|
I'd love to know what Rollo's battle prayer was, but all I could here were screaming saxons.
|
#
?
Mar 20, 2013 00:03
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 7, 2024 23:36 |
|
|
Nektu posted:True. Boils down to plot-armor I guess. Even the Normans at Hastings found out the hard way that's rushing the shield wall doesn't work to well even with well-trained knights. The risky attack was pretty much due to the Saxons feeling they had a numbers superiority and also were in full-armor unlike the Vikings. It was pretty neat battle scene and I loved after it was over how all the vikings take a breather after the fight.
|
|
#
?
Mar 20, 2013 01:07
|
|
|
"This is their god? And he's dead? He's nailed to the cross." "He cannot protect anyone. He is not alive like Odin, Thor or Freya." "What use is he then?"  Vikings
|
|
#
?
Mar 20, 2013 04:39
|
|
|
I also loved the perplexed and condescending looks Ragnar's kids gave the priest when he told them there was only one god. Yeah, sure. Whatever you got to tell your self silly Englishman.
|
|
#
?
Mar 20, 2013 05:16
|
|
|
I read I'm not sure where that it was supposed to be a nine-part miniseries, can anyone confirm/bust? That would explain the quick-moving plot. Edit: Found the source, http://io9.com/5989576/heres-why-you-should-start-watching-vikings-right-now I like to think Rollo's actions in the trial just point to him being a smarter rear end in a top hat than we expected. After all: -Any halfwit can tell the Earl is on his way out, siding with him is like jumping into sinking ship. Ragnar the Rising Star's good will is more important than the Earl's. -Getting Ragnar convicted would only turn Lagertha against him, and getting with her seems to be his main motivation. Calling it right now: the Earl's sons died on a raid to the west, which would explain his hesitation in putting his men/ship/money on the line. NuclearEagleFox!!! fucked around with this message at 05:35 on Mar 20, 2013 |
|
#
?
Mar 20, 2013 05:23
|
|
|
NuclearEagleFox!!! posted:I read I'm not sure where that it was supposed to be a nine-part miniseries, can anyone confirm/bust? That would explain the quick-moving plot. It's a series, not a miniseries. The first season is nine episodes.
|
|
#
?
Mar 20, 2013 05:29
|
|
|
Has there been any confirmation of it being renewed?
|
|
#
?
Mar 20, 2013 05:48
|
|
|
Is Rollo actually Ragnar's blood brother or a close friend brother?NuclearEagleFox!!! posted:Calling it right now: the Earl's sons died on a raid to the west, which would explain his hesitation in putting his men/ship/money on the line. If his sons died in a raid to the West everyone would have known that there's somewhere to raid to the west. He also probably wouldn't have been at their burial. Given his paranoid nature they probably were killed by someone within the settlement who he trusted up to that point.
|
|
#
?
Mar 20, 2013 06:15
|
|
doctor 7 posted:I don't think anyone here has posted that they watch it on TV and not the Internet. Considering we're all computer savvy it's safe to say if it's out on the website, we've seen it. I'm avoiding this thread because I am not watching it on the internet. I keep accidentally clicking it though, thinking people are on the same episode as me... like now.  I have an HDMI cable from my computer to my 46" tv but it's a pain to make the surround sound work etc. so I'd rather just wait. I don't think that is so unusual.
|
|
|
#
?
Mar 20, 2013 12:08
|
|
|
Deadpool posted:It's a series, not a miniseries. The first season is nine episodes. Everything I've read says that it's just a mini-series, although if it does well I could see it being renewed. Ragnar had a lot of cool adventures.
|
|
#
?
Mar 20, 2013 14:11
|
|
|
i wrote a couple of posts on another forum regarding this show and the history of the tribes that divided mainland europe and Briton if anyone is interested in reading them. i wont post if not because its rather long. But i'd appreciate any corrections if anyone is historically inclined. I'm pictish-scottish and english-viking heritige and it interests the poo poo out of me.
|
|
#
?
Mar 20, 2013 15:38
|
|
|
Rollo : So Rollo basically just cut a deal with the Earl in exchange of testifying and then at the last moment lied in front of everybody?. The offer the Earl gave him was very tempting and he obviously challenging Ragnar in every decision , so why not take the deal? You get rid of ragner , get a nice girl , and nice place to plan the overthrow of the earl
|
|
#
?
Mar 20, 2013 16:42
|
|
|
Lamadrid posted:Rollo : Because 1) he's Ragnar's brother (biological or not, they're still best friends and call each other that) and 2) it's been made obvious at several points throughout the season that he's pining for Lagertha (Ragnar's wife). I think he can also see that there isn't much point in backing the Earl, it's a sinking ship and only a matter of time until Ragnar usurps him.
|
|
#
?
Mar 20, 2013 16:48
|
|
|
the character of Rollo is based on Rollo Duke of Normandy, great great great grandfather of William The Concqueror King of England. Vikings won in the end.
Rocksicles fucked around with this message at 17:13 on Mar 20, 2013 |
|
#
?
Mar 20, 2013 16:57
|
|
|
Yeah it's based on him, but that Rollo wasn't born until 846. The show clearly states it starts in 793. I'm sure they may decide to play around with dates little bit, but even if that's the case and they want Rollo to follow a similar path as the historical Rollo, it wouldn't make sense to have him betray Ragnar at any point this early in the story if he's going to go on to accomplish the things historical Rollo did.
|
|
#
?
Mar 20, 2013 17:02
|
|
|
oh yeah i know is just based on him, what he looked like and his name. No lineage. i doubt they would fudge the timeline, they've gone to a lot of effort to keep it true thus far
|
|
#
?
Mar 20, 2013 17:08
|
|
|
Well not really considering Ragnar probably wasn't the first guy to raid England considering he attacked Paris in the 840s. They basically took a guy from a few decades later and dumped him in 793 so he could be the first one to go west for the sake of drama, which is fine. In that case, I could maybe see them speeding up some other aspects of history and having Rollo live out a similar story to the historical one, although that would only be if this show ended up going multiple seasons, which I don't really think it will.
|
|
#
?
Mar 20, 2013 17:20
|
|
|
canuckanese posted:Well not really considering Ragnar probably wasn't the first guy to raid England considering he attacked Paris in the 840s. They basically took a guy from a few decades later and dumped him in 793 so he could be the first one to go west for the sake of drama, which is fine. In that case, I could maybe see them speeding up some other aspects of history and having Rollo live out a similar story to the historical one, although that would only be if this show ended up going multiple seasons, which I don't really think it will. I could totally see a 70something Ragnar sacking Paris. Thor's on his side, and Odin appears to him after all.
|
|
#
?
Mar 20, 2013 17:29
|
|
|
yeah he would have been in his 70's when he died. but it's not a stretch, it works out...technically. there is no mention of how old he was when he died. grey area.
|
|
#
?
Mar 20, 2013 17:36
|
|
|
Another good episode! I randomly mentioned this show to a colleague and he had seen it too. Then we spent the entire coffee break nerding out over the realistic fights and handling of mythology. Also surreal to come from a morning of seeing reports from the Steubenville rape trial to an episode where Lagertha straight up kills a dude for attempting rape. I realize this makes me a bad person, but it felt sort of cathartic after all the rape apologism going on on my Facebook wall Rocksicles posted:i wrote a couple of posts on another forum regarding this show and the history of the tribes that divided mainland europe and Briton if anyone is interested in reading them. i wont post if not because its rather long. I'd be interested in this if you don't mind.
|
|
#
?
Mar 20, 2013 17:38
|
|
|
#ROLLO
|
|
#
?
Mar 20, 2013 17:39
|
|
|
Admiral Goodenough posted:
ok, this is in reply to some guys arguing about the saxons not being prepared for a shield wall. " as i said in the Spartacus thread, but its more suited here Well not all english 'soldiers' were trained or even equipped, often going in to battle with nothing more than a helmet and a crappy sword or axe. It was usually a numbers thing with farmers grabbed from local villages and forced to fight. The vikings had been trading and raiding into the germanic counties for many many years, hardened warriors who adapted very well. Sheilds were used by the danes who were vikings as far back as 350bc. i'm sure in a thousand years before they went west, they learned a thing or two. Also at the height of the roman empire where they bordered the lands to the north, it is speculated that the danes served in the roman army And the Romans took of the shield wall idea from the Greeks and the Persians. The saxons really hadnt had much to do for a couple hundred years, it was the middle saxon era, most of the militias were basically just used to keep the peace, the celts were long gone in the umbrias and the country was divided into kingdoms in a fairly peaceful manner. It was another near 200 years before they had any real conflict with the Normans, who were vikings anyway and handed part of france by the french who said "ixnay with the killings yo, this bits for you, farm, trade...we'll be pals." " "The other thing to remember is the tribes that took over Europe around the time of the fall of the empire The Visigoths, Huns, Vandals did all the hard work in defeating the Romans and sacking Rome. By the time they had swept across to Hispania and back. They were the last Germanic forces to have any real battle experience with the Romans. meanwhile in Briton the Romans had fled, the country was back in the hands of the Celts who hadn't really had much to do with the Romans in charge. The Scoti and the Picts and so forth had their eyes on the prize there. The Franks, Saxons, Jutes and Angles had established there own part of the northern European coast. Eventually the Franks pushed back against the southern tribes to gain ground in modern day france, the Saxons, Angles and some of the jutes went to settle Briton apparently with the blessing of the Celts to help them fight the Pitcs and Scoti. Instead they just took over pushed the Britons west into the sea and set up shop. They brought with them a love of polytheism, gods, dragons, elves, trolls and so forth Meanwhile the tribes down south christianised, the Saxons followed suit eventually. A wave of technology spread as what the Romans left over was put to use. All the while the Danes from the north had established a nice base in Jutland(now Denmark) Sweden and bits of Norway, found Thor and pillaging to their liking... now we have Vikings vs the Anglo-Saxons...and then the Frogs. If i tried to date any of that i'd by here all night. roughly 250-300 years from whoa to go. Long story short... the saxons didn't really have a great deal of Roman instruction in warfare. But the certainly had the technology. This is a very good map to show where the tribes stood around 395ad http://www.romanscotland.org.uk/pages/infrastructure/maps/RE395adL.jpg "
|
|
#
?
Mar 20, 2013 17:48
|
|
|
Rocksicles posted:yeah he would have been in his 70's when he died. but it's not a stretch, it works out...technically. there is no mention of how old he was when he died. True, but Ragnar didn't die until 865. Assuming on the show he's... 30, just for arguments sake, he'd be 102 at the time when he dies historically and 82 when he attacks Paris. Basically it looks like they're going to condense events that took place over a century or so into the one guy's lifetime, which is fine with me because it makes for a cool show.
|
|
#
?
Mar 20, 2013 18:07
|
|
|
DoggPickle posted:
Yeah, I'm gonna miss him. They keep killing off my favorite background characters, him and ugly pug face viking.
|
|
#
?
Mar 20, 2013 18:58
|
|
|
I will be fine to see it as a historical fiction very loosely based on actual historical figures. That said, it is amusing to see the Saxons did not try to send more volleys of arrows before they charged. It as if either they are bound by some dumb rigid medieval honor system that allowed them to shoot once or they only brought enough arrows for one volley.
|
|
#
?
Mar 20, 2013 20:12
|
|
|
How is Gabriel Byrne going to explain the missing kid who he used as his buried treasure guard? I agree with the people thinking that he's going down real soon.
|
|
#
?
Mar 20, 2013 20:23
|
|
|
I think the kid was supposed to be an orphan. He mentioned his father in the past tense.
|
|
#
?
Mar 20, 2013 20:33
|
|
|
canuckanese posted:I think the kid was supposed to be an orphan. He mentioned his father in the past tense. It's the kid that the lackey took instead of Bjorn. He's at least got a mother still since she was asking what they were doing with her son.
|
|
#
?
Mar 20, 2013 20:38
|
|
|
Gyges posted:It's the kid that the lackey took instead of Bjorn. He's at least got a mother still since she was asking what they were doing with her son. Oh that's true I didn't remember that. I could see that coming into play sometime in the future.
|
|
#
?
Mar 20, 2013 20:44
|
|
|
canuckanese posted:Everything I've read says that it's just a mini-series, although if it does well I could see it being renewed. Ragnar had a lot of cool adventures. I'm sure it was made so that it had a decent ending in case it was a failure, but I've read several interviews with the cast members where they all talked about future plans of the show. One of them (can't remember which one right now) even talked about having seen the series bible that outlined characters and plotlines for later seasons. So it's definitely being set up to go on past this.
|
|
#
?
Mar 20, 2013 22:41
|
|
|
Deadpool posted:the series bible that outlined characters and plotlines for later seasons Holy poo poo there is literally nothing better to hear. Finally a show with some writers with actual foresight so we don't have "we have to go back to the island!" or "I'm space Moses and I know the way home!" *next season* "Oh I forget"
|
|
#
?
Mar 20, 2013 22:45
|
|
|
doctor 7 posted:Holy poo poo there is literally nothing better to hear. It's not terribly hard to do when you're pulling from an existing source material, be it history or myth.
|
|
#
?
Mar 21, 2013 00:54
|
|
|
This show is great. THEY KEEP KILLING CHRISTIANS. Oh wait, he's about to rape her. Not cool. Oh hey, she killed him. Cool again.
|
|
#
?
Mar 21, 2013 02:37
|
|
|
canuckanese posted:True, but Ragnar didn't die until 865. Assuming on the show he's... 30, just for arguments sake, he'd be 102 at the time when he dies historically and 82 when he attacks Paris. Basically it looks like they're going to condense events that took place over a century or so into the one guy's lifetime, which is fine with me because it makes for a cool show. It could do something like American Horror Story, where they can jump around in time to historically significant events. So next season have it be set 80 years later, with the same actor basically playing Ragnar Ragnarson, the original Ragnar's grandson. thrakkorzog fucked around with this message at 07:45 on Mar 21, 2013 |
|
#
?
Mar 21, 2013 06:42
|
|
|
Wouldn't he be Ragnar Bjornson? Besides, wikipedia said that Bjorn goes on to become Bjorn Ironside who was supposed to be a super badass in his own right (possibly surpassing Ragnar just like the oracle and Floki said) Does anyone else think the oracle guy should have been a berserker instead? Or even just a blind old guy? I feel like they tried to go 300 with the oracle and I think it's dumb.
|
|
#
?
Mar 21, 2013 18:29
|
|
|
Tumbleweed Chingada posted:Wouldn't he be Ragnar Bjornson? Besides, wikipedia said that Bjorn goes on to become Bjorn Ironside who was supposed to be a super badass in his own right (possibly surpassing Ragnar just like the oracle and Floki said) Yeah the best story from Bjorn Ironside was his creative siege solution, he had his men beg the local bishop to let him be buried in the church after he made a deathbed conversation. He then leaped out of the coffin after being carried into the church by his personal bodyguard and then successfully cut his way all the way to the town gate to let in the waiting viking army.
|
|
#
?
Mar 21, 2013 20:37
|
|
|
etalian posted:Yeah the best story from Bjorn Ironside was his creative siege solution, he had his men beg the local bishop to let him be buried in the church after he made a deathbed conversion. Pretty sure this is the coolest thing I'll read all week.
|
|
#
?
Mar 21, 2013 21:37
|
|
|
etalian posted:Yeah the best story from Bjorn Ironside was his creative siege solution, he had his men beg the local bishop to let him be buried in the church after he made a deathbed conversation. Hahaha God drat what a slippery turd
|
|
#
?
Mar 22, 2013 16:36
|
|
|
solovyov posted:Pretty sure this is the coolest thing I'll read all week. I enjoyed the story since it's a good example of a ridiculous Spartacus action scene happening in real life.
|
|
#
?
Mar 22, 2013 17:10
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 7, 2024 23:36 |
|
|
The best part about that is, the vikings don't care about being liars to Christians. Odin's blood brother is Loki the master of lies. Loki used lies to win all sorts of poo poo for the Gods all the time. Even if they had found out he was faking in their minds he'd have gone to Valhalla for the sheer ballsiness of his plan.
|
|
#
?
Mar 22, 2013 17:14
|
|
