Who's watching Vikings on the History channel? - Printable Version
+- Roosh V Forum (https://rooshvforum.network)
+-- Forum: Main (https://rooshvforum.network/forum-1.html)
+--- Forum: Everything Else (https://rooshvforum.network/forum-7.html)
+--- Thread: Who's watching Vikings on the History channel? (/thread-24622.html)
+- Roosh V Forum (https://rooshvforum.network)
+-- Forum: Main (https://rooshvforum.network/forum-1.html)
+--- Forum: Everything Else (https://rooshvforum.network/forum-7.html)
+--- Thread: Who's watching Vikings on the History channel? (/thread-24622.html)
Who's watching Vikings on the History channel? - Piankhi - 12-02-2017
Season 5 is back with episodes 1 and 2. Thank the gods.
Who's watching Vikings on the History channel? - Simeon_Strangelight - 12-02-2017
Quote: (12-02-2017 07:25 AM)Piankhi Wrote:
Season 5 is back with episodes 1 and 2. Thank the gods.
You are not alone in your enthusiasm - a legion of feminists and SJWs are with you:
Quote:[url=https://twitter.com/dedaleira/status/568077153239240704][/url]
Who's watching Vikings on the History channel? - Piankhi - 12-02-2017
Vikings still mops the floor with whatever else is on tv even with the PC rhetoric.
Who's watching Vikings on the History channel? - realologist - 12-02-2017
Quote: (12-02-2017 07:56 AM)Zelcorpion Wrote:
Quote: (12-02-2017 07:25 AM)Piankhi Wrote:
Season 5 is back with episodes 1 and 2. Thank the gods.
You are not alone in your enthusiasm - a legion of feminists and SJWs are with you:
Quote:[url=https://twitter.com/dedaleira/status/568077153239240704][/url]
SPOILERS!!!!!
We get it. You hate the show. Of course it's embellished. It's a TV show. Suspend your disbelief some.
It's a well known in the legends that Lagertha was highly regarded as a shield maiden. Obviously extremely exaggerated in the show but she doesn't gain any power with her fighting prowess. It's always fucking, deception, backstabbing and assassination. Sounds like a modern woman to me. It's all going to come crashing down on her as well. Again like a modern woman.
And your boy Floki didn't become a Muslim. He doubled down on the Viking gods and found what appears to be Iceland.
Who's watching Vikings on the History channel? - YoungBlade - 12-02-2017
^
Gonna correct some common misconceptions about shield maidens. Shield maidens never fought. A shield maiden is simply the woman who helps the men get ready for war, possibly stands nearby at the battlefield to rush in and give support to the line with new shields, seaxes, what have you. Like a squire, but usually the wife, mother, sister, or daughter of the warrior. In the sagas, there are two examples of women “fighting.” One is freydis eriksdottir, sister of Leif eriksson, who deceived her husband into hall burning two business associates, and she carried an axe to kill any survivors running out of the burning hall (she was also heavily pregnant according to the source). The other is a middle aged woman named katja who rapes and murders a young man who rejected her advances. Neither are referred to as shield maidens.
In short, women never actually fought, and shield maidens were not warriors.
In regards to Lagertha, she actually live several hundred years before the show’s setting. The Gesta Danorum places her about a hundred years after Dan and Angul settle in Denmark. She is referred to as a shield maiden, but again never fought, only supported the men.
Who's watching Vikings on the History channel? - DigitalNomad - 12-02-2017
Quote: (12-02-2017 07:56 AM)Zelcorpion Wrote:Have you watched the 4 season? It would seem unlikely any of them would have made it this far.
Quote: (12-02-2017 07:25 AM)Piankhi Wrote:
Season 5 is back with episodes 1 and 2. Thank the gods.
You are not alone in your enthusiasm - a legion of feminists and SJWs are with you:
Quote:[url=https://twitter.com/dedaleira/status/568077153239240704][/url]
Who's watching Vikings on the History channel? - Simeon_Strangelight - 12-02-2017
Took a gander at the current season after the insufferable last one.
They toned down the Social Justice Borg Feminism stuff considerable. Of course it was not gone, but it likely was that disgusting last season that it resulted in massive loss of ratings among their core demographic. It was not enough to be praised by the cuck-press and the feminists - those are not fans of the show, but men are.
At this state of the fucking media you can be happy if there is any show that depicts white men being in any way or form truly heroic and strong. Most 1850s British shows already depict London to be 30% black and ruled by feminists.
-----------
So they toned it down and made even the lesbian wife of Lagartha more feminine. But of course they could not let go of it completely and have the fucking ALL-FEMALE-ELITE SQUAD (!!!!!!!!!!!!!) running around with shields all the time taking the shield-maiden crap quite literally.
Also funny was the reverse-rape of the rebellious king:
Yup - that is exactly how all men would react after being raped by a beautiful young woman and queen. Rape does not work the same way on men - at least not when pretty women are doing the raping. She could have let her male fighters (those cucks that remain among her elite female fighting force) do the raping - that would be real rape for a man.
Anyway - it's certainly better. They let go of the Islam ass-kissing of Floki and he discovered Iceland.
Also they introduced a warrior-priest bishop in the form of Jonathan Rhys Meyers - so Christianity is shown quite clearly as the adopted warrior religion that it was for a time.
My guess is that they had to tone down the bullshit propaganda or be cancelled, so they did, but propaganda is unfortunately still propaganda - however far more bearable and watchable.
Who's watching Vikings on the History channel? - LeBeau - 12-05-2017
Since I've created this thread I've been negligent in adding my own posts.
I actually stopped watching Vikings at the mid point break in Season 4 after the first 10 episodes.
I didn't notice a huge drop off in quality, but in general I'm just watching a lot less TV and movies these days.
The storyline also became a bit less interesting as there were more and more side plots created and less focus on Ragnar himself.
Respect to the RVF posters in this thread who can drop real historical knowledge to fill in the gaps in the show and discuss relevant masculine issues at the same time.
Who's watching Vikings on the History channel? - spokepoker - 12-06-2017
Ivar the boneless was real, but nobody really knows why he was called that.
Him being paraplegic is just the shows interpretation, but for reals the dude conquered everything hard core back in the day.
The vikings held York forever, they're still digging up tons of viking stuff there to this day.
Who's watching Vikings on the History channel? - YoungBlade - 12-06-2017
^
The most hilarious interpretation was he had chronic ED and conquered everything to prove his manhood.
![[Image: lol.gif]](https://rooshvforum.network/images/smilies/new/lol.gif)
Who's watching Vikings on the History channel? - questor70 - 12-07-2017
Quote: (12-02-2017 02:13 PM)YoungBlade Wrote:
Gonna correct some common misconceptions about shield maidens. Shield maidens never fought.
Jumping into this thread late but there was a story recently where they found a burial of a woman all decked out as a warrior.
http://www.history.com/news/dna-proves-v...l-warriors
This doesn't necessarily prove that woman warriors who actually got into the fray were common, but there were probably at least some outliers. Maybe they were lesbians. Who knows?
Who's watching Vikings on the History channel? - YoungBlade - 12-07-2017
Quote: (12-07-2017 10:03 AM)questor70 Wrote:
Quote: (12-02-2017 02:13 PM)YoungBlade Wrote:
Gonna correct some common misconceptions about shield maidens. Shield maidens never fought.
Jumping into this thread late but there was a story recently where they found a burial of a woman all decked out as a warrior.
http://www.history.com/news/dna-proves-v...l-warriors
This doesn't necessarily prove that woman warriors who actually got into the fray were common, but there were probably at least some outliers. Maybe they were lesbians. Who knows?
No, it's referenced multiple times in the sagas important women were buried with warriors' gear to demonstrate their wealth and status. But of course the field of history is filled with feminists who search for what isn't there. It's the same as when they claimed Vikings were muslims due to a geometric design on cloth vaguely resembling arabic calligraphy.
Who's watching Vikings on the History channel? - Simeon_Strangelight - 12-07-2017
Quote: (12-07-2017 01:10 PM)YoungBlade Wrote:
Quote: (12-07-2017 10:03 AM)questor70 Wrote:
Quote: (12-02-2017 02:13 PM)YoungBlade Wrote:
Gonna correct some common misconceptions about shield maidens. Shield maidens never fought.
Jumping into this thread late but there was a story recently where they found a burial of a woman all decked out as a warrior.
http://www.history.com/news/dna-proves-v...l-warriors
This doesn't necessarily prove that woman warriors who actually got into the fray were common, but there were probably at least some outliers. Maybe they were lesbians. Who knows?
No, it's referenced multiple times in the sagas important women were buried with warriors' gear to demonstrate their wealth and status. But of course the field of history is filled with feminists who search for what isn't there. It's the same as when they claimed Vikings were muslims due to a geometric design on cloth vaguely resembling arabic calligraphy.
Exactly - all the female "warriors" were strangely found without one single injury. Also the famous one blasted out recently was also totally unblemished. In contrast most of the Viking men had numerous injuries, broken bones, etc. Back in those times even training exercises when young were quite common. Never mind that a good chunk of them tried to die in battle as well - even if you made it to old age - you went into battle one last time even if you knew that this would be your last one.
Who's watching Vikings on the History channel? - Piankhi - 12-09-2017
Now Ragnar is gone I find King Harald to be the most interesting character in the show.
Who's watching Vikings on the History channel? - questor70 - 12-09-2017
Quote: (12-07-2017 01:10 PM)YoungBlade Wrote:
No, it's referenced multiple times in the sagas
If you treat the sagas literally then you believe in Thor, Odin, and Loki?
What a people say about their history and what it was actually like are two different things.
Who's watching Vikings on the History channel? - YoungBlade - 12-09-2017
Quote: (12-09-2017 11:56 AM)questor70 Wrote:
Quote: (12-07-2017 01:10 PM)YoungBlade Wrote:
No, it's referenced multiple times in the sagas
If you treat the sagas literally then you believe in Thor, Odin, and Loki?
What a people say about their history and what it was actually like are two different things.
If you can give me a reason they would lie about female warriors I'll entertain the notion.
Who's watching Vikings on the History channel? - Roardog - 12-11-2017
I'm enjoying the new season so far although is Rolo no longer a character?
Seasons 1 - 3 with Ragnar, Rolo and Loki being central will always be my favourites.
Season 4 got good in the second half but the first half I didn't enjoy so much.
Does anyone else miss the original intro video? I know the song is still the same but they changed the accompanying imagery in season 3 I think which I didn't like.
Who's watching Vikings on the History channel? - realologist - 12-11-2017
They got one thing right for sure. Skip to 1:27
![[Image: aqmZf.jpg]](http://i.imgur.com/aqmZf.jpg)
Who's watching Vikings on the History channel? - Piankhi - 12-18-2017
New season is alright. But I feel the actor playing Ivar Boneless isnt that good.
Who's watching Vikings on the History channel? - Nordwand - 12-18-2017
Sadly, I hit the eject button at the end of season 3, when Lagertha's feminist SBS/Navy Seal team was shown swimming across the Paris moat.
Who's watching Vikings on the History channel? - MikeS - 12-18-2017
Quote: (12-18-2017 08:04 AM)Piankhi Wrote:
New season is alright. But I feel the actor playing Ivar Boneless isnt that good.
I think the character just isn't written as very likable. Massive overcompensation for his handicap.
I miss Ragnar. Björn is one of the few left I like (aside from Floki, but he's a bit isolated this season), and he still doesn't have nearly as much presence as his father.
But I do like that this has been a rare show where a few decades pass rather than just months or a few years.
Who's watching Vikings on the History channel? - Simeon_Strangelight - 12-18-2017
Quote: (12-18-2017 04:09 PM)MikeS Wrote:
Quote: (12-18-2017 08:04 AM)Piankhi Wrote:
New season is alright. But I feel the actor playing Ivar Boneless isnt that good.
I think the character just isn't written as very likable. Massive overcompensation for his handicap.
I miss Ragnar. Björn is one of the few left I like (aside from Floki, but he's a bit isolated this season), and he still doesn't have nearly as much presence as his father.
But I do like that this has been a rare show where a few decades pass rather than just months or a few years.
They not only have written him as handicapped, but also impotent! That is probably deliberate to literally castrate him - toxic masculinity and all. It is one thing to be handicapped, but also impotent? Then what's the sense of being king? He would not even have children. The Viking leadership back then was still tightly knit - you needed to be respected by your peers for something that you did.
The historical character Ivar the Boneless certainly had something going for him - he possibly that he made up his weakness with charisma, intelligence and maybe other skills. And I seriously doubt that could have kept it a secret that he was unable to have sex or father children.
Who's watching Vikings on the History channel? - Stallion - 12-19-2017
The historical character was a pretty badass fighter, and taller than most warriors. He was also known for his wisdom and for being a cunning strategist. There is no mention of any handicap in contemporary sources... Only the nickname "Boneless", which may be even a mistranslation that later scribes misunderstood for a disability.
More recent sagas introduce the whole "Boneless" thing as a curse because Ragnar got horny (same as in the series). They were written centuries after he died.
However if I remember correctly, they don't specify how severe his handicap is. He went to battle on top of a shield, but when I read them I got the impression he could fight on his own if needed.
Good read about the historical character
http://www.englishmonarchs.co.uk/vikings_10.html
From another source
"However, more plausible and prosaic explanations to account for Ivarr's nickname can be found. Firstly, the sagas also say that 'neither love nor lust played any part in his (Ivarr's) life', and he died childless, so perhaps he was impotent - unable to achieve an erection - "boneless." Secondly, an even more readily acceptable explanation would be an ironic nickname, for which the Vikings were well-known, in much the same way as we refer to a short man as "Lofty" or a tall man as "Tiny" - so a larger than average Viking - say six foot nine inches to seven foot two inches, with obviously huge bones, might be called "Boneless", or he may simply have had very supple joints (in modern terms - 'double-jointed'). Ivarr's nickname could be as simple as that, with the Sagas' explanation no more than a 300 year-late rationalisation."
Who's watching Vikings on the History channel? - sterling_archer - 12-19-2017
Quote:Quote:
Professor Martin Biddle of Oxford University and his wife Birthe claim that the skeleton of a nine foot tall Viking warrior, discovered during excavations at the churchyard of St Wystan's in Repton in southern Derbyshire may be that of Ivar the Boneless. In 873 the Great Army is said to have travelled to Repton, where it took up quarters for the winter. The mass grave at Repton was initially uncovered in 1686 by a labourer named Thomas Walker but the grave was eventually recovered and its existence forgotten. The Saga of Ragnar Lodbrok itself states that Ivar the Boneless was buried in England.
![[Image: huh.gif]](https://rooshvforum.network/images/smilies/huh.gif)
Not historical but just throwing this interesting story here. There is a widespread myth of mighty gigantic warriors from ancient times up medieval that were always a result of mixing between godlike beings and humans. It is a interesting coincidence that Ivar was supposedly son of Ragnar and Ragnar was said to be related to Odin himself.
Who's watching Vikings on the History channel? - Piankhi - 01-07-2018
Season 5 is a snoozefest. Predictable. Jonathan Rhys Meyers is fucking awful. What was the point of Bjorn going to the desert?