The History Channel wants to ride the wave of success many American TV channels are currently experiencing with their serial productions. They have attempted this by creating a fictionalized TV show about the Vikings, the people who lived in Scandinavia in the middle ages and who are probably most famous as seafarers. Fun side note: 99% of vikings were farmers.

The TV show was brought to life by none other than Michael Hirst, most famous for the two Elizabeth films with Cate Blanchett in the lead, as well as for the TV show The Tudors, about which I blogged a few years ago. Elizabeth was very interesting, and I also enjoyed The Tudors, even though the latter had some major problems with the age depiction of its characters.

Vikings, however, gives rise to a whole new range of expectations from my part. I’m not a true expert on the topic, but since I have held an oral exam on the influence of Scandinavian settlers in medieval England, I know a few things. Since this TV show is a production of an English-speaking country rather than an actual Scandinavian country, I expected to see close connections to Viking history in relation to the British Isles. And I was not disappointed; after a general introduction of the characters in the first episode, we witness the first Viking raid on the English monastery of Lindisfarne in episode two. Another raid follows shortly after, in which the Vikings cleverly use the Christian customs to their advantage by attacking during mass.

screenshot012

The remaining episodes portray the conflicts between the main character, ambitious young Ragnar Lothbrok, and the leader of his clan, grumpy old Earl Haraldson. Eventually Ragnar becomes the new earl and goes on another raid to England, this time further inside Northumbria. Up until that point the series was interesting, but the last two episodes are somewhat esoteric and/or pointless. Especially the ritual pilgrimage to Uppsala seemed a little unnecessary for further plot development. Of course we learn just how much Athelstan, the slave taken from the monastery, still believes in his Christian faith. But the sacrifices – what’s their point? Maybe I was bored because I knew what was gonna happen since I have read about these sacrifices a while ago. To me, the episode seems a little too much “we’ll now show you some shocking aspects of the Norse belief system”.

The final episode is a political one. While Ragnar, now in the service of the Danish king, tries to settle a dispute, his wife at home has to deal with a vile virus that infected the entire village. Not a particularly high note to end a season on. I’m very curious as to how this series attempts to progress. I can’t help but expect that the series will eventually depict the settlement of England by Vikings, however, I fear that this series will face the same problem as The Tudors: inaccurate depiction of character age. This was already quite obvious with Ragnar’s son in this first season. Apparently the season depicts the events of at least two years, probably more. Ragnar’s son, however, didn’t age at all – naturally, the child actor will not age in the few months over which the series was shot. This gets more complicated the more history the series attempts to cover. The raid on Lindisfarne happened in 793, but the Vikings didn’t settle until the mid 9th century. So either all the characters we are now familiar with will be replaced, or the showrunners will put up with immense inaccuracies.

screenshot017

The first season has several of those; most notably the inaccurate use of the paternal name system. The “last name” of a viking was that of his father, e.g. Erik Ragnarson. Ragnar Lothbrok is a small exception – his last name is more of a nick name or title and means “hairy breeches”. However, in the series his wife Lagertha is also addressed as Lagertha Lothbrok, which is just wrong because Viking women never took the name of their husbands. She should be Lagertha Eriksdottir or something like that. Another of those confusing cases is Earl Haraldson – a Viking would never be addressed by his last name, only by his first name. His name would be more accurate if it were just Earl Harald.

Language is another major point that I found problematic in this TV show. Since general American audiences are expected to be lazy and/or dumb, the series is shot in English (of course). As a linguist and a semi-historian, I would definitely have enjoyed this series SO much more if it were shot in Old Norse. That what make it as authentic as it gets (for fiction), and I’d spent my time watching it by examining the etymology of words. Most interesting, of course, would be the encounters between the Vikings and the Anglo-Saxons, because this is the beginning of a radical change the Old English language undergoes. The series uses some authentic scenes like these in several encounters, but usually only for a minute or so until somebody starts speaking Modern English again. Later on even Ragnar speaks Modern English with the Old English people, and we just have to assume that his slave Athelstan taught him. I’m sad that the series has let this opportunity go to waste, however, I do understand that it’s probably too complicated to teach a horde of English native actors Old Norse/Old English, and that most people are not interested in language development but more so in being entertained.

The juxtaposition of Norse mythology and Christianity is a recurring topic of the series. When Ragnar takes the monk Athelstan as a slave, Athelstan is appalled at the strange beliefs the Norsemen hold. Likewise, the Norsemen are shocked that Athelstan has never heard of Ragnarok and find his attachment to a book (as opposed to treasures) strange. Cultural differences have never been so obvious, as continually Vikings present the norm, whereas the English have strange habits in the eyes of the Vikings. Sometimes it’s the other way around – there is a constant back and forth and sometimes the Vikings are the weirdos. The depictions of the Vikings as completely insular and lacking any knowledge of geography is also not very believable – as seafarers, they are bound to have had contact with many people, therefore they should know at least all parts of Europe.

This series tries to balance entertainment with education, and I’m not convinced that it works. Throughout the series, there are several parts which are obviously meant to educate, but their true relevance to plot development doesn’t become clear to me. Simultaneously, transforming history in order for it to apply to and fulfill present-day norms and expectations is impossible. A truly accurate depiction of history would probably alienate viewers, whereas a modernized version gives the viewers more reason to empathize with the characters and be entertained.

Finally, let me end this post with a quote from one of my favorite songs by the Swedish band Dia Psalma:

“Vi är vikingar, men vad vi inte förstår, är att en viking aldrig klippte sitt hår!”
We are vikings, but what we don’t understand, is that a viking never cut his hair!