S04.E20: The Reckoning

[Tara Ariano]

In case you missed it, here's the Previously.TV post on the episode!

In The Season Finale Of Vikings, There's A Lot Of Dying...And Look Who Shows Up!

Brilliant political gamesmanship, big hatchets, and this guy!

[TaurusRose]

4 hours ago, Haleth said:

Instead of "comforting the poor widow" I wish the final image would have been Heahmund removing his clerical robes and suiting up in full battle gear.  That would have been more interesting.  A warrior priest.

This.

3 hours ago, benteen said:

I wish Ecbert's true grandson would have told him "Fuck you, Grandfather" when Ecbert said he was special too.  Since when?!

Me, too.  Ecbert's constant fawning over Alfred got on my nerves ages ago.  

Unlike others I didn't care about Helga dying nor was it a surprise.  It wasn't made clear (at least not to me) why she went off the deep end in the first place and started fixating on the girl they abducted during their last raid.  That little girl went out like a champ.  Kudos to her and offing Helga on the way out. Floki is all alone now.  I wonder how his end will come about.

Ivar and Sigurd.  I always knew the animosity between those two would end up with Sigurd dead, since Ivar was shown to be a murderer since he was a child. I hope the remaining brothers shun that crazy bastard now because he's an uncontrollable rabid animal.  That said, I really don't care about the remaining brothers, they're all sketchy and undeserving of any loyalty or admiration, IMO.  It's hard to believe they are the spawn of Ragnar because they're all so ordinary and Ragnar was anything but.

Since Aethelwulf escaped with his family, I guess that means I'll have to see that fucking Judith again next year.  I'm glad Ecbert is dead because I was tired of him ages ago, too.  I guess I wasn't surprised that he had an ace up his sleeve that would put a curve in the plans of any Northmen sticking around to build a settlement.  

It's always good to see JRM, although I could do without the obligatory sex scene he always seems to have.  

[TaurusRose]

4 hours ago, Granny58 said:

Jon Rhys Meyers I believe.  

Actually, Jonathan Rhys Meyers.

[Lamima]

5 hours ago, Paradigm14 said:

Google says: Possesses E Noodles!  (Does this allude to his rather active noodle?)

I posted earlier in the thread the sword says Ananyzapata. Here are possible meanings... http://english.stackexchange.com/questions/125273/word-detectives-needed-ananyzapata/370860

But I do like the noodle theory...? Ana Zapta means the main record in Turkish.

Edited February 2, 2017 by Lamima

[Giselle]

Well that just ruined the show for me. Henry VIII showed up.

[attica]

The most shocking thing about this ep was Floki going eyeliner-free in his last scene. What would the gods say?

My inner librarian was exceedingly distressed when Floki put the light to all those scrolls.

[Silverglitter]

7 hours ago, BonnieD said:

I haven't missed Ragnar. I expected to but I don't.

I may be alone in quite enjoying Ivar, but I would like to see him show cunning as he did in suggesting they change up their battle plan and spread out over a wide area. Since he was a cruel, ruthless leader in real history and apparently operated for quite some time, I think he needs to be shown as smarter than his brothers. So less with the knee jerk emotional reactions like killing his bro, and more with the long range planning. Maybe that's his ARC that they intend to show, from emotional reactor to calculated planner as he grows up.

I enjoy Ivar too. I just don't want to. lol The actor is charismatic, and very attractive (to get shallow for a moment), so I find it easier to watch him and be drawn in than I do with a lot of the others.

[ennui]

1 hour ago, Lamima said:

I posted earlier in the thread the sword says Ananyzapata. Here are possible meanings... http://english.stackexchange.com/questions/125273/word-detectives-needed-ananyzapata/370860

Interesting link. I was thinking that maybe each letter represented a word in a phrase (initialism), but that link is better. I also found something about acrostic Psalms, using the Hebrew alphabet. 

[ennui]

17 hours ago, magdalene said:

Hey, I saw an ad tonight on the History Channel, coming this Fall a series about the Knights Templar - synergy with coming story on Vikings.

"Knightfall will focus on the Knights Templar, a mysterious and fascinating order from the Middle Ages. Based on the description released by History, Knightfall will bring many realistic characters and a great amount of war and brute force, much like Vikings. The official synopsis for Knightfall offers some insight into the "most powerful, wealthy and mysterious military order of the Middle Ages".

"Knightfall goes deep into the inner sanctum of the clandestine world of this legendary brotherhood of warrior monks. From their battles in the Holy Land, to their clashes with both the King of France and Pope Boniface VIII, to the betrayal that would ultimately lead to their tragic dissolution on Friday the 13th–a date which became synonymous with bad luck–the story of the Knights Templar has never been fully told until now. Knightfall takes you inside the world to find out who these knights were, how they lived, and what they died believing."

[nodorothyparker]

This was a mostly good episode and season finale even if parts of it didn't quite land for me.

The best was probably Ecbert getting one last double cross in before finding a way to dictate his death on his own terms in the face of an entire bloodthirsty Viking army.  Seriously, boys?  It didn't occur to any of you to wonder why the king was completely alone and unattended save a very decidedly noncombatant old bishop, knowing that he already outsmarted your father on basically the same deal once before?  And even if the paper was valid, you don't think you're going to need to keep a sizable force there to enforce it against a regrouping army or Ecbert rolling over you again and maybe not be in such a hurry to be peeling off your numbers to send some home and others back to the Mediterranean?  I'm inclined to think too that seeing Ragnar make the final choices he did inspired Ecbert to figure out how he wanted things to play out and get his affairs in order even as he was tottering about these last weeks like a feeble old man who'd completely lost it.  "Oh yeah, you.  The kid who isn't Alfred.  You're special too, I guess."

Bjorn was doing mostly nice work inhabiting Ragnar's role thoughout the episode, at points just sitting and watching the carnage unfold.  But as one reviewer put it, he's much blunter instrument than Ragnar ever was.  He doesn't have the same mind for trickery or thinking outside the box as his straightforward acceptance of Ecbert's deal showed.  It didn't cross his mind that even in danger of being blood eagled Ecbert might still have one last trick up his sleeve.   He also clearly underestimated the level of animosity between his younger half brothers or just how dangerous Ivar could be in his need to prove himself Ragnar's "chosen one."  Even with his willingness to use Ivar's battle plan, Bjorn has mostly treated him like the annoying kid brother who thinks he knows better.  I was sorry to realize that he'd already turned his back and walked away through the crowd before the ax was thrown, so we never saw his reaction to Ivar killing Sigurd.  

I'm sorry too that if they were going to have Ivar kill one of his brothers to demonstrate how unstable he can really be that it was Sigurd and not Hvitserk, both because I find that character's name harder to spell and pronounce and because he's left very little impression on me beyond his willingness to share his brother's wife.   Sigurd could be an ass, as with the scene earlier in the season of taunting Ivar at the dinner table, but he was also one of the few people who both saw Ivar clearly and was willing to call him on it.  I honestly thought they were setting Ivar and Sigurd up as Ragnar and Rollo, the next generation.

As a bibliophile who can manage to feel actual grief over stories of the great library at Alexandria, it was painful watching all that knowledge in scrolls and books in Athelstan's old work room go up in flames.  I'm not particularly invested in rooting for one team or another in this, but it was an effective reminder of the many costs of the pillaging and destruction beyond the cool battlefield scenes as the Vikings plundered their way through Europe.

Helga's end has been so heavily telegraphed that I couldn't muster up much beyond "well, that will happen when you bring home strays that don't want to be brought."  

[Ohwell]

6 minutes ago, nodorothyparker said:

Sigurd could be an ass, as with the scene earlier in the season of taunting Ivar at the dinner table, but he was also one of the few people who both saw Ivar clearly and was willing to call him on it.

But Sigurd was also stupid, continuing to harass Ivar because he should have known after all those years of Ivar hating him that eventually he'd get his revenge.  Hell, everybody knew Ivar was crazy.  Ax to the chest was no surprise.

[nodorothyparker]

That's assuming that it's at all reasonable to think that disagreement = ax to your brother's chest in Vikingland.  Which maybe it is.  I don't know.  I'll be curious to see how the brothers handle this going forward.  

Ubbe previously admitted to being afraid of Ivar, but I don't think Sigurd ever did.  Sure, that may have been because of stupidity or it could have been that he never stopped seeing him as his crippled little brother with an overinflated sense of self-importance.  Bjorn certainly never treated him as something to be afraid of in his dealings with him.  He yelled him down pretty effectively when Ivar was originally insisting he should be the one to lead the great army.

[Ohwell]

I'm pretty sure that Ivar never forgot how Sigurd taunted him at the dinner table (I know I wouldn't).  It was especially cruel on Sigurd's part, so the ax to the chest really didn't bother me all that much.  Even Harald had that look on his face like, "Brothers, ya know?"

[SingleMaltBlonde]

19 hours ago, WatchrTina said:

I look forward to the sons of Ragnar learning that the deed Egbert signed isn't worth the parchment it was written on since he was no longer king when he signed it.  Egbert -- a devious SOB to the very end.

I don't get the whole passing on the crown and signing the deed...the Saxons wouldn't have stood behind it anyway.

[DHDancer]

Well, I'll be the naysayer: I didn't enjoy the episode very much and in fact laughed pretty hard through the battle:  where were the shieldwalls? Such crappy tactics wasting the cavalry.  And Ivar/chariot was just laughable: trotting around like he was taking a drive in the park.

And frankly I don't buy into the destruction of the fort/town: the Vikings aren't stupid: they would just take up residence and enjoy the comforts.  I sort of understand the destruction of the scrolls and other Christian trappings, but not the buildings or walls. 

 I was totally unmoved by Floki/Helga except from the point of Helga actress being producer's family being written out.  I DID LOVE Ecbert's final revenge except of course he was the King of Wessex and Mercia, NOT of East Anglia (that was a separate kingdom) so it didn't matter about him abdicating to Aethelwulf anyway.  But hey, I'm sure Hirst has never let history or geography interfere with a good yarn.  It will be interesting to see if he sends Ivar off to Ireland and leave Ubba and Halfdan to the English Kingdoms.   Bernard Cornwell's Saxon Tales has spoiled me I guess...

PS and while I don't mind JRM, did they have to introduce him with such an awful sex trope (it wasn't even sexy).

Edited February 3, 2017 by DHDancer

[jackjill89]

1 hour ago, nodorothyparker said:

This was a mostly good episode and season finale even if parts of it didn't quite land for me.

The best was probably Ecbert getting one last double cross in before finding a way to dictate his death on his own terms in the face of an entire bloodthirsty Viking army.  Seriously, boys?  It didn't occur to any of you to wonder why the king was completely alone and unattended save a very decidedly noncombatant old bishop, knowing that he already outsmarted your father on basically the same deal once before?  And even if the paper was valid, you don't think you're going to need to keep a sizable force there to enforce it against a regrouping army or Ecbert rolling over you again and maybe not be in such a hurry to be peeling off your numbers to send some home and others back to the Mediterranean?  I'm inclined to think too that seeing Ragnar make the final choices he did inspired Ecbert to figure out how he wanted things to play out and get his affairs in order even as he was tottering about these last weeks like a feeble old man who'd completely lost it.  "Oh yeah, you.  The kid who isn't Alfred.  You're special too, I guess."

Bjorn was doing mostly nice work inhabiting Ragnar's role thoughout the episode, at points just sitting and watching the carnage unfold.  But as one reviewer put it, he's much blunter instrument than Ragnar ever was.  He doesn't have the same mind for trickery or thinking outside the box as his straightforward acceptance of Ecbert's deal showed.  It didn't cross his mind that even in danger of being blood eagled Ecbert might still have one last trick up his sleeve.   He also clearly underestimated the level of animosity between his younger half brothers or just how dangerous Ivar could be in his need to prove himself Ragnar's "chosen one."  Even with his willingness to use Ivar's battle plan, Bjorn has mostly treated him like the annoying kid brother who thinks he knows better.  I was sorry to realize that he'd already turned his back and walked away through the crowd before the ax was thrown, so we never saw his reaction to Ivar killing Sigurd.  

I'm sorry too that if they were going to have Ivar kill one of his brothers to demonstrate how unstable he can really be that it was Sigurd and not Hvitserk, both because I find that character's name harder to spell and pronounce and because he's left very little impression on me beyond his willingness to share his brother's wife.   Sigurd could be an ass, as with the scene earlier in the season of taunting Ivar at the dinner table, but he was also one of the few people who both saw Ivar clearly and was willing to call him on it.  I honestly thought they were setting Ivar and Sigurd up as Ragnar and Rollo, the next generation.

As a bibliophile who can manage to feel actual grief over stories of the great library at Alexandria, it was painful watching all that knowledge in scrolls and books in Athelstan's old work room go up in flames.  I'm not particularly invested in rooting for one team or another in this, but it was an effective reminder of the many costs of the pillaging and destruction beyond the cool battlefield scenes as the Vikings plundered their way through Europe.

Helga's end has been so heavily telegraphed that I couldn't muster up much beyond "well, that will happen when you bring home strays that don't want to be brought."  

Ragnar would have figured out that he was being played by the king. I don't think his sons have enough brains between them to figure out that everyone being gone save the king, bishop and a few guards means that something is up. 

I like your idea about them doing more with Sigurd and Ivar. Could have been interesting. They needed a better actor for Sigurd though. One that could have gone toe to toe with Ivar. I think they've really squandered an opportunity to flesh out the sons better. 

[ennui]

1 hour ago, SingleMaltBlonde said:

I don't get the whole passing on the crown and signing the deed...the Saxons wouldn't have stood behind it anyway.

Well, I could see passing the crown to avoid a succession crisis. Ecbert knew this was his end, and maybe Aethelwolf is not an indisputable heir? Maybe Ecbert had a brother out there somewhere or something.

The deed -- it's nice when people put their promises in writing. 

RE Helga and the orphan, I didn't know someone could stab themselves in the heart. Kid must have been really strong.

[Jordan61]

20 hours ago, whoknowswho said:

 

20 hours ago, Auntie Anxiety said:

Ever since Ragnar was killed off, this show had been boring me. Guess I don't really care about any of the characters anymore. 

I'm with you there Auntie. Really, there's no one left I like.

I'm there too. I used to like Bjorn and Lagertha but this season they have really been rubbing me the wrong way. I just don't find any of these characters interesting enough to keep watching, and I've never seen anything with Jonathan Rhys Meyers so he's not a draw for me.

Edited February 3, 2017 by Jordan61
misspelling

[feverfew]

I haven't been as invested in Vikings this season; funnily enough it has less to do with the loss of Ragnar and more to do with the focus on Ivar. I can't exactly put my finger on it, but it's got something to do with the way the show seems to almost revel in his psychopathy. I like my characters in shades of grey - Ivar has been completely black since he killed that child. I felt something for him when he went to England with Ragnar, but that shading almost feels like a one-off now: A petulant megalomaniac with mother-issues and psychopathic tendencies, celebrated by the show is not what I'm after. A cruel, stone-cold killer Ivar could be interesting - but only if the show wouldn't insist on casting him in the pseudo-hero role. IMHO, of course.

I've been looking for Viking views on fratricide - was it only just frowned upon or was it more of a taboo like in Judeo-Christian tradition? I have some vague memories of one of the sagas in The Elder Edda, where two families completely eliminated each other because of fratricide - something to do with blood vengence?

I didn't miss Lagartha one bit. This season her character went straight into fantasyland for me, and as said by smarter posters than me in the previous episode's thread, there's no sense of stakes when the outcome is completely predictable. However, this show is rapidly losing all it's interesting female characters, and that's problematic for me. Astrid doesn't work, but I still want the show to continue to try finding other female characters. For that alone I'm happy both Judith One-Ear and Princess Mushmouth was a presence this season.

My favourite character this season turned out to be Ubbe. Huh. Hopefully he'll dump non-entity Margaret (let Hvitserk have her) and stand up to Ivar next season.

[Son of the Norse]

If you know me by now (which you probably don't), I enjoy every single show that is about my ancestors; good, bad, or otherwise. :)

I liked the battle scene.  The lack of shield walls may have been because of Ivar's battle plan...Guess we will never know.  I liked that the show focused on what was going on in Essex instead of jumping back and forth to Norway/Denmark, or where ever.  TGHA was a BIG deal back then and if the history (or tales) written by christians were true; it was a significant event (who would of more than likely called them the Great Pagan Army).

I didn't mind Helga getting the knife; it is life after all, and people cannot live forever.  I was more upset at the little girl killing her self.... That is a pretty mature decision for a kid of 10 or 12.

Snake in the Eye getting the ax was long overdue.  I think Ivar is a much more interesting historical character and I was happy to see him get the upper hand (though I was sad to see the sibling rivalry die so soon).

King E offing himself in the pool was fine by me.   I still was upset with him for not letting Ragnar (whom "he loved"), not enjoy a last dip in the Roman pool anyway LOL.

The future king of England is a cool character for a kid; but I am more interested in Rollo's son, and what he does in England.

The scroll burning did not bother me in the least.  Sure I love history; but I am sick to my stomach that all of (or a lot of) our history that we now believe as fact, was written by christian fanatics.

Liked the transformation of Floki.  He is finally becoming likable to the average viewer.  As a poster mentioned early; maybe he will sail off to be one of the first Scandinavians to land in Iceland.  That would be awesome; as I feel Iceland is the closest country that still (in modern times) speaks the "Donsk Tunga" which was the common language spoken by all Scandinavians in the Viking age.

It also made sense that a lot of Vikings may want to stay and settle down and start a farm and raise a family.  Most will wind up in Iceland anyway LOL.

Current DNA analysis in Iceland show that the Y chromosomes of men are 75% Scandinavian, while the mitochondrial DNA of the woman in Iceland show 65% British and Irish origins.  Makes sense to me...most of the Vikings were single males who couldn't or didn't own land in their home land.  They grabbed a willing (or unwilling lass) in Western Europe and headed to Iceland to settle down and farm plentiful land.

As far as the warrior monk dude at the end, I didn't give him much thought...I hope he is good for the show.  I don't really follow any English history unless it pertains directly to my peeps...

Thank you history channel for another great season!  Looking forward to season 5!!!!!! :) :) :)

[Guest]

I seem to be in the minority, but I still love this show. Tonight's episode was cinematically beautiful. I would have preferred it if Helga had been given a better story line and more heroic death, but, other than that,  I loved every minute of it until the last scene. I'm unfamiliar with jrm, and don't care for the character so far, but I'll give him a chance.

[green]

On 2/2/2017 at 6:50 PM, SingleMaltBlonde said:

I don't get the whole passing on the crown and signing the deed...the Saxons wouldn't have stood behind it anyway.

The abdication was for the benefit of the Saxons so they will know that Aethelwulf is now the legitimate ruler of Wessex and Mercia with the full blessings of Ecbert.  It wasn't some sneaky legalism to thwart the Vikings in a court of law which of course there were no courts of law back then at all.  It was a way to prevent a controversy ever arising on who Ecbert's successor was.  Last thing the Saxons need right now in the middle of an invasion is to end up in an internal civil war of pretenders battling for the crown a la the mess in Mercia back in the day.  It was shown also of course for the benefit of the viewing audience.

21 hours ago, Son of the Norse said:

If you know me by now (which you probably don't), I enjoy every single show that is about my ancestors; good, bad, or otherwise. :)

I liked the battle scene.  The lack of shield walls may have been because of Ivar's battle plan...Guess we will never know.  I liked that the show focused on what was going on in Essex instead of jumping back and forth to Norway/Denmark, or where ever.  TGHA was a BIG deal back then and if the history (or tales) written by christians were true; it was a significant event (who would of more than likely called them the Great Pagan Army).

I didn't mind Helga getting the knife; it is life after all, and people cannot live forever.  I was more upset at the little girl killing her self.... That is a pretty mature decision for a kid of 10 or 12.

Snake in the Eye getting the ax was long overdue.  I think Ivar is a much more interesting historical character and I was happy to see him get the upper hand (though I was sad to see the sibling rivalry die so soon).

King E offing himself in the pool was fine by me.   I still was upset with him for not letting Ragnar (whom "he loved"), not enjoy a last dip in the Roman pool anyway LOL.

The future king of England is a cool character for a kid; but I am more interested in Rollo's son, and what he does in England.

The scroll burning did not bother me in the least.  Sure I love history; but I am sick to my stomach that all of (or a lot of) our history that we now believe as fact, was written by christian fanatics.

Liked the transformation of Floki.  He is finally becoming likable to the average viewer.  As a poster mentioned early; maybe he will sail off to be one of the first Scandinavians to land in Iceland.  That would be awesome; as I feel Iceland is the closest country that still (in modern times) speaks the "Donsk Tunga" which was the common language spoken by all Scandinavians in the Viking age.

It also made sense that a lot of Vikings may want to stay and settle down and start a farm and raise a family.  Most will wind up in Iceland anyway LOL.

Current DNA analysis in Iceland show that the Y chromosomes of men are 75% Scandinavian, while the mitochondrial DNA of the woman in Iceland show 65% British and Irish origins.  Makes sense to me...most of the Vikings were single males who couldn't or didn't own land in their home land.  They grabbed a willing (or unwilling lass) in Western Europe and headed to Iceland to settle down and farm plentiful land.

As far as the warrior monk dude at the end, I didn't give him much thought...I hope he is good for the show.  I don't really follow any English history unless it pertains directly to my peeps...

Thank you history channel for another great season!  Looking forward to season 5!!!!!! :) :) :)

Commenting on the bold parts in order.

1. Yes we do know per what we saw on the show.  Ivar advocated NOT using a shield wall in the last episode because the army was too big for that now and instead using the terrain and stretching the battlefield.

2. Rollo's son is not the William you are looking for.  Wrong William, wrong century.  He is the great-great-etc grandfather of THAT William.

3. The scrolls that were burnt were neither written by Christians nor fanatics.  Two separate groups with only a small intersection between the two.  The scrolls were ALL ancient Roman that Ecbert had collected from Roman sites all over his kingdom.  So this also included many ancient Greek writings as well that had been transcribed into Latin.  In other words, they were entirely pagan.   Ecbert explained that all to Athelstan in great detail a few seasons back when he first showed him his library.

4. No, the majority of Vikings end up in England, Normandy, Ireland, Russia, Ukraine and many other places.  Iceland cannot support a large population.  It is called the island of "fire and ice" for a reason.  It does NOT have plentiful farming land and a very short growing season to boot.  Yes Vikings settled Iceland pretty much as a single group but a small population group compared to elsewhere.  They settled where there was rich farmland in droves and where their population could be sustained in larger numbers.  These lands sited above were already occupied so they joined the melting pot of these lands and had a major influence on same.  The English language was greatly influenced by Old Norse and was changed forever as a result of the huge population influx for example.

5. His name is Bishop Heahmund and anyone studying Viking history would do well to know of him because he does pertain directly to your "peeps" though not necessarily in a friendly way.

Edited February 4, 2017 by green

[Ina123]

21 hours ago, BonnieD said:

Ditto loving Ecbert negotiating his way into dying on his own terms while giving the Vikings a worthless piece of paper. And anyway, what does a document matter to Vikings? It seems like in real life they would've just seized and claimed the land and continued to drive off anyone who tried to take it back. They were a verbal agreement type of people, not readers and writers, so a deed wouldn't mean anything to them.

This. They burned all the scrolls and manuscripts. Vikings take what they want. What would a document mean to them? Nothing.

[Captanne]

I thought the whole thing was wonderful.  Just delightful.  One of my favourite movies on the planet (for many reasons) is Kenneth Brannagh's "Henry V" (if you haven't seen it you MUST.)  

They really took a page out of Brannagh's playbook for this episode and it paid off.  The battle scene at the end with Aethelwulf in the mud -- when he concluded in the midst of that exhaustion, mud, and carnage that the only thing to do was retreat and "Save yourselves!" was right out of the end of the battle of Agincourt in, as my mother put it, Hank Cinq.  (Ha, see what she did there?)

 

ETA:  About the scrolls -- could they even have read them?  Did the foot soldiers even know what they were?  (OTH, shithead Floki would have known EXACTLY what they were.)

Edited February 3, 2017 by Captanne

[Son of the Norse]

3 hours ago, green said:

 

1. Yes we do know per what we saw on the show.  Ivar advocated NOT using a shield wall in the last episode because the army was too big for that now and instead using the terrain and stretching the battlefield.

2. Rollo's son is not the William you are looking for.  Wrong William, wrong century.  He is the great-great-etc grandfather of THAT William.

3. The scrolls that were burnt were neither written by Christians nor fanatics.  Two separate groups with only a small intersection between the two.  The scrolls were ALL ancient Roman that Ecbert had collected from Roman sites all over his kingdom.  So this also included many ancient Greek writings as well that had been transcribed into Latin.  In other words, they were entirely pagan.   Ecbert explained that all to Athelstan in great detail a few seasons back when he first showed him his library.

4. No, the majority of Vikings end up in England, Normandy, Ireland, Russia, Ukraine and many other places.  Iceland cannot support a large population.  It is called the island of "fire and ice" for a reason.  It does NOT have plentiful farming land and a very short growing season to boot.  Yes Vikings settled Iceland pretty much as a single group but a small population group compared to elsewhere.  They settled where there was rich farmland in droves and where their population could be sustained in larger numbers.  These lands sited above were already occupied so they joined the melting pot of these lands and had a major influence on same.  The English language was greatly influenced by Old Norse and was changed forever as a result of the huge population influx for example.

5. His name is Bishop Heahmund and anyone studying Viking history would do well to know of him because he does pertain directly to your "peeps" though not necessarily in a friendly way.

Thank you for all your input.

Regarding:

#1; I do recall he said that now; toast to Ivar's battle strategy!

#2: I do know that the William from History was not Rollo's son; just like historically Rollo is not Ragnar's brother....With the writer though I could easily see him changing that to benefit his brand of story telling. :)

#3 Great Memory Green!  I definitely need to re-watch all the seasons during the off season! :)

#4 Again, thanks for your input; I still hope to see Floki wind up on the shores of Iceland as another poster predicted :)

#5 I will keep an eye out for that sneaky rascal then next season...seems like a good nemesis for Ivar and the gang.

[Haleth]

While the Vikings contributed to the genetic makeup of most of Northern Europe (and then some) it's probably safe to say the people of Iceland are the closest thing to "pure" Viking since it's so secluded?

3 hours ago, Son of the Norse said:

#2: I do know that the William from History was not Rollo's son; just like historically Rollo is not Ragnar's brother....With the writer though I could easily see him changing that to benefit his brand of story telling. :)

He better not.  That would be completely unacceptable since it's a couple centuries off and very different circumstances.

Edited February 3, 2017 by Haleth

[nodorothyparker]

10 hours ago, feverfew said:

I haven't been as invested in Vikings this season; funnily enough it has less to do with the loss of Ragnar and more to do with the focus on Ivar. I can't exactly put my finger on it, but it's got something to do with the way the show seems to almost revel in his psychopathy. I like my characters in shades of grey - Ivar has been completely black since he killed that child. I felt something for him when he went to England with Ragnar, but that shading almost feels like a one-off now: A petulant megalomaniac with mother-issues and psychopathic tendencies, celebrated by the show is not what I'm after. A cruel, stone-cold killer Ivar could be interesting - but only if the show wouldn't insist on casting him in the pseudo-hero role. IMHO, of course.

This is a point I've struggled with a bit too.  I've mostly enjoyed this portrayal of Ivar, but in thinking about it, I am realizing that most of what I've enjoyed had everything to do with his time with Ragnar and his subsequent need to prove himself.   I enjoyed last episode that he had a better idea of how to wage war and was able to argue for it and execute it.  This episode he didn't care about anything but slashing and burning and killing everything and came off very one note and less interesting as a result.

The show in the past has done a good job of giving us fleshed out characters who also happened to do some really terrible things.  Sure, Ragnar led raids where people were butchered, but that wasn't the raison d'etre or sole reason for the raid.  He was curious about the world and trying to open it up more to his people in the only way he knew how.   Whether we understood or approved was up to us, but characters mostly didn't exist just to be terrible.  Ivar's a much darker character than Ragnar to start off with, and he's in danger of sliding over that line where he doesn't have any larger purpose or reason except to kill for the sake of killing.  That's not nearly as interesting to watch.

[Captanne]

Additionally, Hirst is being very careful to stay true to the title of the show, "Vikings".  This is not a soap opera about "The Adventures of Betty and Bill".  Ragnar fit into the culture of the Viking society at the time which, first and foremost, sought fame through ambition.  Fame, fame, fame.  He was curious, he was trying to open up the world to his people, but to be true to Viking culture, Hirst had to show us that he was doing it for his personal legacy.  At least that's been my opinion watching the show.  

[PatsyandEddie]

Even the way that Ecbert committed suicide was a nod to the Romans that he so admired. Many a statesman was given the option of opening his veins rather than face public humiliation / execution. 

 

If anyone has has any links pertaining to the real Sigurd, I would like to see them please. Love history! 

[ennui]

1 hour ago, PatsyandEddie said:

Even the way that Ecbert committed suicide was a nod to the Romans that he so admired. Many a statesman was given the option of opening his veins rather than face public humiliation / execution. 

I just think of the Godfather, when Frank Pentangeli was encouraged to do the same. 

[Babalooie]

2 hours ago, PatsyandEddie said:

If anyone has has any links pertaining to the real Sigurd, I would like to see them please. Love history! 

 This is what I've found in English, so far.     https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sigurd_Snake-in-the-Eye

[PatsyandEddie]

Thank you! ?

[green]

12 hours ago, Son of the Norse said:

#2: I do know that the William from History was not Rollo's son; just like historically Rollo is not Ragnar's brother....With the writer though I could easily see him changing that

Well I don't think Hirst can monkey with this timeline too much because it would mess up the main storyline of the Saxons battling the Ragnarsons lead Viking army.  He might move it up a couple of generations but not to conflict with what is going on now.  Besides everyone knows when the battle of Hastings was fought so it is harder to mess with when it occurred in this show then other battles.

6 hours ago, Babalooie said:

 This is what I've found in English, so far.     https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sigurd_Snake-in-the-Eye

Thanks.  From the above:

Quote

As a boy, Sigurd was close to his father and accompanied Ragnar on a hazardous expedition through Russia to the Hellespont. Later on in life he is said to have sojourned for a time in Scotland and the Scottish Islands.

See wouldn't that have been way better to see in the show than Ragnar gone walkabout to parts unknown for 8 years.  And yes I am still pissed Sigurd was the one killed off just to make a point about Ivar being out of control.  Again, get rid of the lump named Hvitserk instead if you want to kill off a brother.  Sigurd was cool.  You just shouldn't kill off a character called Snake-in-the-Eye.

Edited February 4, 2017 by green

[raven]

On 2/2/2017 at 9:01 AM, benteen said:

I wish Ecbert's true grandson would have told him "Fuck you, Grandfather" when Ecbert said he was special too.  Since when?!

This was sort of unintentionally hilarious.  "Oh Alfred, you are the most awesome, fabulous, wonderful child ever, the spitting image of the saintly Athelstan, I love love you" and then "Oh yeah, other kid, you're special too".   I was hoping Aethelred would spit in his face but no such luck.

Aethelwulf has grown up quite a bit.  It was probably very difficult for him to retreat, but it was the smart thing to do and saved a lot of lives.   Live to fight another day; nothing wrong with that.

Bjorn, I think, is a traveler, maybe just for traveling's sake.  He likes the adventure and doesn't want to stay in one place, yet is more stoic than Ragnar.  Bjorn does have an open mind - he understands the importance of making deals, of settling and permanence, though it doesn't seem he wants those things for himself.  It could also be that in Kattegut or Wessex he feels always haunted by Ragnar.  He can't lead in Kattegut anyway since Lagertha does that.  Bjorn may be more like Rollo; a wanderer who will need a separate place for himself.  That's not much help to Torvi or his children.    I'm curious as to how he will handle the fratricide, or if anything will happen at all.

I'm still interested in Ivar - he was temper tantruming but looked shocked for a few minutes when he realized what that brought him.  I don't know if he'll bluster or learn something from this; a lot depends on how his brothers handle it.   I'm not surprised he wanted to go on and raid; he's not a farmer.  I wish we could see a glimmer of him being a thinker but he's too impulsive right now.

Aw Helga - she deserved better than to be a catalyst for Floki's change, though the burial scene was sad and poignant.   Poor kid that she essentially kidnapped too, no one spared a thought for her.   Wow did Floki look different without the eyeliner and other makeup.

Oh look - a priest having loud sex! How edgy /not. 

[Knuckles]

Late to the thread, but I think the show did a great job filming the battle scene. The have a small budget compared to GOT, and with the Battle of the Bastards and a mega budget in my head, I was still enthralled with the battle. It was a view from the confusion of the mud, the blood and random attacks coming from all directions. Well done, and well done Athelwulf to scream, "save yourselves" when it was clear all was lost.

I agree that Ivar is less interesting as a main character, as he seems utterly psychopathic, without nuance. The actor delivers a chilling portrait, but I miss the intelligence and scheming of Ragnar...who killed when he chose, but often outwitted his opponents as well...even in his battle plans. And, Lagertha is being written as invincible...which undermines seeing her as real fighter, vulnerable to attack...and eliminates the thrill of seeing her in action. Even when Ragnar went after Karl, it didn't seem certain that he would win...until he did.

Helga, having gone nuts, is better gone from my screen, and kudos to the child for taking her out. Being dragged along by the Vikings on a raid can only remind her of her mother's slaughter...how could Helga think to erase that from a child's memory? Even Floki could see it was not possible.

I am hoping for something of interest from Jonathan Rhys Meyers...I liked him as Henry, and I could see him in full battle dress. Sex with the widow, not so much. 

[SingleMaltBlonde]

16 hours ago, green said:

 

4. No, the majority of Vikings end up in England, Normandy, Ireland, Russia, Ukraine and many other places.  I

otherwise known as Minnesota, Iowa and the Dakota's.  My great grandparents were born an hour away from each other but didn't meet until thay traveled part way around the world (thank you Sons of Norway socials).  OF course if G-Grandma had gone to an Italian mixer I might be able to go outside in summer...but I digress.

My biggest complaint about Ivar killing Sigrud was the homophobic bs before he did it....it seemed out of nowhere given all the homoerotic subtext in the rest of the series...we have Ragnar and Eckbert arguing over who loved Athelstan more.

[LiveenLetLive]

36 minutes ago, SingleMaltBlonde said:

 My biggest complaint about Ivar killing Sigrud was the homophobic bs before he did it....it seemed out of nowhere given all the homoerotic subtext in the rest of the series...we have Ragnar and Eckbert arguing over who loved Athelstan more.

I'm with you on this--it was a flabbergasting moment that fell utterly flat IMO (is Ivar trying to justify killing his brother because he is a willing bisexual or whatever?)

I wasn't a huge fan of the cliched JRM's sex scene at the end either--I tired of seeing the actor simulating humping, LOL, it also cheapened the whole vibe of Vikings IMO.

[MrsR]

I object to JRM.  Period. He's an awful actor. I know he's friends with Hirst and all but I was disappointed to see him show up.

I'm an archaeology fan and one of my favorite shows is Time Team, a UK show where they examine sites for three days.  It's always exciting when they find a grave and examine the grave goods and discuss their meaning. When Loki put Helga in the grave with her special things, I imagined her being found again centuries later.

Edited February 4, 2017 by MrsR

[Babalooie]

1 hour ago, raven said:

Oh look - a priest having loud sex! How edgy /not. 

We just had a preacher in the news caught in bed with a church member and wound up running from the apartment naked.  Nothing new under the sun.

Here's the beginning of my line from Sigurd.  The first English sounding name down the line is FitzRobert.  Farewell, Grandpa.

Sigurd II Snake in the Eye King of Denmark Ragnarsson

786–853

Birth 786 • Line, Kings Danes, Odin, Denmark

Death 853 • Northumberland, England

33rd great-grandfather

Edited February 4, 2017 by Babalooie

[bluvelvet]

You know I have had a rocky relationship with Floki over the course of the series.   I have hated him, been indifferent to him and thought he was ok at times. However last night, he made me tear up with that beautiful burial for his beloved Helga, when he said Goodbye my heart, that broke my heart.  

Yeah I also questioned how NO ONE thought it was odd that Ecbert was there all by his lonesome. 

[Stratego]

15 hours ago, Son of the Norse said:

Thank you for all your input.

Regarding:

#1; I do recall he said that now; toast to Ivar's battle strategy!

#2: I do know that the William from History was not Rollo's son; just like historically Rollo is not Ragnar's brother....With the writer though I could easily see him changing that to benefit his brand of story telling. :)

#3 Great Memory Green!  I definitely need to re-watch all the seasons during the off season! :)

#4 Again, thanks for your input; I still hope to see Floki wind up on the shores of Iceland as another poster predicted :)

#5 I will keep an eye out for that sneaky rascal then next season...seems like a good nemesis for Ivar and the gang.

#4--Based on the trailers for Season 5, we see Floki washing up on shore--and then "thanking the gods" for sparing him. We can speculate that it is Iceland.

 

What I'd like to see is the "discovery" of "Greenland".Was it really green?

[Knuckles]

There is an archeologist at the University of Alabama who uses satellite technology to look for patterns that suggest early settlements in what appear to be empty places. She has discovered a site in Newfoundland, Canada that puts the Viking settlements 300 miles further west than anyone imagined. More info....

 

http://www.al.com/news/birmingham/index.ssf/2016/04/did_alabama_space_archaeologis.html

[Son of the Norse]

2 hours ago, Stratego said:

#4--Based on the trailers for Season 5, we see Floki washing up on shore--and then "thanking the gods" for sparing him. We can speculate that it is Iceland.

 

What I'd like to see is the "discovery" of "Greenland".Was it really green?

I read some where (or saw it somewhere), that an early discoverer called it Greenland only to make it more appealing... ?

[millennium]

On 2/1/2017 at 10:01 PM, Christina said:

Ragnar's interest in the world outside of his is part of what attracted me to this show. His general interest in how the Christian faith operated, in an effort to learn that everyone would be in church on Sunday so that would be a great time to pillage, for instance, kept me drawn in to see what he was going to do next.

Realizing that I'm supposed to care about the son's, I tried to pay more attention to them. But Bjorn, who I liked well enough, was hateful to his wife, slept with his mother's lover to prove he could (according to that interview; I certainly didn't take it from the show), and diminished my like of him greatly.

Ivar has never been interesting to me. I know that historically he was a tyrant, and the actor certainly portrays it well, but I find him meh on the show. He wants to destroy everything in his path and that is predictable and I'm not finding it that enjoyable to watch. Floki proclaiming how smart he was to figure out they would go after the boats didn't do it for me either. If anything, I would have thought that would be Bjorn's determination, based on past episodes. Instead, the show is telling me Ivar is as smart and clever as Ragnar, but I'm not seeing it.

Vikings and I may have reached an impasse. I'll certainly turn in for a few episodes next season, but the finale is complete, and I haven't enjoyed it like I have past episodes. Ragnar was never meant to be the focal point, I know, but he was a bigger part of it for me than I realized. Him becoming a drug addict so he would become a loser irritated me until I realized it was setting up his death, on his terms, so I accepted it. If I knew that one of Ragnar's other sons was going to kill Ivar, I might stay interested, but as it is, I've lost interest in a show that was appointment viewing and I watched and rewatched episodes several times in the past.

 

It was heart-rending to see Floki and the others burning the scrolls so treasured by Athelstan and Ecbert, destroying solely for the momentary thrill of destruction.   A mindless, ugly mob.   Absent Ragnar, the Vikings seem stripped of dignity and nobility, for there is no greater purpose behind the mayhem, no aspiration, just violence and greed.  

Ivar is a psychopathic thug.   He is not interesting or engaging.   His bitterness and self-loathing are repellent.    I suspect he and Ramsey Bolton would get along famously.   I have no interest in learning what becomes of him.   Can't stand the actor either.

Nothing great lasts forever.    It has been a fun and enlightening journey with all of you but this season marks my exit too.

[Kalliste]

On 2/2/2017 at 2:10 PM, benteen said:

I felt bad for Floki and Skarsgard did a great job.  I could barely recognize him with his face cleaned up.

Me either! Initially I thought "what is different here?" and then I realised he didn't have his eye make up and couldn't believe how different that made him look.

On 2/3/2017 at 0:28 AM, ghoulina said:

Sorry, not a fan of the final scene. I just didn't think that was a good ender for a season finale. I felt it should have focused on the brothers. Most people knew JRM was coming, there's been such buzz about it. Tacking that random scene on to the end felt like a cheap ratings grab, to me. 

The episode definitely would have been better if it ended with the shock over Sigurd's death. I could happily have waited for JRM's intro to have been at the start of season 5 especially given the scene they did decide on just seemed to diminish what we had just seen. It reminds me a little of when, in Doctor Who, Tennant/10 is has just had to say goodbye to Rose and it's a heartfelt moment and then Donna is there in her wedding dress. Just takes you out of the moment.

I also couldn't hear the Bishop's name when the widow said it and even if I had I wouldn't have known who he was and the shot of the sword meant nothing to me. I know that the history buffs here knew the relevance but given the show didn't lead up to it or give any insight on the character I didn't particularly care about some bishop banging a widow just after burying her husband.

Overall this episode fell a bit flat for me. After last episode I was really hoping for more. The end of the battle was great but seemed a bit short and I also found it interesting how quickly they could clear out of Wessex, how many people were meant to have lived there?

Also, why did it take the vikings so long to find Ecbert and the priest? And I can't believe that none of them would have killed him before he made it outside. The majority of those people wouldn't have known who he was. Has Bjorn even met him before? How did he know was? Maybe if it had been Ivar who mentioned it.

I'm glad Ecbert got to die in the bath. I would have loved for him to say something about his first meeting with Ragnar having been there and then a side note about hooking up with Lagertha :D

Anyway, I will miss my Thursday nights being filled with Vikings, I might have to go back and do a rewatch from the beginning.. or maybe start watching Versailles :)

[spinxella]

 

This scene was deleted from the American broadcast.

Torvi is alive.

[Kalliste]

Was there anymore deleted? That's how they show Torvi is alive? Just having her in a conversation? And they couldn't give 1min to let us find this out.

 

Also, does Lagertha have a snake headband on?

[green]

Thanks for the video of what we missed.  Again they cut out an important scene and just put in a cheap and stupid sex scene at the end instead. 

I didn't mind the intro to Heahmund though I have no idea of who the actor is despite tons of people here posting about him nor do I care.  But like others said a switch from a bishop's robe to full battle armor would have been a far more interesting and effective and intriguing scene then softcore porn which I hate and despise as the go to of incompetent writing on TV shows.  I expected better of Hirst.

And it should have been before the death of Sigurd.  I agree Sigurd lying there dead should have been where the season dramatically ended.  (Actually it should have ended with a red shirt Viking's death or, worse case, Hvitserk the Boring, rather than Sigurd).

2 hours ago, Kalliste said:

Also, why did it take the vikings so long to find Ecbert and the priest? And I can't believe that none of them would have killed him before he made it outside. The majority of those people wouldn't have known who he was. Has Bjorn even met him before? How did he know was? Maybe if it had been Ivar who mentioned it.

Yes Bjorn knew him.  Bjorn fought in the big battle against Ecbert and Aelle where Ragnar gave him the name "Ironside".

Edited February 4, 2017 by green

[Kalliste]

I recall he went to battle @green but I don't remember him actually seeing Ecbert, other than maybe from afar. Granted, what I mostly remember of Bjorn's first battles were Ragnar and Lagertha protecting him and then telling him how terrible he was :P

[Babalooie]

On 2/3/2017 at 11:54 PM, Son of the Norse said:

called it Greenland only to make it more appealing

Yes.  I taught this in 4th grade Social Studies.  The name Greenland was a fake out.  Greenland was full of ice and Iceland was green.  I so hope for a "Floki in Iceland" spinoff.

 

"deleted from the American broadcast."

American commercials probably take up more time, also.  At least the ones with the Vikings wearing their wives' eye makeup and singing "The Wheels on the Bus" are entertaining.  Regarding Torvi surviving, my theory is that since Maude Hirst (Helga) was introduced on the show before Georgia Hirst (Torvi), Georgia is being given equal time.  It's kind of like not being able to give one of my children even a half cookie more than the other.