Hey armchair historians, help me out

Itharus#3127 · September 2017

I mean no offense. I'm one, too, just not of the following era.

The shows Vikings and The Last Kingdom:

Vikings started in what... 793? The Last Kingdom starts in 866? There appears to be a lot of overlap in the names (I've only just started episode 1 of TLK, but have watched all of Vikings so far).

So can someone help me sort out exactly what overlap there is? Which one (or both?) of these stories is playing fast and loose with the timeline? Is it (as far as the Saxons are concerned judging from what I've seen so far) the same story as Vikings?

In the immortal words of Timon: "WHAT'S GOING ON HERE!??!!?"

Thanks

BillyRuffian#6250 · September 2017

I haven't watched the Vikings or much of TLK, but both timelines could be reasonably accurate.

The Vikings originally raided Lindisfarne in 793 and gradually took over most of the country. TLK is set in the time when only Wessex was left as an independent Anglo-sSaxon kingdom until Alfred defeated the Vikings and agreed a different division of the country whereby Wessex controlled broadly south and west while the Vikings controilled north and east.

If Alfred appears in the Vikings show it's focussing on the later period.

Itharus#3127 · September 2017

I believe he's supposed to.

In Vikings there is an Alfred as well, but as a child. What's confusing me is that in TLK unless it's entirely coincidence there appears to be Ragnar and several of his sons. But by the VIkings timeline Ragnar would be like in his 70s by this time. I guess it's possible that they just have the same names?

I dunno. It was probably a bad idea to watch these two shows back to back. Maybe I should go hit up Musketeers or Black Sails or something inbetween, lol.

Itharus#3127 · September 2017

Ah kept watching... nm... it's not the same characters. Well, maybe one of them. The others just have the same damned names. NM all, but thanks

Cogre · September 2017

Someone called my name, armchair historian, and I can't help. Bummer

Itharus#3127 · September 2017

LOL, sorry. Figured it out. Ragnar is not THAT Ragnar. But Ubbe and Ivar ARE those Ubbe and Ivar. So it's definitely after the Vikings timeline. I have the feeling future seasons of Vikings will probably cover the same things, just from the other side.

chezequerz · September 2017

Ok so both are playing somewhat liberally with history but Vikings plays far faster and looser. TLK is specifically based in the times of the Great Heathen Army and follows the timeframe fairly well although the series deviates far more than the books do. The thing about TLK is that some of the characters (most of 'em actually) are false but the events they take part in are not.

By contrast vikings is based on semi historical characters and events and much of what happens in the series is linked to Ragnar and other characters that happened over about 100-200 years span from various figures in history. There's no chance that Ragnar Lothbrok was involved in the raid on Lindisfarne, no chance he discovered cross sea navigation and he wasn't the brother of Rollo of Normandy (they weren't even from the same country).

Now Ragnar Lothbrok's sons absolutely did invade England as seen in both series's but the rest is difficult to prove and in this respect TLK plays closer to the historical timelines.

Also in regards to the subject of "ragnar" in TLK the series explains it but the books do it more clearly but it is stated that they're not the same ragnars given Lothbrok is long dead by the time of TLK. The naming pool in dark ages scandinavia wasn't very large and I remember seeing a suggestion they had a little over 2 dozen names for men which is part of what makes Ragnar Lothbrok semi historical since there are a plethora of other Ragnar's who had histories of their own to muddle up the process of saying who did what.

Welcome

Quick Links

Categories

Hey armchair historians, help me out

Comments

Leave a Comment