Reviews

I am delighted to see all the reviewers energetically debating the merits of "The Vikings" first episode----it demonstrates that they acknowledge the historical value of the period the show is portraying. Yes, there were historical inaccuracies in the plot. This will enlighten the scriptwriters to the fact that viewers ARE paying attention! That being said, I thoroughly enjoyed the first episode---all that lush eye candy for a novice historical student of the Viking culture! This episode has chosen to jump in at some point in time, and chose the year of 793----without all the back story of a long and comparatively stable history of trade with the "southern lands". The Scandinavian countries were undefined and fluid at that time, and were generally lumped into the "heathen" northmen.

In order to impress the pope and to be acknowledged as the holy Roman Emperor of Europe, around the year 772 Charlemagne took a great interest in converting the heathens to Christianity. In his campaign to forcibly convert the northmen, he first baptized, then brutally murdered the recalcitrant civilian pagans----many, many thousands at a time. The northmen who managed to escape to their more northern cousins told of the brutality (and extraordinarily rich) Christians. The attack on Lindesfarne was undoubtedly vicious, but did not occur without previous provocation.

We all watch the show for different reasons, but if the producers can keep a reasonable level of historical accuracy, and weave in the interest and action needed to balance the whole show out----I can see a long run for "The Vikings". I am watching.