or Connect
AVS › AVS Forum › HDTV › HDTV Programming › VIKINGS on History
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

VIKINGS on History - Page 4

post #91 of 592
Quote:
Originally Posted by Taubs View Post

hope they greenlight more seasons. has 242k fans on facebook and week 3 got 4.8 million viewers so think chances are good.

that earl sure put together sweet deal for rollo lol.

Yea, "Ill let you keep some of your stuff you risked your life for" Uh, thanks...Dad

I keep getting this feeling that Floki is going to screw something up one of these days. Bad

Katheryn Winnick would look good in any century.
post #92 of 592
Quote:
Originally Posted by Taubs View Post

hope they greenlight more seasons. has 242k fans on facebook and week 3 got 4.8 million viewers so think chances are good.

Much smaller audience than 'The Bible' is getting, which is not surprising, but they're pleased with the response to both series. They'll almost certainly renew them both.
post #93 of 592
Quote:
Originally Posted by archiguy View Post

Much smaller audience than 'The Bible' is getting, which is not surprising, but they're pleased with the response to both series. They'll almost certainly renew them both.

I'm working on those lost New Testament books by Phil right now
post #94 of 592
Quote:
Originally Posted by philw1776 View Post

I'm working on those lost New Testament books by Phil right now
I was looking for new reading material. The Bible II by Phil looks to be right up my ally. I was getting tired of the same old stories. Can it have dragons in it?
post #95 of 592
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ron Temple View Post

I was looking for new reading material. The Bible II by Phil looks to be right up my ally. I was getting tired of the same old stories. Can it have dragons in it?

Unicorns too and of course Shield Maidens!
post #96 of 592
Quote:
Originally Posted by philw1776 View Post

Unicorns too and of course Shield Maidens!
Gotta have shield maidens...+1
post #97 of 592
This episode was fun stuff. After the Earl sent Knut with Ragnar on the second trip to England, I had thought the chances were good that Knut would (1) do something ignominious and (2) would die before Ragnar and his crew got back home. Sure enough.smile.gif I also loved Rollo's proving to the Earl that blood often triumphs over vague promises of gold. So far at least, the Earl has seriously underestimated both of the Lothbrok boys. Vikings has been fun stuff and I hope it gets a second season.
post #98 of 592
Quote:
Originally Posted by archiguy View Post

Much smaller audience than 'The Bible' is getting, which is not surprising, but they're pleased with the response to both series. They'll almost certainly renew them both.
I thought "The Bible" was a mini-series????

Quote:
Originally Posted by gwsat View Post

This episode was fun stuff. After the Earl sent Knut with Ragnar on the second trip to England, I had thought the chances were good that Knut would (1) do something ignominious and (2) would die before Ragnar and his crew got back home. Sure enough.smile.gif I also loved Rollo's proving to the Earl that blood often triumphs over vague promises of gold. So far at least, the Earl has seriously underestimated both of the Lothbrok boys. Vikings has been fun stuff and I hope it gets a second season.
I am sure Vikings will be renewed.smile.gif
post #99 of 592
Quote:
Originally Posted by oink View Post

I thought "The Bible" was a mini-series????
I am sure Vikings will be renewed.smile.gif
No, as far as the bibble goes...Phil is writing a new one. As far as the Vikings getting renewed or continued or just plundering and raping across Europe...I'm all in. As an earely reviewer noted, the Vikings are the Samcro of the Dark Ages. Ragnar is Jax.
post #100 of 592
Really like this series so far. I just have one small gripe from this past episode - the tactics of the local forces were pretty idiotic. Full frontal assault with your entire force? I guess the local commander never heard of the concept of flanking.
post #101 of 592
Quote:
Originally Posted by tezster View Post

Really like this series so far. I just have one small gripe from this past episode - the tactics of the local forces were pretty idiotic. Full frontal assault with your entire force? I guess the local commander never heard of the concept of flanking.

The failure of the Saxon troops to maximize their numerical advantage, which we saw in this week's episode, may have some support in history. I have been reading Bernard Cornwell's Saxon series, which recounts some of the Scandanavian Saxon conflicts in the generation after the Ragnar depicted in Vikings reached English shores. In a historical note to one of the Saxon series, Cornwell wrote that one of the reasons the Saxon's had so much trouble in the early years was that their tactics were bad and they were not as adept (Brutal?) at fighting as the Vikings were. Of course, history shows that the Saxon's eventually did learn to fight and the result was a mostly united and christian Great Britain.
post #102 of 592
As well as not keeping your bowmen on the high ground where they could continue to fire during the attack.

Or keeping a soldier or two on board with a lit torch...

Or ...
post #103 of 592
Quote:
Originally Posted by tezster View Post

Really like this series so far. I just have one small gripe from this past episode - the tactics of the local forces were pretty idiotic. Full frontal assault with your entire force? I guess the local commander never heard of the concept of flanking.
Good point.
However, perhaps this scene is designed more as an example of the historical reports of the Vikings feared ferocity in battle, which stunned the Brits at the time.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Berserkers

Quote:
Originally Posted by gwsat View Post

The failure of the Saxon troops to maximize their numerical advantage, which we saw in this week's episode, may have some support in history. I have been reading Bernard Cornwell's Saxon series, which recounts some of the Scandanavian Saxon conflicts in the generation after the Ragnar depicted in Vikings reached English shores. In a historical note to one of the Saxon series, Cornwell wrote that one of the reasons the Saxon's had so much trouble in the early years was that their tactics were bad and they were not as adept (Brutal?) at fighting as the Vikings were. Of course, history shows that the Saxon's eventually did learn to fight and the result was a mostly united and christian Great Britain.
The real threat posed by the Vikings was their hit and run tactics, coupled with the speed of their ships.
Often they would attack and be gone and onto their next target before word of their attack would reach the Saxon hierarchy.
Essentially, this was an illustration of the "speed kills" maxim in warfare.
post #104 of 592
Another quaint and lovable custom of the fun-loving Vikes...

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

Historians debate that the custom was real, however, where there's smoke...

Ivar the Boneless supposedly did it to the English king responisble for his dad's (Ragnar's) death. Had him thrown in a snake pit was one popular version..
post #105 of 592
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ron Temple View Post

Another quaint and lovable custom of the fun-loving Vikes...

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

Historians debate that the custom was real, however, where there's smoke...

Ivar the Boneless supposedly did it to the English king responisble for his dad's (Ragnar's) death. Had him thrown in a snake pit was one popular version..

Good grief! eek.gif The ability of man to inflict unimaginable suffering in the most imaginative ways on his fellow human beings is a thing of wonder.

So, are we to expect little Bjorn will soon have a brother, Ivar?
post #106 of 592
Quote:
Originally Posted by archiguy View Post

Good grief! eek.gif The ability of man to inflict unimaginable suffering in the most imaginative ways on his fellow human beings is a thing of wonder.

So, are we to expect little Bjorn will soon have a brother, Ivar?
Ragnar had sons with various wives and possibly some were adopted. At the time of his death, Bjorn had died in battle, but 3 or maybe 4 of them got together to invade England...Ivar, Sigurd Snake Eyes, Ubbe (or Hubba...go figure) and Halfdan. Maybe Ubbe and Halfdan are the same guy, since Halfdan usually equals Hald Dane. I don't know if he married other women concurrently with Laguertha or she died and he had batches of kids with various others. Heck, the show may keep it simple and not introduce any more children. I'd like to see Ivar the Boneless depicted. History doesn't know what to make of him or his nickname...anywhere from a skinny man, a flexible man,an impotent man to a cripple that had to be carried on a shield in battle

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ivar_the_Boneless
post #107 of 592
Thread Starter 
this show has so much potential characters and story lines from real history. makes me wonder what studios are doing rehashing same old ideas when the past has plenty to tell. i hope the success of show leads to more of its kind.
post #108 of 592
I hope they continue to develop the Ragnar/slave priest plotline - I think that could get quite interesting. Certain elements of this part of the story remind me of a novel I've read called Byzantium.
post #109 of 592
Quote:
Originally Posted by oink View Post

Good point.
However, perhaps this scene is designed more as an example of the historical reports of the Vikings feared ferocity in battle, which stunned the Brits at the time.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Berserkers
The real threat posed by the Vikings was their hit and run tactics, coupled with the speed of their ships.
Often they would attack and be gone and onto their next target before word of their attack would reach the Saxon hierarchy.
Essentially, this was an illustration of the "speed kills" maxim in warfare.

Quite right. In his Saxon novels, which are remarkably faithful to history, Bernard Cornwell makes clear that the Vikings were not into sieges, relied on their ships to mount fast attacks and faster getaways when required, and usually did not engage in the first place unless they perceived clear superiority.
post #110 of 592
Quote:
Originally Posted by gwsat View Post

Quite right. In his Saxon novels, which are remarkably faithful to history, Bernard Cornwell makes clear that the Vikings were not into sieges, relied on their ships to mount fast attacks and faster getaways when required, and usually did not engage in the first place unless they perceived clear superiority.
The Vikings were, basically, raiders/robbers.
From their POV, it was far preferable to steal than trying to rule alien peoples.

Sooner rather than later, they succumbed to Christianity and their attitudes changed radically.
Eventually, they became like any other European society of the time.
post #111 of 592
Quote:
Originally Posted by oink View Post

The Vikings were, basically, raiders/robbers.
From their POV, it was far preferable to steal than trying to rule alien peoples.

Sooner rather than later, they succumbed to Christianity and their attitudes changed radically.
Eventually, they became like any other European society of the time.
Always liked the Norse gods. No pretense in being fair, in fact, while there were some benevolent gods, mostly humanity was looked at as dead recruits/heroes for when Odin needed them for Ragnorak...a fore-doomed prohecy where the gods would be defeated by the Giants and Monsters. What a happy outlook. Live fast and die hard, cuz even the gods days were numbered. Refreshing...and about as logical as any other religion.
post #112 of 592
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ron Temple View Post

No pretense in being fair, in fact, while there were some benevolent gods, mostly humanity was looked at as dead recruits/heroes for when Odin needed them for Ragnorak.
Similar to the Greek gods and their relationship to humans.wink.gif
post #113 of 592
Quote:
Originally Posted by oink View Post

Similar to the Greek gods and their relationship to humans.wink.gif
Nah, the Greek gods liked to change themselves into animals and f*ck the hot chicks. Might do you a solid now and then, but usually you had to be related (through that beastly thing happening amongst your close cousins, sibs or parents). They had no real agenda other than we've got it better than you and it would be a good idea if you keep sacrificing to make sure it stays that way. The Norse knew their gods didn't give a sh*t, unless you did something insanely stupid or bloody. Then you got to go to Valhalla to fight everyday, feast and screw every night, be resurrected to do it all over again...training for Ragnorak. Kind of like the NFL.
post #114 of 592
I've been enjoying this show on "On Demand" from Charter Cable because I'd rather watch the series I like on my own schedule. Of course, there are costs involved in getting things when you want to get them and I paid the price by missing episode 4 because of the wierd schedule that Charter is using. I went to the show by way of "On Demand" the other day and noticed episode 4 was there for viewing but I didn't have time to watch it so I went back to it yesterday and it was gone. What a bummer! I was really looking forward to it. I guess I'll have to figure out how Charter is scheduling this show for "On Demand" viewing.

Oh' well, this show is much better than I thought it would be when I first noticed the previews of it and I hope it continues for at least a couple of seasons.

Thanks for all your input folks!

Al
post #115 of 592
Too bad it's only shown in 720, the show is much less clear than others I watch
post #116 of 592
I'm liking the series. The actor playing Ragnar is doing a great job. He's quite a fierce and humorous like the one played by Ernest Borgnine in the film version.The wife is quite a looker as you would expect.
post #117 of 592
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ron Temple View Post

Nah, the Greek gods liked to change themselves into animals and f*ck the hot chicks. Might do you a solid now and then, but usually you had to be related (through that beastly thing happening amongst your close cousins, sibs or parents). They had no real agenda other than we've got it better than you and it would be a good idea if you keep sacrificing to make sure it stays that way. The Norse knew their gods didn't give a sh*t, unless you did something insanely stupid or bloody. Then you got to go to Valhalla to fight everyday, feast and screw every night, be resurrected to do it all over again...training for Ragnorak. Kind of like the NFL.
LOL, you make it sound like it's a bad thing....wink.gif
post #118 of 592
Quote:
Originally Posted by oink View Post

LOL, you make it sound like it's a bad thing....wink.gif
Now that you mention it, either side of that coin does have some appeal biggrin.gif
post #119 of 592
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Angler55 View Post

I've been enjoying this show on "On Demand" from Charter Cable because I'd rather watch the series I like on my own schedule. Of course, there are costs involved in getting things when you want to get them and I paid the price by missing episode 4 because of the wierd schedule that Charter is using. I went to the show by way of "On Demand" the other day and noticed episode 4 was there for viewing but I didn't have time to watch it so I went back to it yesterday and it was gone. What a bummer! I was really looking forward to it. I guess I'll have to figure out how Charter is scheduling this show for "On Demand" viewing.

Oh' well, this show is much better than I thought it would be when I first noticed the previews of it and I hope it continues for at least a couple of seasons.

Thanks for all your input folks!

Al

can watch online
http://www.history.com/shows/vikings/videos/vikings-ep-4-trial?m=512aa8006f3f1&s=All&f=1&free=false
post #120 of 592

Thanks for the link.

Al
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: HDTV Programming
AVS › AVS Forum › HDTV › HDTV Programming › VIKINGS on History