Vikings: Valhalla - Initial overview
Thoughts on Season 1 - Part 1 - Historical inaccuracies
Vikings is BACK.
And the sequel to Vikings didn’t disappoint.
Vikings: Valhalla is set a century after the events of the first series, and featuring the descendants of much of the original cast.
This time, the end of the Viking Age is depicted, with the period from the St. Brice’s Day massacre in England to the Battle of Hastings in 1066 covered. This is approximately 50 years in total, leading to the Norman Conquest of England.
As with much of the first series, this contains many battles between the Norsemen and the English, though greater co-operation and tolerance intertwined.
There also is more tension amongst the Norse - with Christianity fast emerging as the predominant faith in Scandinavia. The old ways of Ragnar Lothbrok’s time are becoming discarded. Belief in Odin, Thor and Freya is now secondary to belief in Jesus Christ.
Season 1 is out now on Netflix, with all episodes released simultaneously.
So what did we make of it?
Not very accurate at all…
Neither the first series nor this series hold historical accuracy amongst their strong suits.
And to be fair, writer and showrunner Michael Hirst has always stated it’s historical fiction, and takes a strong departure from the established narrative.
However, some historical accounts were highlighted in this season.
The St. Brice’s Day Massacre was ordered by King Athelred the Unready, as penance against the Norse for their alleged bad allegiance to him. Given the heightened Norse raiding of his reign, he felt that the Norse should be slain to stop further threats. This backfired massively, and provoked the Norse to launch major invasions of England.
Athelred’s eldest son, Edmund Ironside, indeed succeeded him as king. And Emma of Normandy was depicted as his wife, and eventual queen to Cnut the Great.
As for Cnut, he was rightly depicted as King of Denmark and then England. And Earl Godwin was appointed Earl of Wessex by Cnut.
But the inaccuracies are pretty stark.
Athelred was seen to die a year after the St. Brice’s Day massacre, which is false. Athelred died in 1016, two years after he regained the throne following King Sweyn Forkbeard’s death. Edmund Ironside also did share power of England after he lost to Cnut. Though he lost to Cnut through English treachery at Assundun in Essex. He never fought a battle with the Norse at London Bridge (though a prominent battle was fought at Brentford which is of course in modern Greater London). Ironside didn’t sit in the Norse court though as a puppet - he agreed with Cnut to rule Wessex whilst Cnut ruled Mercia, East Anglia and Northumbria.
Edmund’s death in real history is unclear. He may have been bumped off on Cnut’s order - either via assassination whilst on a privy defecating (yes this is a reported historical point) or whilst out hunting. However, Earl Godwin didn’t kill him. Or there is no real evidence that he did at all.
Harald Sigurdsson, an heir to the Norwegian throne, was born in 1005, and thus would not have been an adult at this time. Of course, he would later be known as King Harald Hardrada of Norway, who would die invading England at Stamford Bridge in 1066. His brother however, Olof, was indeed king of Norway at this time. Though he lost his crown to Cnut in real history, and we shall see if this results also. He was rightly depicted as a devout Christian, and has been canonised as St. Olof in the centuries since.
The Jarl of Kattegat was shown as a black woman. There may have been black people in Europe at the time, whether as travellers, merchants, soldiers, slaves, etc., but as per the Roman era this would have been few in number. Though there were no known black female jarls or nobles in early medieval Scandinavia, so Jarl Haakon would not have been accurate. The real Jarl Haakon was a Danish noble, and not Norwegian as depicted.
King Sweyn Forkbeard is seen in the season - though his place after Cnut becomes English king is odd. He died per the real history in 1014, after having seized the throne from Athelred the Unready in 1013. It was Cnut in his own right as king who made Godwin Earl of Wessex, and not Sweyn acting in his name. Moreover, we see Sweyn referred to as “king”. Well, king of what? We see Cnut named as King of Denmark and England in the show, so this makes no real sense.
Emma of Normandy was wife and queen to both Athelred and Cnut. And she was seen as cunning and smart in real history, as per the show. She was a sibling of the ruling Duke of Normandy, Richard, who was the father of later Norman Duke and King of England, William the Conqueror. Her role and depiction are one of the few accuracies in the show.
Godwin certainly served Cnut the Great, and saw his family’s power grow from that point. He was the father to King Harold Godwinson, who notedly died at Hastings, as well as Leofwine and Gyrth who also died in the battle. His other son, Tostig, allied with King Hardrada of Norway, and he like Harald died at Stamford Bridge. Godwin is seen as manipulating and power-hungry, and given his ready allegiance to Cnut, it’s apparent why Mr. Hirst wrote him in this fashion.
The battle of Kattegat in the final episode shows a changing of the guard - from a Norse pagan city to a fully Christian one. This battle was led by King Olaf, and he did indeed build churches in his kingdom at this point.
Though the arrival of Forkbeard’s ships didn’t happen. Olaf would be king of Norway for roughly a decade before he lost in battle and ultimately lost his kingdom to Cnut.
As for arguably the series leads, Freydis and Leif, they are not real people per se. Leif Eriksson was noted as the first European to find North America. But he didn’t travel back to Scandinavia nor England for that matter. Freydis shares a name with a historical Greenlander, but like her brother Leif didn’t travel to the aforementioned places. Of the two, Freydis’s story seems the more accurate. As with Christians in later eras, their methods of conversion could be quite brutal, and it’s fully plausible that stories like hers did occur.
We also saw the Seer from the first series, as a spirit or manifestation of the gods in Uppsala. The Seer wasn’t based on a specific person, though it’s likely that many towns and villages had priests or wise people who could share both earthly and divine wisdom. It makes sense to add him as a facet of the Uppsala experience, and to provide a link to the previous series. I feel sorry for John Kavanagh (the actor who portrays him) as the make-up job must take hours of sitting in a chair whilst it’s applied. I guess the make-up for the Pope in the prior series was not as extensive.
So, in terms of historical accuracy, season one of Vikings: Valhalla scores low.
But the show itself, in terms of storyline, plot and acting, is as good as the first series.
We’ll be reviewing that in part two.