No one would have gone around saying “we are Vikings” in the 9th century: this owes far more to our 19th-century inheritance and popular imaginings than it does to how early medieval people might have talked about and perceived themselves. King Alfred’s court didn’t entertain the sons of Ragnar on his side (series five), and the Rus Vikings of Kiev didn’t launch an invasion of Norway (series six)!Ī key problematic historical issue is the emergence of ‘ Vikings’ as a self-defined identity. Likewise, Ragnar Lothbrok unquestionably didn’t lead the famous Viking raid against the monastery at Lindisfarne in 793 and stay alive to lead huge armies against Paris in both 845 and 885–86 (series three and four).
For example, there is no evidence beyond legend that captured heathen Norsemen or apostates would be crucified by bishops in 9th-century Wessex, any more than the idea that ‘ blood-eagling’ is a confirmed pagan sacrificial execution rite (as shown in series two and four).
Having said that, there are some pretty prominent features of the show that test the patience of even the most liberal critic.
History vs entertainment, and the historical accuracy of Vikings