Tags
Aelle, Breaking Bad, Ivan Kaye, Michael Hirst, Military Stuff, Ragnar Lothbrok, Skyler White, The Sopranos, The Vikings, Travis Fimmel
Today I want to look at the way The Vikings series depicts combat, particularly the raids on Northumbria in the fourth and seventh episodes, because it fundamentally misrepresents how Viking raiding and Viking combat worked.
The Early Viking Raids
The earliest phase of Viking raiding began sometime in the late 780s or early 790s and lasted down into the second quarter of the 9th century. Since the show opens in the 790s, it ought to be depicting this period of raiding. During this period, the standard form of Viking raid, at least as far as the primary sources allow us to see it, was hit-and-run raids.
A group of Vikings sailed into a vulnerable region in a longship, which was perfectly designed for these tactics. Because a longship could be either sailed or rowed, and because it had a very shallow keel, it could operate effectively on both the open seas and in coastal waters, and even on moderately shallow rivers. This enabled the Vikings to scout around for a vulnerable community to attack, one with weak defenses or which could be taken by surprise, and ideally one that was some distance from the next closest community, so that response would take a while. Once they had identified such a location, they came in, beached their ship, and made a fast surprise attack, grabbing whatever wealth they could, and then returned to the longship and sailed away before a military response could be mounted.
A tombstone at Lindisfarne depicting Vikings
That’s why Vikings liked attacking monasteries. Monasteries were typically isolated geographically, often being located on islands cut off from the mainland. The monks were not fighters, and in fact were generally pacifists, so they were unlikely to effectively defend themselves. And monasteries possessed lots of gold and silver in the form of liturgical plate like chalices, crosses, and patens. So they were easy, vulnerable targets that had a fair amount of wealth. (People often assume that Vikings attacked monasteries out of a hostility to Christianity. Far from it.)
This system of plundering made use of the particular capabilities of the longship, but it also was necessitated by the fact that the Vikings were nearly always going to be outnumbered on their raids. A longship might hold perhaps 60 men, although the more men that were brought along, the less space was left for plunder like livestock or slaves. Most targets they raided were likely to have many more people than that, as well as defensive structures like walls or towers that served to multiply the strength of the defenders; as a result, the Vikings had to find ways to counteract the fact that they were outnumbered, and attacking weak targets by surprise was the best way to do that.
As a result, in this first period of Viking raids, the Vikings generally stayed very close to their ships. If they left their ships to go significantly inland, they ran the risk of getting cut off from their ship. Once that happened, they had lost the element of surprise and the element of maneuverability, and the fact that they were likely to be outnumbered meant that they would probably to lose any ensuing fight. Again, the early Viking raids are hit-and-run raids, not land battles.
Contrary to the popular image, the Vikings were not particularly inclined to take risks. Like playground bullies, they generally took the path of least resistance that got them to their goals. They fought when they had to, but they preferred to attack defenseless, outnumbered targets. They preferred to attack from surprise, and retreated when a serious fight was likely to develop unless they were cornered. They preferred to ransom the captives and plundered holy books when they could, because ransom got them money without fighting.
It was only much later, in the middle of the 9th century, that the Vikings seem to have gotten more ambitious. They began to make more aggressive attacks on towns and travelled further inland, using horses to maintain their mobility. In some cases they even launched full-scale sieges of towns. Most famously, a Viking sometimes identified as Ragnar Lothbrok laid siege to Paris in 845 (remember, the series has probably put Ragnar half a century too early); Rollo sieged Paris in 885 (and remember, Rollo and Ragnar were not brothers because Rollo was a half-century later than the people Ragnar was based on).
A Viking Era Stele
The reasons for this shift in raiding tactics are not entirely clear, but it was definitely related to the break-down of political institutions under the pressure of these hit-and-run raids. Kings justified their rule by their ability to protect their people, and the Viking raids were undermining that claim in ways that made maintaining law and order much harder; political weakness made raids easier. Additionally, it’s clear that the numbers of Vikings were increasing, perhaps because of the successes of the early raids inspired imitation. More Vikings meant they could challenge increasingly large and better-defended forces. Eventually, in the second quarter of the 9th century, the Vikings begin ‘overwintering’, camping out on a defensible position like an island and spending the winter there so they could continue raiding the next year without having to sail home in-between.
The Viking Raids in the Series
The first raid, episode 2’s attack on Lindesfarne, is probably a fair depiction of what that event looked like. Ragnar (Travis Fimmel) and his men find a vulnerable, isolated monastery, force their way in, and kill many of the monks, taking a lot of valuable objects and several slaves.
But in episode 4, Ragnar’s crew does something entirely different. They come ashore from their boat (again, that’s probably wrong; they would probably have beached the boat), fight a battle against King Aelle’s reeve and his men in which they slaughter all but one man, who gets away, and then walk inland for a day, camping out near a small walled town. They wait until everyone is at church the next morning, then they go in, capturing everyone in the church, and loot the town. Then they walk back to their ship, where they find that they have been cut off from their ship by a group of Aelle’s men. They fight a full-out battle that they win, and sail off with their plunder.
Vikings looking for a fight on the beach
There’s a lot wrong with this. The second time they go raiding, Ragnar completely abandons the successful tactics of the first raid to do something far more risky. After the fight with Aelle’s reeve when they landed, Ragnar ought to have gotten back in his ship and gone looking for another remote monastery to attack, because he’s lost the element of surprise. The second fight on the beach is entirely predictable, because the survivor from the battle was obviously going to go and alert King Aelle (Ivan Kaye) or the local thane, who would have time to raise a force that would outnumber the raiding party. And that’s exactly what happens. The episode wants to emphasize Ragnar’s cunning, by marching inland and waiting until everyone is at church on Sunday morning. But in fact it demonstrates Ragnar’s stupidity in not leaving after he’s been discovered.
Instead of leaving, Ragnar leads his band at least half a day’s walk from the ship. As I said, this is supposed to be an example of his cleverness, but it overlooks the fact that local residents are likely to spot the longship anchored out at sea (another reason to beach the ship instead, since it would be less visible) and tell the local thane exactly where the ship is.That means he’s almost guaranteed to get cut off from his ship.
Sure, waiting until everyone goes to church is clever, if the Anglo-Saxons are too stupid to leave guards watching the walls during church. This only way this raid on the town succeeds is if the Anglo-Saxons are terminally stupid. Remember, they know there is a party of raiders in the area; the survivor from the fight on the beach has alerted the authorities. And even if Ragnar has somehow managed to outpace messengers on horseback, the town wouldn’t leave itself that defenseless. So Ragnar is being clever only because the script is giving him terminally stupid opponents.
Also, note how inconsistent the episode is about the importance of church attendance to the Anglo-Saxons. It’s so important that all the town guards attend the service, but it’s not important enough that several other people stay behind. Sure, one of them is a bed-ridden old man (they couldn’t have carried him?), but one of the Vikings finds a woman to rape. Why isn’t she in church? Because the script needs her to be standing around waiting to be raped so that Lagertha can intervene and kill the rapist because that will drive the plot forward.
The Second Fight on the Beach
When Ragnar and his crew get back to the beach, they discover what was entirely predictable, that there is a modest force of Anglo-Saxon soldiers waiting for them, and yet they’re surprised. Again, while trying to demonstrate Ragnar’s cleverness, they’ve actually revealed him to be dumb as a post.
Take a look at the scene:
When confronted by the Anglo-Saxons, Ragnar and his crew respond by drawing up into a modified form of a shield wall. A shield wall was a basic tactic in early medieval warfare. A group of men form a tight line with their shields up against one another. The formation is reinforced with additional rows of men behind them, to help keep them in formation and so that if a man on the front line goes down, the man behind him can step in and replace him quickly. That was entirely conventional, and if that’s what Ragnar’s men had done, it would be entirely plausible. (Incidentally, this tactic has been revived by modern-day riot police.)
But instead they form a testudo, a shield wall in which the men in the back ranks put their shields up over their heads to protect the unit from missile fire. But this formation has serious weaknesses. It can only move very slowly and it’s vulnerable to being surrounded. Attacks against it can slowly pick off the men in the front ranks (who are particularly vulnerable to attacks on their unprotected legs). Actually fighting in a testudo is extremely difficult. So it was a formation that was used to protect soldiers from missile fire while they were closing in on an enemy line, not a formation to actually engage in combat in.
This formation has become popular in recent films; off the top of my head, I can think of examples in Troy and 300, and I’m sure they’re not the only ones. But this is an entirely false detail. The testudo was unique to Roman and early Byzantine forces; I know of no evidence that it was employed by the Vikings. There are a couple of reasons for this. First the testudo isn’t very effective with round shields like the ones the Vikings used; there are too many gaps. The Romans used oblong shields that worked much more effectively in this formation. Second, and more important, using a testudo requires an enormous amount of training as a unit, something that was unknown among the Vikings. While a shield-wall is a fairly basic tactic (form a line and stand so close to your neighbors that your shields touch or overlap), the testudo is much more complex (the men have to know which men put their shields forward, which put their shields up and where, and how to maneuver in that formation.) The Romans can achieve it because their soldiers are full-time, highly trained fighters, whereas the Vikings are only part-time amateur fighters with haphazard training. The idea that a random band of Vikings with no special training could pull off a testudo using round shields simply strains plausibility.
Technically I suppose it’s a half-testudo
And Ragnar’s unit uses the testudo in a way it can’t really be used. They fight in that formation. When one of the Anglo-Saxons sticks his spear over Ragnar’s shield, Ragnar grabs it, orders his men to open a gap in the wall, pulls the man through, and then kills him. That’s pretty much impossible. Opening a gap in the ranks gives the enemy a chance to shove a spear through and risks allowing the enemies to force the gap wider.
Additionally, the scene requires the commander of the Anglo-Saxons to be an idiot. First, instead of leading his men from the front, which was expected among the Anglo-Saxons as much as among the Norse, he stands back and just directs the fight. That might explain why his men lose; he’s not inspiring them with his own example of bravery. Worse, he orders his men to charge the testudo. What an actual Anglo-Saxon leader would have done is form up his men into his own shield wall and wait for the Vikings to force the battle by charging, because the side that charges a shield wall typically loses unless they get lucky. So Anglo-Saxon warfare often took the form of two opposing shield walls, each taunting the other to try to get the enemy to break formation and charge. In this specific scenario, the Anglo-Saxons have the upper hand; the Vikings are in hostile territory and have to get back to their ship before further Anglo-Saxon troops arrive. So a smart commander would have formed up his own shield wall and waited for the Vikings to charge out of desperation; if they retreat, he just uses his archers to pick them off.
Furthermore, he has more troops than Ragnar does, and his troops are more mobile because they’re not in a testudo. He has archers, so he doesn’t even need to get close to hurt the Vikings. Instead of ordering his men to charge, he should either have continued the missile fire, slowly picking off the Vikings, or ordered his men to flank the testudo, killing the men behind the shields with arrow fire. And even if he orders his men to charge, they ought to be able to flank the testudo because they outnumber the raiders. So the only way Ragnar wins this fight is if he has the advantage of being the hero and therefore gets to wear a whole lot of plot armor. Ragnar wins purely because his opponents are written as total idiots and he’s allowed to pull off pretty much impossible battle tactics.
The Next Two Fights
In a later episode, Ragnar and company return to Northumbria. Aelle sends out his brother Aethelwulf and a unit of men. They find the Vikings making camp, and the men want to attack, but Aethelwulf inexplicably insists on waiting and watching. That night, the Vikings attack, catching the Anglo-Saxons off-guard because they have apparently not left any guards or watchmen, because, as is becoming clear by now, the Northumbrians are a kingdom straight out of Idiocracy, too stupid to put guards up when they know their enemy is camped nearby. Aethelwulf is so pious that instead of rushing out to fight, he spends the whole battle praying. And this man is apparently the skilled military leader of the kingdom.
Much of the rest of the conflict revolves around the ransom negotiations for Aethelwulf. That’s plausible. The Vikings, as I said, preferred ransoming because it was safer than fighting. There’s some interesting stuff with the Vikings dining at Aelle’s hall, but way too much is made of the linguistic barrier between the Norse and the Anglo-Saxons. The show again wants to highlight Ragnar’s cleverness in learning Old English, but what the show doesn’t understand is that Old English and Old Norse were so closely related linguistically (remember, the Angles came from southern Denmark) that the two languages were mutually comprehensible; they sounded like very heavily accented versions of the other language. For example, the Old English word ‘shirt’ and the Old Norse word ‘skirt’ both refer to the same thing, a long tunic that hangs below the waist. Similarly, what the Anglo-Saxons called a ‘ship’, the Norse called a ‘skip’ or a ‘skiff’. So the Vikings and Aelle’s court would have been able to understand each other more or less without an interpreter.
Ragnar builds a fortified camp, which is something the earliest raiders didn’t do, because the moment you set up a fortified camp, you’ve lost all benefit of surprise and mobility and are vulnerable to being overwhelmed by manpower. Eventually, Aelle’s men attack, charging in on horseback and being tricked by the fact that Ragnar has cleverly concealed a spiked drawbridge.
Here’s the scene (skip over the unrelated scene of Ragnar’s duel with Haraldson; the scene in Northumbria starts about 0:45)
Once again, there are big problems here. First, the Anglo-Saxons didn’t employ cavalry. They used horses for transport, but not to fight from. Exactly why they made this choice isn’t entirely clear; we know that in the early 11th century, they actively resisted cavalry training, but what the issue was in the 8th century is less obvious. Presumably they felt that fighting from horseback was too difficult or that horses were too expensive to risk in combat, but perhaps they felt it was unmanly.
But even if they had used cavalry, it would still be silly, because Aelle doesn’t have to attack at all. All he has to do is set up a guard to keep the Vikings from getting food and then slowly starve them into surrender. Alternately, since he has archers, he can encircle the camp with archers and pick off the Vikings until they come out to attack. Sure, Ragnar is holding Aethelwulf hostage, but if Aelle has decided to attack, he is clearly willing to sacrifice his brother to kill Ragnar.
Nothing I’m saying here is particularly cunning tactically. These are basic ideas that any even remotely competent military leader would have known. But Aelle apparently has all the tactical awareness of Homer Simpson. So again, what the show presents as Ragnar’s cunning is actually just Ragnar’s stupidity being outmatched by the stupidity of his opponents. But it’s easy to win when you have so much plot armor you can’t possibly lose.
The Deeper Issue
One reason I’m harping on this so much is that it demonstrates an underlying trend in action films, one I’ve mentioned before. The historical reason the Vikings were so effective is that they had superior technology (by which I mean the longship; their weapons and armor were no better than anyone else’s) and they employed that technology to its maximum effect. They made extremely good use of hit-and-run tactics in ways that their opponents found hard to respond to, and as much as possible they avoided actually fighting equal opponents, because a pitched battle meant they ran a serious risk of losing, and Vikings were generally risk-averse.
But Michael Hirst, the series creator and main scriptwriter, doesn’t want to show that because it would make Ragnar seem a lot less heroic by contemporary standards. Instead of being a daring warrior, Ragnar would basically be leading a gang of opportunistic, semi-cowardly muggers who run away from a fair fight. It’s hard to look heroic to modern Americans when you spend your time avoiding battle. But that’s because what the Norse found heroic isn’t what modern Americans find heroic. The Norse valued cleverness over brute strength, and modern America, or at least modern Western cinema, values brute strength over cleverness. Modern audiences are trained to want heroes who are extremely strong physically, very aggressive, and above all convinced of their moral rectitude. They win their fights because they know they are right; their enemies have wronged them, and that means that in the fight between good versus evil, good wins because good just wants the victory more and fights harder.
As a result, having been stripped of all the reasons that the Vikings were actually successful, Ragnar wins his fights because he has more heart and determination than his opponents do. But that means the fights don’t actually make any sense, because he’s winning even though he’s outnumbered, pinned down, and facing opponents who have better equipment (the Anglo-Saxons are typically wearing better armor and carrying longbows half a millennium too early). So the show has to resort to rampant idiocy to explain his victories.
This becomes even more problematic when you stop and notice that Ragnar isn’t actually the good guy in these fights; he’s merely the protagonist. Ragnar and his men are viciously attacking peaceful, innocent men and women, killing them, stealing their property, and in some cases enslaving them. They’re ravening wolves attacking bumbling toddlers and being celebrated for it.
The show is clearly following the lead of anti-hero shows like The Sopranos, Sons of Anarchy, and Breaking Bad in which the series follows the exploits of criminals operating within American society and examines the moral complexities of their characters. On the surface, The Vikings is the same kind of show. But these other shows are explicitly set within a context of crime, in which it is clear to the viewers that the protagonists are violating the law and making choices within a range of evils. Walter White has to die for what he’s done, and Tony Soprano either gets whacked at the end or lives a life in which he is forever looking over his shoulder for the people who will eventually kill him. In other words, these anti-hero shows make it clear that on some level the protagonist is a bad guy who will eventually get his just punishment. The shows establish a moral standard even while they watch their anti-heroes deviate from it.
The Vikings, in contrast, is about a bunch of violent men and women who live in a society that actively glorifies stealing from, killing, and enslaving those too weak or too stupid to resist. Ragnar is doing exactly what his society thinks he should be doing. In fact, given Aelle’s viciousness and the monk Aethelstan’s eventual conversion to the Norse way, the show actually asserts that the pagan Norse way is morally superior to the Christian Anglo-Saxon culture the main characters are preying upon. It is actively championing the predatory ethos upon which being a Viking was based, and then occasionally showing how these Vikings are a little less bad, because they occasionally kill rapists, spare old men, and love their sons.
I find this incredibly problematic. On some level I believe it’s immoral to offer literal rapine and murder and present it as morally superior. A show like The Sopranos or Breaking Bad can explore the moral ambiguities of the mafia lifestyle or meth-dealing precisely because it’s clear that on some level the show acknowledges the immorality of the characters’ actions, and that acknowledgement of the immorality creates the nuance on which the show plays. Skyler White comes to function as the voice of morality, forcing her husband to eventually acknowledge the growing evil of his actions, just as Dr Melfi pushes back against Tony Soprano and ultimately terminates her work with him.
(As an aside, I suspect that’s part of the reason that so many fans decided Skyler was a horrible bitch. After all Carmela Soprano was in some ways far more shrewish but never became the object of such intense vituperation and vicious internet memes (although she received a lesser degree of hatred). Carmela is ultimately a venal figure, accepting Tony’s crimes as the price of her life of luxury. But rather than giving in to her baser instincts, Skyler ultimately forces Walter to admit that he is doing evil things purely because he enjoys them. Her character’s moral stance explicitly criticizes the criminal behavior that so many of the show’s fans wanted to revel in, reminding them that they were taking pleasure in something clearly immoral. As a blocking character, she essentially confronts the viewer as well as her husband.)
But The Vikings has no analogous character. Far from pushing back against Ragnar’s actions, Lagertha directly participates in the murder and theft. After his capture, Brother Aethelstan never tries to articulate a Christian critique of his master, and by the end of the season has abandoned Christianity entirely. The blocking characters for Ragnar are Earl Haraldson and King Aelle, both of whom are presented as being more evil than Ragnar is. Haraldson is a villain from start to finish, while Aelle is ruthless; he kills one of his commanders for being defeated, is willing to sacrifice his brother Aethelwulf, and negotiates in bad faith, whereas Ragnar is presented as caring about his men and his brother and negotiating in good faith.
Without any sort of moral standard, the series cannot generate very much ambiguity. Murder, theft, and enslavement are good as long as you’re the hero of the story, because that’s basically the only perspective we’re given to empathize with. About the only ambiguity in the series is the question of Ragnar’s treatment of Rollo and, in the final episode, Ragnar’s disloyalty to Lagertha. And from a moral perspective, I think it’s a serious problem with the show.
I like films and tv series that are willing to explore moral complexity and ambiguity; not all problems have obvious moral solutions, and few people are all good or all bad, so I appreciate main characters who are not entirely moral or immoral. When done well, as with The Wire, or Breaking Bad, or The Sorpanos, moral ambiguity can challenge viewers to reassess their own moral positions and beliefs. But The Vikings is an example of a show that does moral ambiguity poorly, and the result is a series that teeters on the brink of being flat out immoral in my opinion. I’m not suggesting that we need to return to the moral absolutism of the Hays Code, or even 1980s television. But I do think Michael Hirst needs to seriously reassess the way he’s approaching the series. He may be aiming for moral ambiguity, but he’s wound up somewhere much uglier.
Want to Know More?
Vikings Season 1
There’s a dearth of good works on Norse weapons and tactics that both based in sound scholarship and accessible to the general reader. William Short’s Viking Weapons and Combat Techniques is probably the best option available. There’s also Paddy Griffith’s The Viking Art of War (Greenhill Military Paperbacks), but I don’t recommend it, unless you really want to dig into what little has been written on the subject regardless of quality.
An Historian Goes to the Movies 
Pingback: The Vikings: Hey, Gang! Let’s Go Discover Britain! | An Historian Goes to the Movies
I found the battle scenes with the Saxons to be pathetic and hugely unrealistic (as you have stated) they were portrayed as 5 foot weaklings that couldn’t fight for shit! And lacking any understanding of battle tactics (also wrong) .while I love this show , it is also infuriating. Typical American production really, trying to emasculate the British (proto-British?) to make themselves feel better about their own early history (or lack thereof)
LikeLike
It’s an Irish-Canadian production, so you can’t blame us for this one…
LikeLike
Well my apologies , perhaps the Irish are to blame and also the Canadians with their alleged shared/inherited DNA with some Nordic races.
You are American? I am surprised. Do you have recent British heritage?
LikeLike
No, my ancestry is Norwegian and a couple kinds of German
LikeLike
A bunch of clichés when it goes to Francia, but who cares ? I.e. : The Emperor of the Franks could only be mean, bisexual (pervert), thin, machiavelic, etc. I have noticed that, everytimes US, UK/CAN, or co-produced whatever english spoken series go on European history, and dare to deal about ancient France (continental western Europe), it’s negative. Baguette, béret and accordéon, ah ah ah, the poor guys of Paris should only be good at for. Love your blog, very smart, pedagogic, and subtle.
LikeLike
I haven’t seen the latest seasons of the Vikings, but none of that shocks me.
I’m glad you like the blog!
LikeLike
I agree with this. I can guess why they don’t give awesome, spot-on tactical maneuvers and those can be summed up as the team behind the show isn’t that specialised. Or rather, they don’t really know THAT much about the era and the people. My guess is the director picked up Saxo’s Grammaticus or w/e it’s called (which is seriously just christian make-believe anyway) and thought “wow, this would be cool for a show”
Also, even if they could afford the specialists to tell them all this, why by all the Gods would the directors want to teach small unit tactics to anyone who might watch it? People watch shows like this obsessively and if they included real, workable tactics, you’d very well teach a goodly portion of people out there how to, on a basic level, organise and lead and operate a small military unit. Not that I disagree with that notion, but a lot of people might. People in power do absolutely think about this sort of thing and I highly doubt it would be permitted even if the directors Wanted to do that.
LikeLike
You’ve grossly over stated the level of cowardness that the Vikings display! I cannot believe an apparent Norwegian would even dare suggest his ancestors to be cowards running from a fair fight!
What about berserker’s? Norse mythology? They feared not death and would have gladly died in combat.
Yes stealth, ambushes and other deceitful tactics were used, as these were not seen as cowardly and dishonourable, but to go so far as to say they would rather avoid a fair fight.. you should check your facts!
The Vikings believed their deaths to be predetermined..
LikeLike
You’re being inconsistent. When I emphasize the degree of prudence and caution Norse people show, you say I’m calling it cowardice, but when the Norse demonstrate ambushes and deceit, you say it’s not cowardice.
The Norse, especially Vikings, did not view themselves as cowards, but they did not see much value in recklessness. They preferred to extract resources with a minimum of risk. Sometimes that minimum was combat, sometimes it was trading, sometimes it was outright theft.
LikeLike
Excuse me, Danish here, but you’re telling me they preferred minimum risk and would rather retreat from a fair fight “They preferred to ransom the captives and plundered holy books when they could, because ransom got them money without fighting.” This, this is my issue. You are saying directly that one of the most violent and fearless cultures would rather scamper away like some cockroach? This is my issue. Valhalla must have just been a bunch of horseshit then aye?
Please do explain.
LikeLike
It’s absolutely clear that Vikings preferred easy targets that couldn’t defend themselves to risky fights. They consistently targets defenseless monasteries when such were available. Their strategy was predicated on having the element of surprise and avoiding land battles, because they knew that land battles would generally involve them being out-numbered. These are simple facts–I’m sorry if that bursts your bubble about your ancestors.
The Norse were not an especially violent culture. They were violent, but not remarkably more so than the cultures around them. They were feared because their raising strategy was hard to stop, not because they were exceptionally better warriors. The average Norseman was a farmer, not a violent killer.
LikeLike
Pingback: The Eagle: Roman Scotland | An Historian Goes to the Movies
I’m a big fan of Bernard Cornwell’s novels, specifically the Warlords Trilogy (King Arthur) and the Saxon Stories, which cover the time period just after the events Vikings is portraying. Are you familiar with those books?
I ran across your blog because I’m currently at the battle scene in Season 1 Episode 7 of Vikings, and I’m irritated at how quickly Ragnar’s forces are abandoning their fortified position, and especially their shield wall. I keep waiting for a TV show or movie to get the shield wall right, and it’s so disappointing when they don’t.
Have you by chance watched The Last Kingdom? I believe it’s still streaming on Netflix, and it’s developed from Cornwell’s Saxon Stories series that I just mentioned. It’s been about a year since I watched it, and I can’t remember how accurate the battle scenes may have been (I’m not an expert anyway), but I think they were probably a bit better than Vikings has been so far. I’d be curious to hear your thoughts on that series, if you decide to check it out.
Glad I ran across your blog!
LikeLike
I have not see The Last Kingdom yet. I’ve been fairly busy this semester so I haven’t watched as much as I would like. Hopefully things will slow down now that I’ve getting to the end of the semester. You can also make a donation to the blog and I’ll put Last Kingdom at the top of my to watch list.
LikeLike
Add me to the “yes please” for the review of “The Last Kingdom” It’s fascinating to watch this and cross reference Vikings. Cornwell’s books are excellent (loved the Sharpe series)
Another donation will be forthcoming as soon as the IRS coughs up my refund 🙂
LikeLiked by 1 person
Pingback: The Last Kingdom: Testudos! | An Historian Goes to the Movies
You know, I found it interesting of how you detailed your argument here of the Vikings, their tactics, and well, everything else. I guess I’ll throw in my observation around the top to the bottom as I go.
First off, with the whole emphasis of the shield wall and raising shields over ones head and calling it a “testudo”, really doesn’t make sense, even like you said, “a half testudo”. I do agree that it would not be as effective with round shields because of gaps, but unless you are wearing a iron or steel helm with a nose and eye guard, draped with a chain link “veil” at the trim of it, I think raising your shield over your head is not so bad of an idea, as some protection is better than none, unless the barbarians of northern Europe had such thick skulls arrows and javelins bounced right off.
Then to call them amateur fighters is also a misconception as well, while comparing them to Roman soldiers. Yes the Romans were successful against every barbarian tribe they came across and remain the uncontested for close over a thousand years, was because of they fought and how the tribes fought against the Romans. Yes, a open battle head on against the Romans was practically suicidal because the Romans fought as “machine”, whereas the tribesman excelled on 1v1, not as a unified group. So, gurrellia warfare was then utilized against the Romans as their weakness was being stretched thin and out of their regulated formations. That is how the Iceni led by Boudicca fought them, that is Armenius of the Cherusci fought them, and how Viriatus of the Lusitanians fought them. Hell, that’s how the Colonials were able to get the upper hand on the British Redcoats. When you are either out-manned or “outgunned” as I will say, you adapt and survive. To continue with the Vikings being part time fighters, doesn’t make sense, as you don’t have to be constantly fighting someone all day every day year round. Did they usually raid in the summer, yes. Because in a time when vaccines and anti-bodies never existed, it goes against logic to travel through the sea in that climate, with freezing temperatures with fucking cold water on a voyage that was two-three weeks long depend on the weather. Viking raiding parties, or any raiding party past or present, are meant on average to be small with a dozen-three dozen say around that number, as the target was the resource. When Vikings were not raiding other peoples, they fought each other, tribe to clan wars either for personal fame an reputation or for resources as Scandinavia, especially if you went further north, was not very prosperous for farming. No, not all Norse were Vikings, to say otherwise is like to say all Japanese were Samurai, or all Templars were Knights, or all Romans were soldiers. They weren’t. The minority were. But all Vikings were warriors who probably trained regularly with one another when they were not at war, or raiding for that manner; and all Norse, who lived in the environment, conditions, and the reality of who your neighbors were, especially if you had something that others probably didn’t. When you live in a world shaped to be “survival of the fittest” you’d be a damn fool to think that being unarmed and untrained is your scapegoat, especially when all the men were away raiding, conquering, exploring, whatever. And when you go about with your main target as pillaging, why make the unnecessary decision of throwing all those men’s lives away, and leave your homes that much vulnerable? Not a manner cowardice, but survival; only cowardice if you run away from an equal or lesser force than you’re own. Special Forces of this day implore the same methods if they are in a situation they cannot win unless back up against the corner.
Second, let’s move on down to the scene with the church, how there were no guards there at post on Sunday and they were at Mass. First off, let’s go ahead and see what the Catholic Church of the Dark Ages demanded the importance of its subjects. Obedience. There literally is no lighter meaning to that term on how Catholic clergy viewed every human being born and raised under the words and doctrines of the church to maintain its grip on the populace. Now, before anyone gets nit-picky with this, I am not dissing Christianity as a whole, or modern Catholics. But it’s rather undeniable that Catholicism, especially at this time in history, the will of God came before all matters. Now to resume to the matter with the undefended town, its not impossible, and I highly doubt it was uncommon when your country was not being invaded by a serious force when all you need was “the power of God, and his hallowed ground in which the unbelievers would be struck down by a plague” or something. So yeah, many can be rather stupid in these matters. That is what the show was tackling at, these kinds of matters. To go around butt-hurt on something like that is pretty sad. It’s a show, get over it. To add on that, with the Saxon woman at home with her son, hell he may have had a cold, fever or a simple cough. Once again, no wonderful medicine back then so it’s only natural that the mother stayed home with her son. The love of a parent is a helluva thing. That and also peoples rather normal fears of the town having an epidemic is it were to spread. Superstition was rather potent in those times.
Speaking of superstition, Ragnar was told by the Seer that the gods desire him to have “a great future”, so believing that the Gods were with him, seems fair enough that he’d go on ahead with moving inland, especially when his reputation back home and the rather thin line with Haraldson if he came back with nothing. Yeah he could have traveled elsewhere and look for another target, but it’s just better to try and succeed with a place you know of, than go wandering around aimlessly. Then again, they were probably just had a right amount of crazy inside their heads to go on ahead with it. A lot of even modern military are just like that. So it doesn’t surprise me one bit.
Why should you blame someone to seem surprised when you head back, see a sizable force standing right between you and your way back home. Could be several reasons like “Oh shit, that was quick” for example. Who knows what went right through their minds, this is not a anime.
Now, since the show “Vikings” is more centered around the Nordic subculture, of course it’s going to be more violent than what you claim. Hell, there are also other, more valid sources such as Ibn Fadlan, on his account on the Swedish Vikings, aka the ‘Rus’, on the accounts of how violent they were. The Byzantine, or as you would refer to them as the East Romans, hired the Rus and Vikings from Scandinavia to serve as the Varangian Guard for three main reasons: loyalty, fighting prowess, and humorously enough, their height. And to go and serve to the position that was equal to the Praetorians says a lot. Now I know they probably didn’t have as much of “fancy armor” or the lovely gladius, but no one really finds themselves up among the top of the ladder for no real reason, christian or not. Well then again, Byzantine were Greek Orthodox and not Catholic so they tended to spew a lot less bullshit than their Western cousins. A habit I am sure they inherited from their Imperial predecessors. Such as loyalty. unity, and integrity were painfully shaky for the Romans in general.
Deceit was also not beneath the Romans also, like how they paid emissaries sent to them by VIriathus of the Lusitanians, to turn on their chieftain and assassinate him, because Rome failed to quell the rebellion by force. So these full-time soldiers were unable to handle the “part-time amateurs”, not a real surprise with Romans, that was their daily life; deception, backstabbing, and assassination.
Julius Caeser, when he warred against the Gauls, he never fought fair or honorably, a few occasions maybe for propaganda and to raise his own esteem, but not some great hero. A successful warlord and general, oh yes indeed.
Then there is the time with Arminius, who successfully led an outnumbered army of Germanic tribesmen and soundly crushed three Roman Legions in three days. How did he accomplish this? Why gurrellia warfare, the ambushing, the stealth, and the hit and run because they had no other option besides fighting the Romans on their terms. That would not have been very smart to do.
To go about of how the Anglo-Saxon lord should have been up in the front amongst his men commanding them courageously, I can gun your argument down fairly easily here. First off, that man was merely a coward who held his station because of his birthright to do so no doubt. A station doesn’t make you into a man, nor is your cultural background. That’s on you. If you seriously think otherwise, that every Anglo-Saxon was some fearless man, you set your expectations way to high. So I hope not, because that would be just pathetic. Now does this mean that every Viking in the world was not a coward?? No, I am sure there were rather a few among them, just like with any other civilization. Just the human race and we just got to deal with it.Two, given how they never before encountered the Norseman before, the only exceptions being The Franks encounters with the Danes, I am sure they would dismiss them as simple bandits, so that lowered their guard rather well. Because God fights for the righteous!!!! Mhm. He surely does. King Alle, his character in the show is prideful and arrogant, and not a man who uses his head right. Their men, probably due to few hundred years of peace, they never had a real proper fight with anyone since the Angles and Saxons Christianized. So naturally, the Vikings, who raided and fought with the Baltic and other Nordic tribes, would have hands on experience.
Finally, to go about and spew the crap about how inefficient warriors they were in general, and exclude the fact that during the reign of Alfred the Great of Wessex, a Danish army swept over all of these Anglo-Saxon kingdoms, even brought Alfred to his knees with the sacking of Winchester. That was not fake, unless Alfred wrote that bit down just to show himself humility to those that read of him years down the road. The Danes lost and were forced back North yes, until time passes with Canute taking over nearly the entire North Sea region.
My point is to all of this, is that both sides of this argument are so damn quick to try to discredit one culture over the other thinking they are the superior attitude. Look, Romans, Vikings, Saxons, Anglo-Saxons, Samurai, Mongols, Greek Hoplites, whatever… all have different methods of fighting and shit changes over the course of their cultures length of existence. Their strengths, weaknesses, just how the world works. We only know more of Romans because they had a thing for the importance of books, same with Samurai so long as it important and popular enough to be remembered. Norse history we only know for certain on their perspective is from their runestones. Sad, but true and the only other sources is from the folks they invaded. Hell, Anglo-Saxons, when they were once just Saxons and Angles, worshiped the same set of gods but with different names, raided the south British and northern French coast in boats of their own. Carried out the same types of tactics against Romans on the Saxon Shore. So honestly I don’t see a huge difference between Saxon and Norse raiders save their signature weapons. Two lines of my family heritage traces back from both Nordic and Anglo-Saxons of Devonshire, both sides I take great pride in, but I don’t let petty romanticism blind me to who they were in life. But at the same time I take into account that this show called “Vikings” is a historical-fiction focused more on people, and the perspective from a pagan viewpoint in the cold regions of Scandinavia. An idea of how life was, not the full truth because, shit books and texts can only take you so far, and then ask the question of how valid that persons writing is. Who the fuck knows and why the fuck should we get so ass-fucked over it. Here’s knowledge, there’s knowledge, let’s take it and keep on collecting so we can get a far better understanding of ancient cultures and peoples we barely know shit about and not be so damn quick to gun down something we don’t want to take into account. That goes to both you “right and left wingers”.
Course if you want to dissuade all this then you may as well dissuade all facts we know of the Romans because hey, they might have conjured all their epic campaigns and conquests with bullshit and the truth may have just been extortion and blackmail, just like every other bureaucrat. None of that matters because history is just filled with liars!!
Good fucking lord…
LikeLike
Thanks for your thoughts. Unfortunately you make a number of mistakes and a lot of unproven assumptions. I don’t have time to address all of them, but let me point out a couple.
1) “gurrellia warfare was then utilized against the Romans as their weakness was being stretched thin and out of their regulated formations. That is how the Iceni led by Boudicca fought them, that is Armenius of the Cherusci fought them, and how Viriatus of the Lusitanians fought them.”
We know comparatively little about Boudicca’s style of warfare, except that she destroyed three towns and fought one, and possibly two pitched battles. There’s no reason to think she led a guerrilla resistance. Likewise Arminius managed to ambush a Roman army and wipe it out in a single major battle–that’s not guerrilla tactics. After the Teutoberg Forest, he fought two more pitched battles against the Romans, neither of which was decisive. So while he certainly harassed the Romans as they marched, I think it is a mistake to characterize the war as a guerrilla war. Viriatus I am not familiar with, so I can’t comment on that one.
2) “But all Vikings were warriors who probably trained regularly with one another when they were not at war” I know of absolutely no historical evidence that allows us to make that claim. We know virtually nothing about how the Norse trained for warfare. But it certainly wasn’t with the sort of precision drilling that Romans could do because they were full-time soldiers. So you are making an unfounded assumption based on what makes sense in modern thought, not something that can be demonstrated in the sources. It would make sense that the Norse would be good swimmers, given how much time they spent around water, but we know that they weren’t good swimmers (as a culture).
3) “First off, let’s go ahead and see what the Catholic Church of the Dark Ages demanded the importance of its subjects. Obedience.”
Umm, no. The early medieval church had very little power to demand that rulers do things. They had soft power, but no ability to compel obedience. The idea that the bishop or priest of that community could order soldiers to abandon their post for worship is just nonsense.
4) “Now, since the show “Vikings” is more centered around the Nordic subculture, of course it’s going to be more violent than what you claim.” I’m not sure what your point is here. You seem to be assuming that Norse culture was inherently violent. Their literature, however, shows a frequent concern with avoiding violence, and I don’t think there’s any particular reason to assume that the Norse were notably more violent than any other European culture of the period.
5) “Then there is the time with Arminius, who successfully led an outnumbered army of Germanic tribesmen and soundly crushed three Roman Legions in three days.” There’s literally no evidence that Arminius’ forces were outnumbered at Teutoberg Forest. That’s an assumption.
6) “To go about of how the Anglo-Saxon lord should have been up in the front amongst his men commanding them courageously, I can gun your argument down fairly easily here. First off, that man was merely a coward who held his station because of his birthright to do so no doubt. A station doesn’t make you into a man, nor is your cultural background. ”
I’m sorry. You simply don’t understand Germanic culture. Cowards do not become kings, or at least not for long. Being an effective war leader was the primary duty of a king, so no man who was incapable of developing a reputation for bravery would ever garner the support needed to become a king.
7) “Finally, to go about and spew the crap about how inefficient warriors they were in general, and exclude the fact that during the reign of Alfred the Great of Wessex, a Danish army swept over all of these Anglo-Saxon kingdoms, even brought Alfred to his knees with the sacking of Winchester. ”
You don’t seem to understand why the Great Army was able to be so effective. It wasn’t that they were better warriors than the Anglo-Saxons. It was that the Great Army was probably 2-3000 full-time warriors, whereas the individual Anglo-Saxon kings probably couldn’t field more that perhaps 500 full-time warriors. It’s a question of numbers.
8) “But at the same time I take into account that this show called “Vikings” is a historical-fiction focused more on people, and the perspective from a pagan viewpoint in the cold regions of Scandinavia.”
And my point is that it demonstrates remarkably little understanding of the culture it claims to be presenting. It’s a fantasy of Norse culture based not on actual Norse culture but on 21st century Western culture.
LikeLike
Jaden Ryan Whitlock, you seem to have a fundamental misunderstanding of how guerrilla warfare works. It isn’t about flattening entire cities and defeating larger armies by being scrappier fighters. It’s not even about winning battles: that would be traditional warfare. Guerrilla warfare is more about strategically losing: attacking the enemy by surprise, then retreating before you sustain any serious losses. The target comes away believing they won the battle (and by traditional standards, they did), but after enough attacks, their forces and supplies start to dwindle, and they lose the advantage of superior numbers that traditional formation-fighting depends on. Is it “running away from a fair fight?”, yeah, i guess, if you ask a traditionalist. But most proponents of guerrilla tactics wouldn’t see anything “cowardly” about not engaging in a battle that you are certain to lose. To them (and to the real ancient Vikings) that would be an intelligent use of your fighting resources. Unfortunately, most Americans (believing that might=right), would dismiss such tactics as “unmanly”, so the show had to mangle the history.
LikeLike
I discovered this blog by chance. Pleasant surprise. You are fantastic!
I hope to read your analysis of Vikings Frankish subplot, and Æthelstan’s crucifixion someday.
I have so many questions.
LikeLike
I generally don’t watch more than the first season of a series for this blog. If you wanted to make a donation to my PayPal account for me to watch another season I’d be glad to.
LikeLike
Just finished Season 1 Episode 7 and the only thing i keep thinking.. “so are they Vikings also going to lose once in a while?” its so incredibly frustrating to watch the British constantly die due to terrible war tactics and stupidity. I agree spot on with what you said that “what the show presents as Ragnar’s cunning is actually just Ragnar’s stupidity being outmatched by the stupidity of his opponents.”
You know when a show frustrates you more than you enjoy it, thats when you have to stop watching it. Im out!
LikeLike
I love your thoughts on the lack of moral insight that the show displays (especially in comparison to other anti-hero series). Also an excellent analysis of the issues with the combat and general stupidity of Ragnar, and the even greater stupidity of the Anglo-Saxons.
I found the Aethelwulf episode to be absurd in particular. on top of everything mentioned in your post, the Vikings kill off their only source of leverage after Aelle’s failed attack on the Viking camp. Aelle seems cold enough to gamble with his brother’s life and throw people into snake pits, but concedes to the Vikings after they have thrown away their only source of leverage against Aelle. It just seems out of character.
LikeLike
If there is anything Aelle is not, it is cold (or vicious, or a villain). Granted the writing is highly problematic and makes it look like he didn’t care about his brother at first glance but if you think through his behaviour as a whole and TRY to make sense of it, the surprise attack must actually be seen as his attempt to rescue his brother. Aside from that, if you haven’t come any farther yet: Caring too little about Aelle’s character to spare him scandalously out-of-character actions is a disease that surfaces much more strongly at the end of his story where they butchered the continuity altogether, JUST so they didn’t have to bother giving him a fair share of development and screen time to make an otherwise promising outcome believable. And yet, the actor (who has never made it a secret that he is absolutely not happy with the treatment of his character) saved the scene by an incredibly intense and masterful portrayal of the break in character and managed to turn me into a fervent fan and admirer. (Admittedly, after having hooked me on Aelle in Season 1 already.) But yes, the problem of stupidity and moral standards are undeniable, and sadly so, as I thought it had potential to be much more and better, especially with regard to ethics.
LikeLike
I strongly disagree with “Aelle’s viciousness” and actually think the surprise attack has to be taken as his attempt to save his brother – I know, I know, this has problems but his whole behaviour and character in this episode and throughout the show suggest that and in the framework of interpretation I have to work with what is there. He really is a “good guy” as far as the show has any as he is the single most honest and honourable character of his generation. (And as way too often in our culture, the honest person is regarded as dumb and might even lose because others don’t play fair.) That Aelle doesn’t think he needs to live up to a promise made to invaders who have taken a hostage and annihilated his troops, thereby forcing him to stall for time in order to protect his people until he has enough men to attack again is NOT a sign of viciousness in my opinion, especially if, additionally, we take into consideration that he probably did not accept them as honourable people, so a treaty with them would not need to be honoured. The snake pit, on the other hand, is just as brutal as any sort of punishment aimed at deterring people from unwelcome behaviour at the time and used in a very well thought-through rational way to ensure a better fighting morale for the next battle but it doesn’t change that Aelle is respected and not overly feared by his nobles and a relatively peaceful and easily contented character if you look at most of his actual actions and compare that to most of the other characters. (I have an almost book-sized attempt to make sense of his character as a whole despite some bad inconsistencies that are beyond repair).
But I strongly agree with your analysis that the show uses a weird technique of making (otherwise decently intelligent) people like Aelle look like idiots when opposed to characters that are meant to be perceived as smart. It happens not only to Aelle but also to Aethelwulf of Wessex and even to Bjorn. Also agree on the questionable moral standards. Actually, I fell in love with the show (and King Aelle) in Season 1 precisely because I did NOT think the Vikings were portrayed as “good” despite the clear Viking POV of the show as I thought nobody could ever uphold such an evaluation or one-sidedly root for them after having seen them raid Lindisfarne and I was totally switching sides in the dinner scene at King Aelle’s villa which I found ingenious for this same reason. But after having spent 3,5 years in the fandom and observing the patterns in the show, I agree that it isn’t the great, twisting, rather realistic vision that would show how a clash of cultures boils down to perspective and every side can do bad things and still have understandable motives that it could have been. And that’s a sad thing in my opinion. All that said, much like you but without any of your historical insights, I felt that the Saxons were portrayed as way too stupid militarily and it was too easy for the Vikings to defeat them to make the premise work well that King Aelle would, in the end, capture and kill Ragnar. Well, we’ve seen how that ended.
LikeLike