5 Things The History Channel’s “Vikings” Got Terribly Wrong

There are some historical facts that Ragnar never existed. Credits: Wikia.com

There are some historical facts that Ragnar never existed. Credits: Wikia








One of the most popular history channel series at the moment called Vikings is loosely based on the Norse saga known as the Saga of Ragnar Lodbrok, a sequel to the Völsung Saga. As for the show itself, it is well-cast and well-acted one. Even though some praise the series for the high-quality acting, others such as historians find this television show inaccurate in factual terms.


View Article On One Page

Ragnar Was Swedish

According to the show, Ragnar was a Norseman, but he was nothing like that for his origin was Swedish i.e. he was the son of the Swedish king Sigmund Hering. He also had some Danish origins, because he was a relative of the Danish king Gudfred. It is widely held and known that all of the Ragnar Lodbrok’s sons were actual historical figures (Halfdan Ragnarsson, Sigurd Snake-in-the-Eye, Björn Ironside, Ubba and Ivar the Boneless), but there are no factual proofs that Ragnar actually existed. Even if he did exist, he might not have been called Ragnar whatsoever. What’s for sure is that the deeds of this famous Viking coincide with the deeds of many other Viking rulers and heroes.

Related Posts

7 Brutal Viking Warriors You Didn’t Know About History Channel show "Vikings" has given us a decent look into the Vikings' society, albeit with a large dose of fiction. What the show doesn't fail to tell is the brutality and badassery of...
7 Brutal Practices That Made the Spartans the Strongest Warriors in History Spartan society was home to some of the most fearless warriors in history – for all its faults, 300 got that right. Before they became soldiers, however, Spartan boys have undergone several ...
7 Most Amazing Board Games of the Ancient World People played games since the dawn of time. For some nations, it was just a way to have fun, whereas others viewed them as a way to strategise and even assigned religious significance to som...

What do you think?


  • RobDegraves

    This is a very poorly written and researched article. 1. Ragnar is a mythological figure who’s exact origin could be based on a number of person, not all of which are Swedish. You can’t say he might not have existed as well as give him a definite origin. 2. Many people lived to a very advanced age, assuming they survived the various and all too common ways one could be killed. You would have had about the same proportion of people living to 90 as you do now, as long as they didn’t suffer any major illnesses, though this also depended on diet. It was the infant mortality rate that lowered the average life span. 3. No problem there, the Norse had been to England for centuries before. 4. Combat. The article has this almost completely wrong. Shields were very important but were not considered the primary weapon. The most common weapon would be the axe or spear, simply for economic reasons. Swords were expensive and only used by the wealthy. There are a lot of debates currently ongoing on how the Norse fought, considering that there is very little evidence since the Norse didn’t write. We have sagas and archeology to guide us, after that it’s all trying to recreate it from a practical stand point. Also, armor was also a question of practicality. Mail was rare because it was very expensive and even helms were hard to come by initially. Most Norse would have fought in what they could afford, leather and cloth most often. 5. The Jarl is badly portrayed in the first season, it was good to have him gone as it did not reflect Norse culture in any way. The show got better at that later on. I am all for bringing more correct historical content to tv and film, but this sort of article does not help. One also has to keep in mind how little we know about the Norse, particularly the details. There is constant debate on even well established facts about the various Norse cultures.

Pin It on Pinterest