Vikings show: How accurate is it? - Historian explains | Lars Brownworth and Lex Fridman
Historian Lars Brownworth discusses the historical accuracy of the Vikings TV series with Lex Fridman, noting that while well-done dramatically, the show takes significant liberties like making Ragnar and Rollo brothers when they were actually born 80 years apart. The conversation explores the challenges of studying Viking history due to limited historical records.
Summary
The discussion begins with an evaluation of the Vikings TV series' historical accuracy. Brownworth acknowledges the show is well-executed but points out a major historical inaccuracy: Ragnar and Rollo are portrayed as brothers in the series when historical evidence suggests they were born approximately 80 years apart. He appreciates this as a storytelling device that consolidates multiple Viking figures into a cohesive narrative centered around Ragnar.
Brownworth explains the fundamental challenge of writing about Viking history - the lack of comprehensive organizational frameworks due to severely limited historical documentation. Historians only have access to fragmentary evidence, primarily from raid accounts, which provides mere glimpses into what was likely a rich and complex civilization. This scarcity of sources makes it difficult to understand the broader historical context and development of Viking culture.
The conversation touches on deeper historical mysteries, such as the origins of Viking warrior culture and the evolution of their concepts of honor in battle. Brownworth suggests there may have been influence from Roman military traditions that traveled north to Scandinavia, though concrete evidence is lacking. The discussion concludes with an interesting historical note about the very name 'Scandinavia' originating from Roman authors who mistakenly believed it was a single island inhabited by one tribe called the Scandia.
Key Insights
- Brownworth states that Ragnar and Rollo were not actually brothers as portrayed in the Vikings series, but were born 80 years apart according to some historical accounts
- Brownworth explains that the Vikings TV series consolidates all major Viking figures together to tell Ragnar's story as a dramatic storytelling device
- Brownworth reveals that the hardest part of writing about Vikings was developing an organizational scheme due to lack of comprehensive historical information
- Brownworth suggests that Roman military ideals and concepts of honor in battle may have traveled north to influence Scandinavian warrior culture
- Brownworth notes that even the name 'Scandinavia' comes from Roman authors who mistakenly thought it was an island with one tribe called the Scandia
Topics
Transcript
[0:03] As a small aside, since Ragnar is the star of the Vikings TV series, I don't know if you've gotten a chance to watch any of it. Is there any accuracy to it? I think it's well done. My one quibble Ragnar's brother is Rollo in the show, right? Yeah. They weren't brothers. In fact, by some accounts, they were born 80 years apart. Um but as a storytelling device, I [0:33] applaud that. Yeah, they basically take all the main Vikings and put them all together and just tell the story of Ragnar. >> Honestly, in writing a book about it, the hardest part was coming up with an organizational scheme. Like, what's what's the overarching thing that…
Full transcript available for MurmurCast members
Sign Up to AccessMore from Lex Clips
Sex in the Roman Empire | Anthony Kaldellis and Lex Fridman
Anthony Kaldellis discusses Justinian I's reign, focusing on his meritocratic appointment of talented individuals regardless of social class (including his wife Theodora, a former sex worker), his monumental codification of Roman law through the Corpus Juris Civilis, and the paradox of his harsh stance on sexuality despite his own unconventional personal choices.
Did the plague kill half the Roman Empire? | Anthony Kaldellis and Lex Fridman
Anthony Kaldellis discusses the Plague of Justinian (541 AD), arguing against the maximalist claim that it killed 50% of the Roman population. He contends that modern pathogen identification combined with historical evidence shows the plague had far less impact than commonly assumed, as evidenced by Justinian's continued military campaigns and taxation during the outbreak.
Persian Empire vs Roman Empire: The war that destroyed both empires | Anthony Kaldellis
Anthony Kaldellis discusses the Byzantine-Persian War (602-628 CE) and its catastrophic consequences for both empires, explaining how Heraclius's civil war weakened Roman defenses, the eventual Arab conquests stripped away the empire's richest provinces, and the subsequent Byzantine survival through military innovation like Greek fire and strategic defensive reorganization.
Why the Roman Empire collapsed in the East | Anthony Kaldellis and Lex Fridman
Anthony Kaldellis discusses how the Eastern Roman Empire, despite territorial losses, maintained remarkable internal stability and could have lasted another thousand years without external invasions. He attributes this resilience to two factors: authorities convincingly persuading subjects they ruled on their behalf, and a unified Roman and Orthodox identity that made the alternatives to imperial rule seem worse.
Lessons from the Roman Empire for modern-day - historian explains | Anthony Kaldellis
Historian Anthony Kaldellis discusses lessons from the 2,200-year Roman Empire for modern America, focusing on the importance of building lasting institutions that serve the majority, aligning foreign policy rhetoric with actual military actions, and the persistent elements of human nature across centuries.