S04.E15: All His Angels

[nodorothyparker]

Sigurd told Ubbe that Aslaug never loved them, only lvar.  And maybe Harbard.

Edited January 1, 2017 by nodorothyparker

[ghoulina]

2 hours ago, lidarose9 said:

Ragnar himself has seen enough to make him realize that he lives his own life and makes his own decisions. If that happens to coincide with what the Seer said or what the gods decreed, that's fine by him, whatever. I don't think he is atheist as much as he embraced the great unknown, an agnostic.

That's how I saw him in the end as well. He reminded me a lot of my husband, in that way. My husband has Norse roots and he's read all the sagas and is very familiar with Asatru. But he embraced that stuff more as a cultural thing than his actual religion. He is also very respectful of my Christianity and sees good to it, but will openly admit that he just doesn't know what's real or not and he's past the point of trying to find out. I think our relationship is probably why the Ragnar - Althestan relationship resonated so deeply with me. 

So yea, I didn't see Ragnar was being 100% certain there's no God/gods, but that just wasn't something that interested him anymore. Asatru would always be important to him as it's part of his culture, but he was pretty damn jaded at the end. I just don't think he gave a fig.

[millennium]

15 hours ago, theschnauzers said:

Many of the dangerous species were from the Indian subcontinent, and trade existed in these areas and even with China throughout. So having various dangerous snakes would not have been difficult, and for me, there was no credibility issue with their presence or the accounts that Ragnar died in a snake pit.

Not to turn this into Herp Chat, but take the Indian Cobra -- their extreme low temperature tolerance is 60 degrees Fahrenheit.  Venomous snakes from the Indian subcontinent would have had great difficulty surviving a British winter in a cold stone castle.

[theschnauzers]

21 minutes ago, millennium said:

Not to turn this into Herp Chat, but take the Indian Cobra -- their extreme low temperature tolerance is 60 degrees Fahrenheit.  Venomous snakes from the Indian subcontinent would have had great difficulty surviving a British winter in a cold stone castle.

Perhaps, but some castles had to means to keep small rooms warm such as the steam bath Ecbert had when he was first getting to know Ragnar (late season 1/early season 2?, IIRC).

[SingleMaltBlonde]

While I couldn't watch the snake part...wouldn't only slightly poisoness snakes be worse than something really deadly?  the latter would be a quick death...

I think Lagetha really killed Aslaug to help Bjorn.  If Aslaug was alive and confirmation came back that Ragnar was dead she could have made a case that one of her sons should rule Kattegatt.  Lagetha can hand power to Bjorn and anyone still loyal to Ragnar should be happy too.

The cliche is history is written by the victors but oddly not really here since the Vikings weren't literate history was written by some of the vanquished.  I think it's interesting how people take "the English" side even in this show.  Life back then was nasty, brutish and short.  The Vikings were doing what they needed to do to survive (as were the English).  

[MrsR]

Venomous!!!! Snakes don't have poison, they have venom!!

Okay got that off my chest. Different snakes have different venom. Some rot the flesh and cause blood poisoning and hemorrhaging. Some cause paralysis and the victim suffocates slowly like the krait. Some attack the nervous system.

Adders, the ones local to England have to bite several times to kill a human. 

[Son of the Norse]

I will miss Ragnar a ton.  He was one of the main reasons I fell in love with this show.  Being of Scandinavian decent I have always been interested in the history and sagas of the North-men, and even though I will miss Ragnar I will watch this show until the last episode; it has been just that good! :) 

This last episode was not one I was excited to watch, but I knew it had to come sooner or later.  Good Luck to Bjorn and Ivar going forward; I cannot wait to see your "justice" for you father!

[green]

On 1/1/2017 at 7:18 PM, SingleMaltBlonde said:

While I couldn't watch the snake part...wouldn't only slightly poisoness snakes be worse than something really deadly?  the latter would be a quick death...

I think Lagetha really killed Aslaug to help Bjorn.  If Aslaug was alive and confirmation came back that Ragnar was dead she could have made a case that one of her sons should rule Kattegatt.  Lagetha can hand power to Bjorn and anyone still loyal to Ragnar should be happy too.

The cliche is history is written by the victors but oddly not really here since the Vikings weren't literate history was written by some of the vanquished.  I think it's interesting how people take "the English" side even in this show.  Life back then was nasty, brutish and short.  The Vikings were doing what they needed to do to survive (as were the English).  

But the English never went out to invade Scandinavia.  They may have their faults but they are the victims here never having done any harm to a Viking until the fictional stuff thrown in about about Ecbert and the Viking colony.

In other words there were two fallible peoples.  But one went forth and invaded the lands of the other and raped and murdered unarmed monks and peasants who had never done them any harm.  Where I come from that is a bad thing to do.

There is a link to another interview where Hirst said it was Fimmel's idea to make Ragnar an atheist in the end because Fimmel is one and wanted Ragnar to be one.  Not the best reasoning here.  In the 800's no one was some modern day version of an atheist any more than there were Astrids running around wanting to take young Vikings to a makeover spa.  This modern day stuff shoe-horned into the show didn't work in either case to me.

I agree with the posters up thread that Ragnar may have been an agnostic as in not knowing whether the Norse gods or Christianity or demons or nature spirits or whatever existed or not.  But he would not have ruled out anything100%.  He may be upset at these ideas.  May have privately argued with Odin in his head.  But he was curious and sought knowledge.  An atheist, just like a fundamentalist, is not curious and open-minded.  Both groups think they have it all figured out and have closed the door to seeking anything that doesn't fit their notions.  That wasn't Ragnar who always sought for more knowledge.

And for a man who had visions of everyone from Odin to Aethelstan returning to him I doubt if he suddenly thought that the materialist,  sense-perceived world is the only one that existed.  I think he was more pissed off with gods, demons and life in general at the end and was having a serious time at the end of his life about what life and death should really be about and what his role in all of this was.  You know.  An agnostic. 

Edited January 3, 2017 by green

[loki567]

On one hand, I have to figure that somewhere in history, even the Middle Age, there were atheists. I don't think that fits who Ragnar was for the previous four years though. He always seem a pretty legitimate believer and any questions were more about if the Norse gods could fit alongside a Christian God.  So I think an instance where the actor's beliefs got in the way of the character's beliefs. If they wanted Ragnar losing his faith story-line, there should have been more time devoted to it.

Which brings me to my next point, I wish the pacing had been different this season. It would have been better if we had gotten a few episodes in 4B before Ragnar's return to Kattegut, giving more detail to the Aslaug/Lagertha confrontation and maybe some time to spell out why exactly Ragnar lost his faith. Disappointing that Ragnar was missing for six/10? years with nothing to show for it. 

I'm not sure about Jonathan Rhys Meyers joining the show. At least if he's playing an aged-up version of one of the younger characters. He's older than Travis Fimmel and Alex Hogh Anderson is 22. So if we have another time jump with

 Alfred

played by an actor 17 years older than Ivar's actor? Weird. 

Edited January 2, 2017 by loki567

[Haleth]

7 hours ago, green said:

But the English never went out to invade Scandinavia.  They may have their faults but they are the victims here never having done any harm to a Viking until the fictional stuff thrown in about about Ecbert and the Viking colony.

In other words there were two fallible peoples.  But one went forth and invaded the lands of the other and raped and murdered unarmed monks and peasants who had never done them any harm.  Where I come from that is a bad thing to do.

But it has only been a few hundred years since the Saxons invaded, doing the same raping, pillaging, and murdering as the Vikings are doing, except they decided to stay and settle there.  (Which of course the Danes ended up doing too eventually.)  They were hardly innocent.  Britain's history is replete with one culture usurping another for 1000 years.

I'll miss Ragnar's intellectual curiosity.  None of his sons seem to have inherited his thirst for understanding.  (Maybe Bjorn?)  I think that's part of what made him such an outstanding character-- we could relate to his questioning the way things were.  He would throw out conventional thinking in case there was a better way (finding the legendary Britain, establishing a settlement, learning their language, etc.).  Outside the box thought may be a modern concept, but it's what made Ragnar relatable and definitely more interesting than his single minded sons.

[Knuckles]

On 12/30/2016 at 8:23 PM, The Kings Foot said:

In Ivar, the showrunners have taken a character every bit as cruel as Ramsey Bolton,... and made us root for him.

Interesting thought. I suspect that our cheering for Ivar is because we want to see Ragnar avenged...and Ivar is the man who will deliver. Egbert and Aelle both have it coming...though not the farmers and villagers in Wessex and Mercia...but such is life. When elephants fight, the mice are trampled. 

Once Ivar is on his own, our cheering for him will probably stop. Bjorn to me is a more interesting and nuanced character...but he and his merry band seem to be wreaking hell on North Africa in the upcoming episode. So it goes in the medieval world...and, in many ways, ours as well.

[BitterApple]

9 hours ago, loki567 said:

 

Which brings me to my next point, I wish the pacing had been different this season. It would have been better if we had gotten a few episodes in 4B before Ragnar's return to Kattegut, giving more detail to the Aslaug/Lagertha confrontation and maybe some time to spell out why exactly Ragnar lost his faith. Disappointing that Ragnar was missing for six/10? years with nothing to show for it. 

I'm not sure about Jonathan Rhys Meyers joining the show. At least if he's playing an aged-up version of one of the younger characters. He's older than Travis Fimmel and Alex Hogh Anderson is 22. So if we have another time jump with

  Hide contents

 Alfred

played by an actor 17 years older than Ivar's actor? Weird. 

As much as I love this show I have to admit the aging, pacing and time jumps are the few things the writers haven't handled well. As it stands now, Ivar is around 18-ish, and Alfred looked to be 13. I don't know how they're going to make a 22 year-old and a nearly 40 year-old look like they're close in age. And if we do have a huge time skip and Lagertha doesn't have so much as a single gray hair, then it'll be shark, meet jumped.

Back to the episode, I agree, SingleMalt, regarding the snake pit. There's a thousand ways I'd rather die. Last summer I was helping my sister get some branches from a woodpile and we uncovered a good-sized snake. I screamed so loud, my neighbors ran out of their houses because they thought I'd had an accident.

[ghoulina]

15 hours ago, green said:

But the English never went out to invade Scandinavia.  They may have their faults but they are the victims here never having done any harm to a Viking until the fictional stuff thrown in about about Ecbert and the Viking colony.

Which English, though? England at that time was largely Saxon, and the Saxons were very similar to the Vikings when they first arrived in Britain. They drove a large portion of the Celts out into Wales, Ireland, and Scotland. There were also still some remnants of the previous Roman civilizations. And, of course, later on the British Empire becomes pretty far reaching with its colonization. History tends to demonize and glorify certain people, but the truth is that most people were equally shitty to someone at one point or another. 

 

12 hours ago, loki567 said:

On one hand, I have to figure that somewhere in history, even the Middle Age, there were atheists. I don't think that fits who Ragnar was for the previous four years though. He always seem a pretty legitimate believer and any questions were more about if the Norse gods could fit alongside a Christian God.  So I think an instance where the actor's beliefs got in the way of the character's beliefs. If they wanted Ragnar losing his faith story-line, there should have been more time devoted to it.

I tend to agree with this. There really wasn't anything that ever indicated Ragnar had a loss of faith. I believe his sons were pretty well known as having strong Heathen beliefs. It does seem like something that came more from the actor than anything from history or cultural references. That being said, it didn't greatly bother me because I can see how someone who's been through all he had could struggle with his beliefs. But I also see your point that it didn't planned out very well.

[SingleMaltBlonde]

15 hours ago, loki567 said:

On one hand, I have to figure that somewhere in history, even the Middle Age, there were atheists.

This makes me think of my HS history teacher who was never fond of the myth that people thought Columbus would sail off the edge of the world...even the dumbest sailor knew the world was round.

Lots of religion is learned and about traditions and culture.  I think Ragnar saw the limits of that and what the gods or God were.

Some of these more modern elements are hard to swallow.  I loved Ragnar and Eckbert's chat about Athelstan but I don't see two macho warrior kings discussing their love for another man.  I say this as a member of Team Athelstan and someone who wanted Ragnar and Athelstan to hook up.

18 hours ago, green said:

But the English never went out to invade Scandinavia.  T

I am mostly Scandanavian (so maybe I am biased)...while other people have stories about escaping famine or persecution I joke my Great-Grandmother forsaw the ubiquity of ABBA....so maybe the Vikings pre-empted possible British empire building?

[magdalene]

The Vikings were brutal as invaders but like ghoulina so excellently put it the Anglo-Saxons were probably just as brutal as invaders to the Celts.  Whatever atrocities the Vikings committed what matters in the end is what influence they had on the British Isles and Europe as a whole.  And what amazing and far-reaching influence it is. I have Viking DNA myself and am proud of it - though sometimes I wonder how violent was the manner in which my ancestors came to have this DNA.  I have a British friend who is so very proud that one of her ancestors came over with the Conquerer.

Also, in general a people get a better rep when they can white-wash their own history in writing - something obviously the Vikings couldn't do.

The History Channel Vikings website has podcasts for every episode and this episode podcast has the guy on who handled the snakes they used.  A few of the snakes bit Fimmel while he was filming in the pit!

[green]

16 hours ago, Haleth said:

But it has only been a few hundred years since the Saxons invaded, doing the same raping, pillaging, and murdering as the Vikings are doing, except they decided to stay and settle there.  ...

 

 

8 hours ago, ghoulina said:

Which English, though? England at that time was largely Saxon, and the Saxons were very similar to the Vikings when they first arrived in Britain. They drove a large portion of the Celts out into Wales, Ireland, and Scotland. There were also still some remnants of the previous Roman civilizations. And, of course, later on the British Empire becomes pretty far reaching with its colonization. History tends to demonize and glorify certain people, but the truth is that most people were equally shitty to someone at one point or another.   ...

So you guys are saying that the sins of the father should be visited upon the sons?  Do we lock up whole families down the generations because someone's great-great grandfather killed someone?

I personally don't believe in group guilt.  I do NOT blame today's modern day Germans for the Holocaust.  I don't blame modern day Americans for slavery.   (And the majority of most modern day Americans had no slave owners in their family trees either for that matter).  And I think I am safe in saying that everyone here, unlike some current fundamentalist groups like ISIS, doesn't blame the entire modern day people of the West over the Crusades.  

Individuals and their actions and their actions alone count.  Not whole groups of people being judged guilty for real or just perceived injustices of the past.  And I certainly don't blame individual, peaceful Saxon peasants and monks of the 800's for what some (though hardly all let alone a majority) of their ancestors did.  Hell their supposed bloody ancestors never attacked the Vikings either.  Only the Celts would have cause to be pissed at them if you accept group guilt extending over several centuries.

Crimes or supposed crimes by others can never be blamed on the innocent who never committed said crime.  Ever.

Edited January 3, 2017 by green

[Haleth]

8 hours ago, green said:

So you guys are saying that the sins of the father should be visited upon the sons?  Do we lock up whole families down the generations because someone's great-great grandfather killed someone?

No, no.  Not at all.  I was just trying to say that though THESE Saxons never did anything to provoke a raid by the Vikings, their own history was full of similar actions against a peaceful, indigenous culture.  No, they shouldn't be held accountable for something that happened centuries ago and no, they didn't deserve what happened during Viking raids, but they can't ignore that this was part of their history too.

[ghoulina]

2 hours ago, Haleth said:

No, no.  Not at all.  I was just trying to say that though THESE Saxons never did anything to provoke a raid by the Vikings, their own history was full of similar actions against a peaceful, indigenous culture.  No, they shouldn't be held accountable for something that happened centuries ago and no, they didn't deserve what happened during Viking raids, but they can't ignore that this was part of their history too.

Agree. I was definitely not saying we should hold people accountable for the actions of their fathers. I'm not saying the English deserved Vikings to come tear apart their villages and monasteries because their Saxon ancestors had done almost the exact same thing to the Celts before them. I was just trying to say that no group in history is really free from blame. At some point, they were almost all awful. The OP sort of sounded (to ME, and I'm sorry if I took it wrong) like they were saying Viking deserve extra condemnation because they were just the worst ever. And I was just pointing out that the people living in the country of England HAD been violent colonizers and CONTINUED to be violent colonizers. Just like there were Norsemen and women who were content to be peaceful farmers and not bother anyone else. All groups have their goods and their bads. 

[nodorothyparker]

Much of the history of this period (or any period, really) is one of violence and conquest.  I don't really get into some current tendencies to judge historical figures by modern standards of behavior any more than I'm interested in painting any one group as black and white villains or trying to equate two separate things.  People and the history they were part of are more complicated than that.  Right now, the story is setting up Ivar and his brothers as having some pretty valid reasons for wanting revenge and doing what we know they're going to do.  But it also didn't pretend that the Saxons didn't have legitimate reasons of their own for wanting to enact some kind of vengeance or justice on the Vikings when the opportunity presented itself with Ragnar.  Ragnar wasn't an innocent victim and he knew it.  To me, that's fairly realistic.  It's also realistic to acknowledge that in the overwhelmingly majority of cases at this time, the Vikings were the aggressors to a generation of people who at best had been more or less minding their own business and at worst had been caught up in internal fighting between the mini kingdoms of the English mainland.

The show kind of flirted with the history of the Saxons in the second and third seasons with Ecbert's fascination with the Romans and pagan imagery but didn't really dwell on it much.  I believe he even acknowledged at one point that the nobles who were bitching about the pagan presence were only a generation or three removed from being pagan worshipers of the very Odin-like god Woden themselves even if they didn't or wouldn't remember it.  Neither the Saxon and Christian conquests of England were particularly peaceful or bloodless.  Those are entirely separate things from the forays the Vikings have already made or what's coming though.

Edited January 3, 2017 by nodorothyparker

[BitterApple]

Well said, nodorothyparker. For me personally, my sadness over Ragnar's death was due to him being such a compelling character and the fact that Travis Fimmel was so freaking amazing, rather than any belief that his execution was unjustified or unfair. Ecbert destroying the settlement was wrong, but so was the murder of helpless, peaceful monks. One of the reasons I enjoy this show so much is there aren't any clear cut heroes and villains. Both the Saxons and the Vikings have redeemable qualities and the ability to be straight up bastards. The world has always been a messy place and I like that Hirst didn't go the cheesy, formulaic route of Good Guys vs. Bad Guys.

[Son of the Norse]

3 hours ago, BitterApple said:

Both the Saxons and the Vikings have redeemable qualities and the ability to be straight up bastards. The world has always been a messy place and I like that Hirst didn't go the cheesy, formulaic route of Good Guys vs. Bad Guys.

Ditto this BA!  Couldn't say it better! :)

[Captanne]

I think Hirst and the actor stumbled into cliche one-note with Floki around the time of the murder of Athelstan.  I wish that had been more complicated.

Otherwise, I agree about the show brilliantly making the "good guy" versus the "bad guy" thoroughly blurred.

I think that's why I was so disappointed with the Floki character during that time (2d season end?)  I still don't like the character and I find the actor's choices lazy but I think it's a hangover from that period.

[nodorothyparker]

I simply can't care about Floki or any story involving him at all because of that.   Because, yeah, as presented it was no more complicated or nuanced than a 3-year-old lashing out because someone else was playing with a toy he wanted, if that 3-year-old happened to be wielding an ax to bludgeon to death an unarmed man who posed no physical threat to him.

For story purposes, I see now why Hirst chose to kill Athelstan when he did but that did nothing for my disappointment at the time or since.   I ended up taking a long break from the show after that as it became apparent that Floki was going to be kept around to continue to be weird and offputting for the sake of being weird and offputting without ever really being sorry or even comprehending that by doing what he did to "save Ragnar" he sent the object of his supposed affection into a long death spiral from which he never truly recovered.  It's why his big "I love you" exchange with Ragnar before Ragnar wandered off to die fell so flat with me.

[Captanne]

It fell flat for me as well unless I understood it to be just one more manipulation by a man who went from lowly farmer to World-Changing King.  Ragnar needed a boat and he knew how to get one.  Give the builder the one thing he desperately wanted but never thought he'd get.

[SharonH58]

on Vikings wikia it stated " King Ecbert will try to make a deal with Ragnar using Magnus. Ragnar stated that he never had sex with Kwenthrith and that she only pissed on him. Later Aethelwulf banishes Magnus from Wessex in order to save him from a certain death."

So the Wulf was not being ruthless but saves Magnus.  I wish they hadn't killed Crazy K, I liked her and Wulf together.

[One Tough Cookie]

On ‎12‎/‎30‎/‎2016 at 0:00 AM, jackjill89 said:

Agree about Aelle and him having every right to be ticked at the Vikings and wanting revenge, but I think he's icky and instead of just going out for revenge, he did it in the name of God, which really bugs the crap out of me

Imagine how God feels about it.

[MetaM]

It was an episode that left me speechless - a prolonged charcter death is almost always excrutiating, but this was very well done.

For me the most chilling moment was the transition of Ragnar's memory of the Lord's prayer with Athelstan into the crowd standing around him reciting the same prayer in anticipation of his further torture and coming death. The two faces of religion which I think is a big reason why Ragnar becomes agnostic in the end.  To me this was way more powerful than the on-the-nose prayer of King Aelle, or the ridiculously gimicky snake pit full of specialty collector snakes and complete with snake handlers.