Summary

• Vikings and Vikings: Valhalla strive for historical accuracy but also take creative liberties.
• The show accurately depicts Viking aesthetics and some real historical figures like Ragnar's sons.
• However, inaccuracies exist, such as fabricated relationships and battles not true to history.

Vikings is one of the most celebrated period dramas of the last decade, and as much as it's known for its historical accuracy, it's also made several changes to real events surrounding Ragnar Lodbrok, Viking society, and the wider world during the dark ages. Debuting in 2013 on the History Channel, Vikings tries to be historically accurate as possible. However, its accuracy has come into question more than once. After all, it's hard to walk the line between objective history and interesting, well-flowing narrative. The facts always seem to tweak a little whenever the two mix.

The world of Vikings continued to expand with the sequel series Vikings: Valhalla. While the original Vikings series focused on the mythical Ragnar Lodbrok and the rise of Vikings as one of the dominant forces in Northern Europe, Vikings: Valhalla explores the end of the Viking age. Both series do their best to incorporate historical Viking accuracy and truth as much as possible. However, both series also bend the truth of history to suit their narratives, as is true with most historical fiction, whether it be in movies or television.

What's Historically Accurate In Vikings

Rollo's Personality

Though a fierce warrior, Rollo was known by history to be an impulsive, jealous man. As the first Duke of Normandy, he left behind some of his previous life to meld better with other Anglo-Saxon cultures. However, it is historically unconfirmed if he was a Viking in origin. The real Rollo did a good job of covering up his past, and details of his early life have subsequently been lost to the annals of time. A conqueror and leader, he led Normandy his own, brutish way.

The real Rollo of Normandy died between 928 and 933, and while there is dispute among historians, it's generally accepted he was born somewhere in Scandinavia.

The real Rollo of Normandy died between 928 and 933, and while there is dispute among historians, it's generally accepted he was born somewhere in Scandinavia. One thing Vikings got right was his brutality, and his family survived many generations in power only because of their fiercely militaristic and ruthless nature. As far as comparing history and Vikings goes, the story seems to have his personality, even if they altered some serious facts about his heritage.

The Viking Aesthetic

Though the show definitely dolls up its characters to look as attractive and interesting as possible, the Viking look they give them isn't fake. Vikings truly gave themselves black-eye paint and favored matted, pleated hairstyles. They reveled in looking fierce and wild, even if their tactics could be much more organized. Or, in some cases, just as wild as they looked.

They may have had few rules of combat and each group had their own unique laws and customs, they remained strong and had a cohesive culture that permeated throughout the various tribes and settlements.

Vikings believed in looser social rules and heat-of-the-moment battle. They may have had few rules of combat and each group had their own unique laws and customs, they remained strong and had a cohesive culture that permeated throughout the various tribes and settlements. They could intimidate any foe with eye makeup like that, and this aspect is one thing in Vikings that was incredibly accurate to history.

Ragnar's Sons

Though Ragnar is near mythic, and almost all details of his life are debated by historians, none of his sons are. All of his sons are taken from real warriors and leaders of history. Though none of them can be confirmed as his real sons, they a made a great impact during their lifetime, something Vikings portrayed accurately. Bjorn Ironside was a real Swedish Viking chief who spearheaded a Swedish royal dynasty. Ivar The Boneless and Ubbe invaded England. Sigurd became King of Denmark.

All of these men's names were included in certain tales of Ragnar's sons.

All of these men's names were included in certain tales of Ragnar's sons. So, while it's unconfirmed, it's not impossible that they were indeed his sons. Regardless of their parentage, most all of these sons were real Vikings, and many of whom became great kings that helped shape and change Europe.

Women Warriors

Whether women had as prevalenta place in society as Vikings portrayed is a bit complicated, because the general answer is yes. Strong, warrior women were real in Viking culture. However, they still weren't as involved to the extent Vikings portrays it. Fitting to modern sensibilities, Lagertha is portrayed as an intimidating warrior and leader. The truth however, is that any real shield-maidens were very few and far between. Moreover, they were rarely given much power in the military. At best, they were just extra forces.

Overall, women had more freedoms and could fight in wars, but it's doubtful any of them were as powerful, free, or adept in battle as Lagertha.

More commonly, women were trained with a sword and shield to defend their homes or join the men in war only for dire situations. Overall, women had more freedoms and could fight in wars, but it's doubtful any of them were as powerful, free, or adept in battle as Lagertha.

No Horned Helmets

It's a common misconception that real Vikings wore horned helmets. Various depictions in cinema and games like Skyrim really skewed a lot of people's ideas of Norsemen, thinking they all wore horned helmets and yelled things. While it seems they did yell a lot, Vikings put the record straight by keeping their characters bare of helmets. The depictions of Vikings with horned helmets didn't come until much later, in paintings and potrayals created centuries after the Norse warriors had dwindled into antiquity.

It's impressive that Vikings does its best to at least preserve the true aesthetic, even though they play around with character backstories and timelines a lot.

Vikings did have certain helmets they wore, but they weren't the iconic horned ones. Between keeping characters recognizable and brushing off those myths, no helmets are just much easier. Many people picture Vikings a certain way, and it's impressive that Vikings does its best to at least preserve the true aesthetic, even though they play around with character backstories and timelines a lot.

What's Historically Inaccurate About Vikings

Ragnar And Rollo's Brotherhood

In Vikings, Rollo and Ragnar are brothers. One is driven by his belief in his own greatness, while the other is driven by his jealousy and desire to find his own greatness. It's not easy to be the great Ragnar's brother. Ultimately, that leads to a love-hate relationship with a lot of clashing and conflict. The interactions between the two are one of the most endearing aspects of Vikings, with the various ups-and-downs between them driving much of the show's narrative.

Rollo was the Duke of Normandy, and it's unknown whether he was a Viking, while it's uncertain where Ragnar existed at all.

Unfortunately, though, this key relationship is completely fabricated. Rollo and Ragnar were never brothers. In fact, it's incredibly likely that the pair never even met. Rollo was the Duke of Normandy, and it's unknown whether he was a Viking, while it's uncertain where Ragnar existed at all. At the very least, the pair were never warring brothers.

Viking Battle Style

While Vikings were stronger fighters dedicated to raids, they hardly fought the traditional pitch-battle way fans are accustomed to. The show sets up quite a few wars like this, one enemy standing across the field from another. However, it's very unlikely Vikings would ever participate in these kinds of battles. After all, they preferred raids. Not only does that mean fierce combat but also an element of surprise. Their battle tactics are closer to guerrilla style that classical pitch-battles.

Armies clashing feels much more grand and epic than tons of surprise tactics and raids.

On TV, though, pitch-battles are the standard. It's no surprise Vikings decided to favor a grander style that can really amp up a crowd. Armies clashing feels much more grand and epic than tons of surprise tactics and raids. Real Viking battles would likely have only featured a few dozen men, maybe a couple of hundred at most, and definitely wouldn't have had the grandiose nature of the clashes shown in Vikings.

The Timeline

Unfortunately for Vikings, the most exciting events in Viking history aren't exactly close together. However, for the show and fan benefit, time has been crunched to connect significant historical events into a cohesive timeline. In reality, Vikings getting to "the west" and invading England are not close at all, and happened centuries apart. There are dozens, and at times hundreds, of years between big raids. Lagertha definitely should not have been able to be a Viking wife pre-west and at the raid of Paris.

The show portrays this time in history as much more eventful than it actually was, and the Viking expansion and eventual dominance of Europe was a much slower affair.

While it does make for great television to see fan-favorite characters during all these historical events, it does mean that many of the storylines in Vikings are completely historically inaccurate. The show portrays this time in history as much more eventful than it actually was, and the Viking expansion and eventual dominance of Europe was a much slower affair.

Christian Crucifixions

During a particularly dark and terrible moment, Christians crucified Athelstan for his consortium with Vikings and abandoning the faith. Though he didn't abandon Christianity, not really, they didn't see it that way. Despite being a poignant, heartbreaking scene, it's completely false. There's little to no evidence that crucifixion was practiced by Christians in the dark ages, and as a method of punishment it was utilized mainly by the Ancient Romans, who predated the Vikings by several centuries.

As far as narrative goes, it was a powerful moment for Athelstan in Vikings, but historically, it's not accurate.

A big part of Christian faith is lamenting the crucifixion of Christ. They believe sacrifice is holy. If they truly thought Athelstan to be a heathen, they wouldn't do something so meaningful to him. Furthermore, Christians weren't known for arbitrary crucifixions. As far as narrative goes, it was a powerful moment for Athelstan in Vikings, but historically, it's not accurate.

Ragnar's Existence

Perhaps the greatest historical inaccuracy in Vikings is its focus on Ragnar Lothbrok who, despite being a legendary figure, may not even have existed. Unlike his children and many other characters in the show, Ragnar Lothbrok's existence cannot be confirmed. There are well-known Norse legends of him being a powerful, influential Viking, but actual accounts of his real life are non-existent. For such a pinnacle of Viking mythos, the fact is that it's more likely than not that he never existed.

It's possible that Ragnar was a legendary figure amalgamated from several warriors, and real individuals like Bjorn and Ivar claimed to be descended from him to add to their own reputation.

Despite the lack of historical fact surrounding his existence, he is such an important figure in Viking mythology and legends do mention famous leaders such as Bjorn Ironside and Ivar the Boneless as his "sons". It's possible that Ragnar was a legendary figure amalgamated from several warriors, and real individuals like Bjorn and Ivar claimed to be descended from him to add to their own reputation. While he's the staple of Vikings, Ragnar's participation in many of the events in the show are more than likely fictional.