The Unforgivable Inaccuracy that Makes History’s Vikings (Almost) Unwatchable

History’s hit new show “Vikings” has drawn a fair amount of praise from critics who have hailed it as the next “Game of Thrones” and the show that will rescue the network formerly known as The History Channel from its “Ancient Aliens” past. The show follows the saga of Ragnar Lothbrok, a legendary 8th century Viking who carved out a small kingdom for himself. “Vikings” has been renewed for a second season, and its unclear whether they’ll stay with Ragnar or jump ahead to show Viking quests to Iceland, Greenland, and beyond. Personally, I’d love to see them tackle the attempt by some eastern Vikings to sack Constantinople, but that will probably have to wait for season 67 at this rate. Either way, despite the praise from critics and viewers, the show has come under fire from historians. Often the criticism focuses on how the Vikings are dressed, whether Iceland Spar was really used , or what type of government they had. All these concerns are fine for the nit-picking historian, yet they omit quite possibly the most egregious error – that the Viking world had no knowledge of the British Isles or anything outside the Baltic.

Some have pointed this glaring inaccuracy out, most notably a piece in the American Spectator which was overshadowed by the author’s insanely paranoid argument that the show was an attack on American conservatism. The belief that 8th century Scandinavians were isolated  from the rest of the world is preposterous and so easily demonstrably false. For instance, ask scholars the causes of the Viking Age and one of the most popular hypotheses is that Scandinavian traders were facing increasing discrimination from an increasingly Christianized Europe. Therefore, Viking raids began as reprisals for attacks on their merchants. In this sense the show does invoke the clash of civilizations and religions, yet from a position that neither knew of each other. To see why this narrative of isolation is plainly stupid, one only needs to look at the origins of Anglo-Saxon England. The history of pre-medieval England, perhaps more than any other country, is one of invasion and assimilation. Some of the earliest invaders came from what is now Spain’s basque region, followed by the Britons, the Romans, the Angles and Saxons, the Danes, and finally the Normans before things settled down. The last two are more or less Viking invasions even though the Normans were Christianized at that point, yet the Anglo-Saxon invasion clearly shows some parallels to the later ones. First, take a look where they were before moving on to England.


Yup, that’s right at the mouth of Vikingland, in modern-day Denmark, a full half-millenia before the Viking Age. Of course the reasons for the Anglo-Saxon invasion differ from the causes of Viking expansion. Most historians agree that geographic pressures forced migration from the eroding landscape of Northern Europe and various communities of Angles, Saxons, Frisians, and Jutes lived side-by-side in England. A migration map provides a more detailed view of the 5th century.

It should be fairly clear then, that Scandinavian communities had a close relationship and history with the British Isles, (not to mention that all Danish Vikings had to do was walk south to realize that there is a world outside the Baltic). One could view Scandinavia as the center of two spheres, one in the Baltic and one in the North Sea. That would explain why Danish and Norwegian vikings raided and built trade networks to the West, and why Swedish vikings went east, establishing kingdoms in Russia. Viking expansion was very much based on already known trade routes and expanding those routes. For instance, Dublin was founded as a Viking trading post. Viking culture certainly focused on battle and personal glory, but these were more influences for their expansion and quests for new territories rather than their sole motivation.

I understand why the show might try to take such a narrative – voyage and discovery comprise the common conception of Vikings. But if this is what they wanted to go for, then why not tell the story of Leif Erickson or other Vikings who really were explorers? There is not a single episode that does not play off the supposed VIking ignorance of Britain or vice versa and every time it makes me cringe and takes it out of any historical context. In this way, Vikings comes off as much more fantasy than historical drama (the opposite might be said of Game of Thrones). The viewer gets lost in the mythical realm of Scandinavia with staggering mountains and fjords serving as symbols for its isolation rather than the flat plains of Denmark bordering the Frankish empire.

Why is this important?

This portrayal of Vikings would be forgivable if it wasn’t on a channel called History. I’m not saying they need to get every little detail right, but they can’t misconstrue the entire fabric of the past to try to milk dry a new world/clash of civilization narrative. Ignoring trade networks and cross cultural interaction ignores one of the largest driving factors of history, it’s how ideas spread, how alliances form, and how empires rise. Very few times, outside the age of exploration, have groups encountered each other unexpectedly, without knowledge of their existence. The Roman Empire knew relatively little of the Chinese, yet thrived off trade with them, especially for their silk. Scandinavia knew about their neighbors.

This view of history also promotes the myth of barbarism, that anything outside the Greek/Roman/Christian worlds were just tribes of barbarians, ignorant about their world and intent on raiding and pillaging. History has done some job to ameliorate that by giving glimpses of the legal system and religion, which is why I say it feels more like fantasy. We tend to view barbarians on the periphery of great civilizations as distinct and separate groups when in reality there was plenty of interlinking networks and cross-culture communication. Even before the Viking Age the Danes had begun constructing defensive fortifications against the Franks in the form of Danevirkes, clearly designed to mark their boundaries and keep others out much like Hadrian’s Wall in Scotland. Nonetheless the border town of Hedeby served as an important trading center during Ragnar’s time between the Franks, Slavs, and Scandinavians.

The Viking Age did not emerge as a clash of civilizations but rather as the north’s ascendancy to power relative to other European kingdoms, and alongside the economic growth of the Frankish and Anglo-Saxon kingdoms. Portraying Scandinavians as internally responsible for the sudden start of the Viking Age by designing a new ship breaks a technological bottleneck that never even existed.

This critique may feel like nitpicking, but the narrative is referenced in nearly every episode and is the driving motivation for the Vikings. Outside of this glaring error it’s not necessarily a bad show, it’s just hard to compartmentalize the terrible history from the good.


29 thoughts on “The Unforgivable Inaccuracy that Makes History’s Vikings (Almost) Unwatchable

  1. I just discovered your blog following the link from cracked will guaranteed be coming back to enjoy your writings again. As for the show Vikings historical accuracy would be greatly appreciated its a damn shame the history channel constantly rewrites history and misinforms people. The true story of events in that time is more then entertaining enough.

    1. Enjoy the damn show.. Go back and retake a history if you want to know the accuracy despite our generation, whom were not present to actually know what the fuck happened.. People tend to exaggerate their life accomplishments anyways and who’s to say history itself is accurate?

      1. The problem with enjoying the “damn show” is that it is forwarded from a source that would seem to claim some legitimacy in accuracy of historical matters. Likewise, most of our his-story educational sources are not much better. So taking a “history class” is not a remedy either. I’ve seen but a couple episodes of the show and found it to be not much better than playing “Mortal Combat” as it – like so much media – glorifies and exaggerates violence, often exceedingly so. Redundantly so. Given your use of the f-word and attitude, I can see you drank the Kool-Aid like most of the population who are into that as a form of, what word did you use? Enjoyment? Wow. Maybe the last teenager who murdered students at a high school somewhere was an enjoying fan of the show. The brain is like clay, it registers impressions and if given an overdose of certain impressions can no longer be overridden by the parts of the brain that control those impulses and keep people decent. What you and so many fail to see is the agenda behind all the violent and sexual content of such shows, particularly the past ten to fifteen years. TVs put people into alpha wave state which makes them highly suggestible and therefore a dry sponge for the dark side’s dirty water and subliminal messages. We have increasing levels of violent behavior in children younger and younger as well as higher levels of teen birth in a world that is supposed to be progressive and modern. It would appear that we are d-evolving instead. Before you respond to this with a predictable tirade of expletives aimed my way, I will let you know that I am in the health and educational fields and hold two degrees. I’ve done a considerable amount of research about this problem because I happen to care about the human race and would like to see it become an honorable race rather than the joke of the cosmos. I don’t know what your area of expertise is, but I can tell you at least took one class, “Cerse Werds 101” and probably got a high grade. I will end with suggesting some homework: watch the episode “Mercy’s Errand” on the old Star Trek and see if you can figure something out. See what Captain Kirk ends up learning. Oh yeah, the audio/visual special effects are droll and dated, but the message is intact. See if you are smart enough to figure it out.

  2. I’m really into history, but history aside the Vikings is a really good show, great charactors & good action…true or not it beats the crap out of all those lame “reality” shows and boring sitcoms !

    1. Yes, the show had me at “VIkings!” I had to say “(almost) unwatchable” because I enjoy it and will probably keep following it when it comes back next season.

    2. Agreed. Thank you and yes its on the history channel but everything on tv is basically reality TV now days. You wanna learn something go travel or go to a library

  3. I couldn’t have written it out any better! I also like your comparison with Game of Thrones, here i can’t agree more. While GoT is fantasy it is probably the most “historically realistic” show that depicts the medevial world and society damn well, and that makes me sad that so called historical entertainment often is not very historical.

    Just myy thoughts, thanks for a good read!

  4. I love this series, but saw something dumb in the 3rd episode of the 2nd season. A little ways into the episode, we see the King Ecbert of Wessex, speaking about the northmen, while arranging small metal objects on a table. The metal objects are scepter-shaped, and with good reason. They’re called “dorjes” which are TIBETAN ritual instruments used by BUddhist monks in conjunction with ritual bells called drilbu. TIBETAN!!!!!!

  5. the portrayal of the Saxon soldiery does my head in, did in the first season with that scene on the beach, the way they are dressed, armed and how they “fight”, as far as i know its totally inaccurate, thats where i find the program falls flat

    1. I concur Robert. To be honest I very nearly stopped watching Vikings when I saw how the Englisc were portrayed… the list has far too many inaccuracies for me to whinge and moan about. That said after a struggle to get past the drivel I now watch half bemused and in the same frame of mind as I watch all the other factually wrong ‘historical’ films , movies and programmes.

  6. I remember my jaw dropping when I started watching the series. I couldn’t believe they were suggesting these people had no knowledge of the west! I had to assume they were short-cutting history, trying to tell a (somewhat) plausible way the first “vikings” might have sailed west to explore tales of a green and fertile land before it was common knowledge. But then the reticence of the jarl was also baffling. The choice of clothing and tattoos was to be expected since the show wants to be popular but it seems to me the climate is rather mild nontheless. I do think the show is entertaining, despite the inaccuracies, and despite some questionable acting (Jarls Haraldson & Borg in particular), but I’m always surprised when people change history or even books in ways that don’t seem to help the storyline or plot. Why fix what isn’t broke? Makes one wonder if if they’re salvaging a section due to some acting or budgeting issue, or some other interference. I don’t make movies, but if I did, I would be too embarrassed to have such incorrect content displayed in the world forever.

  7. I am impressed. Very well written. I love the show, but as you write, it could be so much better if the scenery and the facts was correct. Denmark, is flat, and the parts of Norway and Sweden that was populated ( mostly ) was at the coasts in the south. Uppsala, looked like it was up in Geiranger, when in fact its just small hills there. Vikings by the way, what was that ? Svearna went to east from around 600.
    It was going raiding that was called ” Gå Viking “

  8. No, you’re wrong. The show does not suggest that all Scandinavians were oblivious to the isles. It simply follows one small group of Norse explorers. It is entirely plausible that a group of people would’ve been unaware of their Western neighbours. Historical documentation was relatively sparse in that part of the world, in that age – you can’t make such assertions.

    1. Even for a small group of Norse explorers, being oblivious to the British Isles is wildly implausible. There had been regular trade routes for almost a thousand years! Trade and travel was the bread and butter of Norse society, and anyone would surely have heard of the British Isles through word of mouth from neighbouring communities or travelers. It’s as ridiculous as basing a modern series on the premise that no-one knows about the existence of China.

      And it is especially ridiculous, because Angle-Saxons were Scandinavians from the same general area as Ragnar Lodbrog, i.e. what’s now Denmark.

  9. Good piece, nicely written. I agree, the history is way off. I’ve just started watching S2 and was prompted to google for discussions on the accuracy or lack thereof. It’s been as much fun to make lists of the inaccuracies as it has to watch the show. These greatly detract from enjoyment of what should have been a great show, one which I was really excited about before seeing the first episode.

    The Danish Vikings, seafaring folk, being unaware of the existence of that great big island due west! Even if they always sailed hugging the coastline of what is now Low Countries and France they would see England well before they hit the Pas de Calais.

    All the English (no such nation for another hundred years or so) seem to be Christian without exception, which wasn’t the case. The pagan Saxons had pretty much the same religion as the Norse.

    And there is the battle tactics. Shield wall? Yes they did. They learnt it off the Anglo Saxons who learnt it off the Romano British who learnt it off the legions! And probably plenty of other post Roman western European people too, like the Franks. And in S2E1 I’ve just watched, Rollo’s men and Ragnar’s men fought. Two shield walls facing off, fine yes, they did it all the time. Then what? They charge,at a dead run, at each other! Seriously? Suicide. The first side whose shield wall broke cohesion would get slaughtered! The two walls would push and shove, and hack, and thrust spears. Try to break shields, or bash heads, or stab legs under the shields, or hook shields down with axe blades,

  10. This is an old post, but it’s also worthwhile mentioning that Saxons/Angles/Jutes and Danii/Swedes/Geats (the ancestors of the Vikings) all once shared a common language, and common religion; hell, continental Saxons were rebelling against Franks trying to turn them away from Odin, Thor, etc as late as the Viking Age.

  11. I like Vikings and am not overly fussed with historical inaccuracy (though as you rightly suggest, the History Channel should give historical accuracy more due diligence).

    However, what really interrupts the suspension of disbelief is the way in which Norse and Saxons converse so freely with one another throughout the series, particularly given the dodgy premise of these ‘Vikings’ having no previous contact with the British Isles. These are totally different languages. How does the captured monk have ANY knowledge of Norse?

    Historical accuracy aside, this inconsistency enters the realm of unbelievability. It’s a shame because the linguistic incomprehension between Norse and Saxons could actually have made the story more interesting.

    1. Archaeology has proved trade existed between the Baltic and the British Isles since the Bronze Age. Look at all the Amber that turns up in British Bronze Age burials. Therefore it is inconceivable that the Vikings didn’t know about the British Isles.

      With regard to the Viking and Anglo-Saxon languages, a lot of work has been done on this. Research has shown that many of the root words were the same and that they simply had different genders and inflected endings. When the Vikings settled in the Uk (and they settled in their thousands even having their own kingdom) it was quickly learnt that if prepositions were used with the root word (and no inflections or gender), the Anglo-Saxons and the Danes could converse quite well. This is shown from abbout 850 onwards in the charters and other writings. This practice started in the north and spread south over the next hundred years or so. More proof of the Viking influence on English can be seen in the personal pronouns (All Scandinavian in origin) and the plural of the verb to be (Scandinavian – the original English was we sind (on), thou sind (on) etc. There are about 450 words in modern core English of Scandinavian origin but many more were common to both.

  12. I appreciate the article; really well-written. However, I have to disagree. You have to remember this storyline is based off of the sagas about Ragnar and his sons. There is truth to these tales but also exaggerations created as a result of the story being told over time (since the Danes themselves didn’t do much/any documentation during such times). Also the show admittingly skips from one historic event to another that might have actually happened 100 years within each other in reality, but this is done for the viewers, which I respect quite frankly. Overall, the characteristics of people (the portrayal of the different women all the way to Ragnar’s odd quirks (since was was considered Odinic in the tales) are actually pretty accurate. The costumes, hair, and languages are spectacularly accurate. The show has intentionally strayed from documentation and the sagas but with intellectual reasons. Even if there was trade going on between Scandinavia and the British Isles, it doesn’t mean this specific group of Danes had to participate in it (as another individual commented). Ragnar was famous for being a Viking, not trading with the Isles. So, I’d be disappointed if they did include that detail in the show. History Channel nailed it, if you ask me.

    1. Sorry friend, but you’re wrong- the costumes are not “Spectaculary accurate”. In fact they’re Spectacularly innacurate, as a basic google search will show you.

  13. No you’re not knit-picking but filmmakers like drama and surprise and big contrasts.

    Remembers when John Dunbar in Dances with Wolves introduces firearms to the plains Indians in the late 1860s? Gosh, those guys had never seen or even heard of such things! That had my eyes rolling! Like the Danes who had never heard of the British Isles!

    The biggest howler for me are The battle scenes where neither English or French foot soldiers can possibly kill or even wound a mighty super hero Viking, ( who need no armor or helmet) no matter how badly the Vikings are outnumbered and pushed. These Marvel heroes are invulnerable unless… Of course, they’re fighting each other. Well, that’s different.

  14. I am not convinced that the show is supposed to be historically accurate, so I will set that aside. I would like to comment on the religion comments. Folk have said that ‘they practiced the same religion” which is far from true. This is like saying Islam and Judaism are the same religion. What we can see about the religious practices comes from literature written after the fact such as the Islandik sogur, or Anglo-Saxon Chronicle, etc… as well as some halristingar. What we can see if we look at all of these is that some of the differences are profound. For example, the lower Germanics did not have any concept of the Vanic deities until later, whereas the Scandinavian did. We also find that when we look at the religion of the Saxons as it was recorded that it included far more Christianity, and implies the 2 religions coexisted, and mixed. This was not the case for the Scandinavians. It is not a proper POV to simply say “oh, look Saxon’s have a deity name Thor, and Scandinavians have one named Tor” and assume everything was the same. Yes, they are the same deities, but the culture surrounding then, as far as how those deities fit into mans culture was very different. Evidence shows Saxon’s were involved in more worship of deity, whereas Scandinavians show more worship of ancestors and the landvaettr. Scandinavian sources even claim lineage to deity, and in Heimskringla implies that the deities are deified humans. The elf concept was also major to both the Scandinvian and Saxon branches of Heathenism, but were very different. As you go west the elf/alfar paradigm becomes more and ore like the Irish fae paradigm, until you get to Iceland where the alfar and fae are lumped together under the label ‘huldrafilk.’ In Eastern Scandinavia the human, alfar, Vanir, and Aesir were somewhat transient… And the implication is that it is an evolutionary thing. Human becomes elf, elf becomes Vanir, Vanir becomes Aesir (in a few spots sagas call Vanir elves, as well as calling Aesir elves). So, sorry about long ramble, I just wanted to pint out that yes they had a similar and related religion, but not ‘the same’ by any stretch..

  15. It’s an OK show, but when they can’t get things as simple as attire and small inanimate objects correct, one must question how much they actually care about the history.

    In the end, it’s just a show. Watch it, or don’t.

  16. I haven’t read all the comments, so I don’t know if anyone else has mentioned this but: it’s not the Vikings who don’t know anything about England, it’s just Ragnar’s earldom. And it’s not that they don’t know anything at all… there’s the wanderer who told Ragnar about England and, later on, about Paris. I’m not a historian at all, so I don’t know how much communication was there among Vikings throughout that huge territor, but since Athelstan had been there as a missionary, then, I guess, that means the series does admit to some contact between these civilizations. It”s just careless in the way it depicts this contact: they know each other deeply when the plot requires it, and don’t know each other at all when the plot requires otherwise.
    For me, it is the depiction of England and Paris that doesn’t seem right. We do know much more about England and Paris than we know about the Vikings. Yet, I can’t mention a single post about that!

  17. Granted it is common knowledge that television nine times out of ten mixes some inaccuracies with the truth- it is up to us as humans/ parents to let this be understood- how many people would have never heard of Ragnar, Ivar, Bjorn, and Ubba and the rest of the historical figures- it’s a great show in the midst of garbage television- so if you want to separate the facts from the hype then do your own research and reading- God forbid anyone should ever pick up a book – but then again we’re talking about television entertainment- it’s not the History channel’s or any other television network’s job to inform you of the facts- that is our very own job- it is up to them to entertain- and as far as that goes I say “hats off” I love the show and the characters and the creator of the show and the history channel for showing it- kudos

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s