[Jeff Higgins]

Yup, I've been catching up on the first several seasons of The Vikings, kind of binge watching it since before Christmas to catch up to this season. Pretty generally historically correct, but many of the characters and events are real mish-mashes, or amalgamations of the real characters and events. They have characters doing things that are historically attributed to someone else, and going places that the particular historical figure never really went, but someone else did.

The biggest problem the producers must have ran into is the utter lack of recorded history from the Viking perspective. They were illiterate. They had no written chronicles, just verbal "sagas" of their exploits. All of the written history comes from the British Isles, Europe, and even the Middle East. As such, it is often difficult to ascribe any particular exploit to any given Viking or group of Vikings. Most of the towns that were sacked were left wondering "who were those guys...".

I find their portrayal of Ragnar Lofbrook as particularly off base. They have him as a farmer who rose to being a king, where he was actually borne of royalty and was never more than a prince. They have him raiding Paris a couple of times, the first very successfully, the second getting his ass kicked by his brother Rollo, who had been captured and left behind on the first raid, subsequently switching allegiances to Francia. Ragnar never raided Paris. Oh, Paris was raided and besieged several times, just not by Ragnar. One "Rollo" did wind up as a significant land holder in Francia, but he wasn't Ragnar's brother, nor was he captured and left behind - he acquired his lands the old fashioned Viking way, he conquered them. Ragnar was one of the all-time most "successful" Viking raiders, which he apparently really excelled at, and he did die in a snake pit in England, but that is about all they got right. He never abandoned his people, never became an erstwhile drug addict, none of that. They do ascribe the correct sons to him, though, although Ivar the "Boneless" was just a nickname, as so many of them enjoyed.

Anyway, beyond my silly nit-picking, the series is very, very well done. They succeed in telling the tale without really glorifying their murderous ways. As a matter of fact, you find yourself really not liking most of the characters, because there just isn't much to like about them. Very crude, very savage, very bloodthirsty lot all the way around. No redeeming qualities in any of them, even the "heroes", they murder each other over the most petty of grievances or ambitions. Like I said earlier, they just like to fight, even if it is among themselves. Not a very flattering portrayal, which is really how it should be. I would highly recommend watching, if you are not already.