2016 by gwhh

[PatsyandEddie]

Great stuff! Thanks!

[SingleMaltBlonde]

There has been lots of chatter about the "non-standard" proclivities of the French...50 shades of Count Odo, the bi-sexual Emperor and the "Flowers in the Palace" siblings.  It all has me thinking of a tangent an Economics professor of mine went in class about the French.  The suggestion had been made that the French engaged in a broader range of sexual activities (frequently of the non procreative kind) that it impacted their birthrate (and their economy).  

[Haleth]

I can't claim to be an expert on Norse or British history by any means, but I've read of the exploits of Ivar and Ubba in England, and have heard of Sigurd to some extent.  However I'd never heard the name Hviserk (Ragnarson).  Does this mean he died young?  Maybe while on the voyage with Bjorn?

[green]

12 hours ago, Haleth said:

I can't claim to be an expert on Norse or British history by any means, but I've read of the exploits of Ivar and Ubba in England, and have heard of Sigurd to some extent.  However I'd never heard the name Hviserk (Ragnarson).  Does this mean he died young?  Maybe while on the voyage with Bjorn?

Wikipedia only has a short entry on him:

Quote

Hvitserk (Hvitsärk) "White-Shirt" was one of the sons of the legendary 9th-century Norsemen Ragnar Lodbrok and his wife Kraka. He is attested to by the Tale of Ragnar's Sons (Ragnarssona þáttr). He is not mentioned in any source which also mention Halfdan Ragnarsson, one of the leaders of the Great Heathen Army which invaded the Kingdom of East Anglia in 865. Consequently some scholars have suggested that they are the same individual. [1]

After having avenged his father together with his brothers, he went pillaging in Gardarike (Garðaríki). He was, however, opposed by such a large foe that he could not win. When asked about how he wished to die, he decided to be burnt alive.

Note that Kraka is another version of Aslaug's name.  Would have been more fun if the show used this name.  We could have made endless "release the kraken" jokes.  Also as most of us already know, Lodbrok is the other version of Lothbrok.

There is no evidence that he ever went with Bjorn.  I guess the show just wanted someone else in the family Bjorn and Floki could interact with.  And who knows how he will meet his end since he isn't as famous as Ivar and thus is more expendable (available?) for fictional contrusts as needed by Hirst.

Edited December 10, 2016 by green

[Babalooie]

Not sure where to put this.  For those of you who watch The Walking Dead as well as Vikings, here is a not-so complimentary comparison of the two shows (only one of which I watch).

The author seems to think that there is a little more hope for Vikings than TWD.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/erikkain/2018/01/27/the-walking-dead-and-vikings-have-shockingly-similar-problems/#6dcb48c557f9

[Son of the Norse]

1 hour ago, Babalooie said:

Not sure where to put this.  For those of you who watch The Walking Dead as well as Vikings, here is a not-so complimentary comparison of the two shows (only one of which I watch).

The author seems to think that there is a little more hope for Vikings than TWD.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/erikkain/2018/01/27/the-walking-dead-and-vikings-have-shockingly-similar-problems/#6dcb48c557f9

Thanks for sharing Ricky!  I agree with some of what the reviewer says, and disagree with some....  Just one person's opinion.  We know lots of cool stuff is gonna happen in TWD's future; because it follows (basically), what is written in the comics.  Vikings can still turn it around I hope...just cause I still love it don't mean everyone does; and unfortunately, it takes 'much love' to keep a show going.

[Haleth]

I pulled out my biography of Alfred and skimmed some of what the author wrote about Ragnar and the boys. Granted, there are no hard records of any of this but he writes that there was a Ragnarson boy named... Halfdan. (Although "son of Ragnar" may have been a common sobriquet for Dane leaders.). Also he writes that Ivarr may have been the eldest of Aslaug's sons, not the youngest. 

Edited January 28, 2018 by Haleth

[nodorothyparker]

7 hours ago, Babalooie said:

Not sure where to put this.  For those of you who watch The Walking Dead as well as Vikings, here is a not-so complimentary comparison of the two shows (only one of which I watch).

The author seems to think that there is a little more hope for Vikings than TWD.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/erikkain/2018/01/27/the-walking-dead-and-vikings-have-shockingly-similar-problems/#6dcb48c557f9

I made the comparison of the two shows on the episode thread.  It honestly hadn't ever occurred to me until this last episode or two and it's interesting that other people are seeing it now too.  TWD is all but a lost cause of incoherence and general awfulness at this point as its decline has been happening for awhile.  I still think this show has potential if it doesn't squander it.  There is actual history to draw on even it if is a bit spotty.

[green]

I never watched The Walking Dead because I have a red line I can't cross of being able to "believe" regards fantasy and zombies is it.  Never got why people are big into them.  So I skillped that part.

But  agree a lot with what this guy says about Vikings.  I mean I disagree with him not liking the battlefield visions; that I liked.  But yeah the battles look stupid now complete with flag waving drill teams and the part about tons of vikings without any matching uniforms running at each other and still magically somehow know who is the enemy.

Quote

In Vikings, somehow Hvitserk can sail to Normandy and convince an uncle he barely knows to send Frankish troops back to Scandinavia. This despite the fact that Normandy was a Norman colony, not a Frankish one. This despite the fact that in this era nobody had a standing army. Rollo would have had to muster his vassals who would in turn have had to muster their own men, all for a cause that none of Rollo's subjects would have had any stake in. Nor would the vikings have welcomed an army of Christians on their doorstep. And it all happens off-screen. Everything from character motivations to the grave liberties taken with history to the awful battles have made Vikings far less realistic than before.

And this so much.  Remember when Vikings had a timeline that made sense and could basically follow the main structure of real history to a fairly decent degree?  As well as a plot that made sense I should add.

The guy mentioned Ragnar after getting wounded at Paris as kind of the turning point of the series and I agree.  That whole drug addict then walkabout to wherever for years and years (Hirst never explained "Ragar: The Missing Years" ever) was when the show started going off the tracks.  But Ragnar and Ecbert were still around so I sucked it up and enjoyed those moments.  But Ragnar the Druggie was the moment it all started to get weirdly convoluted and started to head south plot wise.

I also agree with how the characters are all over the map these days.  He cited Bjorn going from a pretty nice guy for a viking to being a real jerk with women.  And the Saxon sub-plot this season going all crazy with Judith plotting like a Lady MacBeth on behalf of Alfred when there is no real need to skip over Aethelred since Alfred would be up next pretty quickly anyway and he hasn't shown he deserves to be king yet. 

Since we are venting here I should add that one thing that has bothered me is the Bjorn goes to the Med plot line.  Twice he has aborted his adventures to run back to his home turf ... and usually in record time.  It is getting annoying.  Either wait to send him to the Med when he will stay there for awhile or have him skip the family in fighting and make his story a subplot relief from this endless civil war.  Because right now you start a plot line there then abort it.  By the time he gets back there I will have forgotten who that mysterious Byzantine woman was not that I was really sure who she was to start with.  Only thing I know is that Halfdan's infatuation with her plot line isn't going anywhere now.

Anyway nice to vent some on this thread with fellow fans that really like this show and are concerned about what is happening to it.  Again it follows the track of most shows about the number of seasons a show stays on the rails until it starts to go bonkers trying to top itself or the show runner starting to just see the trees instead of the forest anymore.  Meanwhile I made a strong statement in another show's thread I felt had to be made so if you don't see me around I probably got myself banned here, hah.

[Razzberry]

The accents are the least of my issues with this show.  I learned from a historian that Old English and Old Norse were so similar that communication wasn't a problem that would even require translators.

I started watching it again recently, mainly to see Alfred's remarkable  efforts to lift his people out of the last vestiges of the Dark Ages.  Instead Alfred looks about 14, Aethelred is still alive,  Lagertha's hooked up with a Bishop-Prick and Bjorn's boning Aelswith that will undoubtedly result in a Viking baby.  Dear god... I understand it's entertainment and not a documentary, but it doesn't even make sense at this point.  Nevertheless I'll probably see it through to the end. ;)