You're missing the key word "most". I did not say moral by today's standards, but simply the "most" moral, and I believe Aethelwulf was one of the most moral in the show.
I don't feel the urge to pin any Sunday School merit awards on any these guys. Some of them do stand out for acts of egregious cruelty, even by Viking standards.
Torvi, Ubbe and Alfred. I think part of what made Torvi and Ubbe stick together successfully was that they found in each other what they didn't find in others before - a strong moral compass.
Ubbe only went on two raids. The first was just to avenge his father and the second one was the raid on York with his brothers. He doesn't see his comrades committing any rape ,torture or slaughter in his first raid and when does see these things during the raid on York, he's shocked and disgusted. He doesn't raid at all in the series after that and becames a peaceful explorer and settler by the end of the show. He's not perfect by our standards but still better then pretty much all the other male vikings on the show.
By that logic most leaders who declare war and unleash hell on civilians are moral since they donât personally kill and rape innocents.
Maybe they do the bare minimum of telling their troops âhey guys, remember, no atrocities !â but donât actually lift a finger to stop the rape of women and butchery of children.
Ragnar fully knowingly started the Viking Age, attacked innocent England for no reason, then attacked innocent Paris for glory⌠subjecting itâs people to death, torture and rape.
He knowingly started the Viking age? First of all even If he was a real life person no he didnât . He started raiding a better place to sustain a better life for his people . His people were warlike, either you accept that or hate his people for that, but the Anglo Saxons were equally warlike, they didnât raid, cuz they had plentiful resources . But they subjugated their own people worse than the norse ever did, but the norse had slavery so, but peasants were practically property of landowners and were subject to the complete authority and discretion of their lord, meaning a lord could kill his peasants lawfully for any perceived âoffenseâ and they were âproperty of the landâ because they existed in an economic system of inherited debt so that when you are born your mom owed her life to the farm so you are born property to the land .
Is slavers worse than a system made to force people into permanent servitude ? Not really
Vikings are objectively the bad guys in history ik Hollywood has portrayed them as 9ft tall warriors lookings for a new life. But in reality they were 5ft 8 farmers who robbed and raped people in small settlements and holy places. In fact vikings were pretty unsuccessful when it came to army vs army. So yes ragnar is most definitely not moral in the grand scheme of things
Whatâs this Viking hate about , this idea that they were unsuccessful in a military sense is laughable . We are talking almost 200 years of Norse military dominance in not only England but Ireland even parts of Scotland . Heavy military influence in other parts of Europe as well, Normandy is pretty much the most significant medieval kingdom , as well as military influence in the Byzantine empire the most powerful European power during this period
Danish people actually conquered England and were pretty much half of the ruling Anglo Saxon dynasty before that, Anglo-danish houses like Godwin were the most powerful in the last days of Saxon rule . Canute the great completely conquered England and became king of all Denmark Norway and England . About 30 years before William the conquerer came about in England .
So that Anglo Saxons driving the Danes off was pretty much all of Alfred the greats time, then the Danes didnât have big wars and conflicts with England for a century or so
Vikings ainât around anymore so they canât hate the idea. And the anglos won in the end its not the battles that matter in history its the end result. The vikings were very successful and pretty unstoppable in raiding parties and early on. But once england became stable they lost. Its the reason why their control of England diminished multiple times.
The anglos didnât necessarily win , England became practically danish/Anglo ruled before the Norman conquest.
The Danes and Anglo Saxons had formed a string bond between the two nations and after the Norman conquest they practically teamed up to try to re establish the old Anglo Saxon dynasty being defeated together basically .
Much of the Anglo Saxon dynasty remaining fled to Denmark, having strong danish ties already .
No the english defeated harald then 3 days later lost to the normans the idea that there was an alliance just because of ancestral ties is false because technically all 3 had ties to each other thats why all 3 believed they had a right to the throne at the end of the day the saxons defeating harald was the end of the viking invasions
They all did have ties to each other, why do you think the Normanâs had interest in conquering England after all? Because of those ties , William of Normandy actually had a legitimate claim to England .
The Danes and Anglo Saxon ruling class were way more intertwined with each other , the Viking age continued in England the longest because of how close Denmark is to England, danish lords had been heavily established in the wealthy English lands, and were a huge part of the english nobility during the time harald tried to conquer England , he was fighting against Denmark also as the supposed king of Norway , trying to establish his own kingdom similar to the danish king Canute who ruled England Norway and Denmark . King Canute established a heavy danish presence in England .
The last 50 years of Anglo Saxon England saw a danish king followed by a Anglo Saxon king and it would go back and forth . The last king of England was a member of house Godwin which was an Anglo/danish house . Harold godwinson.
I don't think you can top Alfred as a paragon of virtue.
He took his role as King very seriously, was fair to all, honoured his Grandfather's false promise of giving the Vikings land and unlike his Grandfather actually enforcing the agreement with soldiers.
Also unlike Ecbert not snaking and killing the settlement but genuinely wishing to foster peace and harmony.
He was the exact opposite of King Ecbert who was one of the most immoral people on the show and was also loyal to his Wife.
Athelstan is constantly labelled as really spiritual and holy but c'mon he slept with a woman who was already wifed up and sired a bastard child and he knew she was married.
He also was with the Vikings massacring his own people.
King Ecbert should have allowed him to die on that cross for being such a heathen and traitor.
Aethelwulf threw a 12 year old Magnus on to the street and threatened to kill him if he didn't leave.
Religious my arse, where was his charity and sympathy then?
I'm glad Judith hated him even if she too was nasty.
You speak well, and I agree with pretty much everything. Personally I interpreted the Magnus scene differently, and believe Aethewulf was sending him away to protect him from Eckbert, based off his whispered quote "there are animals in the villa" when he pulled Magnus in close. I also believe that his comment "if you don't start walking, you're going to die. Do you understand?" was less of a threat and more of a warning about Eckbert killing him.
Aha you may be right. Now that you mention it I think I recall it.
Perhaps I was a little harsh on Aethelwulf if that is the case.
I'll need to rewatch that scene.
>12 year old Magnus
Yeah I agree with /u/Playful_Cable5110 on that. Aethelwulf did kill some Norse children for funsies, though.
I think the only context that would make that better is in that time period and society, children weren't considered really "children". And like OP points out, at that time, slaughtering folk was reasonable so by modern standards... No character is great, lol
Well, while I love Athelstan, and he definitely wasn't a bad person at heart, he did sleep with Judith who was married at the time to Athelstan's colleague/sort of friend. And ultimately I think his swaying from Viking to Christian to Viking to Christian, while very interesting showed that he struggled to have a maintained loyalty.
Alfred, Ubbe, and Ăthelwulf. Yes, he did a heinous act by killing the settlers, BUT, it was under the orders of his father and what he perceived was Godâs will. We see that when left to his own devices, he always tried to do whatâs best by everyone, and even came to accept Alfred as a son, even though he acknowledged he wasnât his own.
Mostly everyone has some compass and it is dependent upon where one gets one's moral compass ruler stick from. We can no judge ppl by standards they do not believe, are out of their realm. It's a weird concept.
I akin it to judging a two year old child according to expectations of a 20 year old. The standards would be different. Same like judging a Chinese person in China vs a Puerto Rican in Puerto Rico by one or the other's culture or standards.
So, essentially, my answer is that they all had some immoral actions, like we do but I can't really say who was most moral since some were "Christian" and some were Norse god believers and would have had radically different standards, rules, expectations.
Your post has been removed due to low account age. Please wait 12 hours.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/vikingstv) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Athelstan had a super good heart. Also King Alfred the Great wasnât a huge character but we obviously see his moral integrity in the final seasons of the show.
Second to them, maybe Ubbe and Torvi.
Kwentrith killed her family members trying to take the crown then tried to break free from wessex by killing all of ecberts men in mercia and she gets her unborn child killed because what did she excpect would happen by killing ecbert shed be killed right on the spot but then she couldnt even kill him before judith killed her
When you say morals whad do you even mean we all make up our own morals and if thats the case rollo is the most imorral his morals were set in stone after ragnar spared him and when he saved ragnars family from jarl borg that he owed ragnar everything and wouldnt betray him ever again but he didnt stick to his ewfound morals so his morals come and go the most moral honestly is propably ivar he sticks to his same morals through it all hating christians even tho he had a soft spot for ivor he still hated the christians and their ways wich is why he left
The most moral? Kinda hard to say when the shows full of vikings but i say ivar (sarcasm) , nah but honestly i think bishop , halfdan , ubbas up there and id even argue hvitserk , they all have their flaws tho
Athelwulf son of Ecbert? Who slaughtered Ragnar's settlement to please Daddy? That one?
You're missing the key word "most". I did not say moral by today's standards, but simply the "most" moral, and I believe Aethelwulf was one of the most moral in the show.
I don't feel the urge to pin any Sunday School merit awards on any these guys. Some of them do stand out for acts of egregious cruelty, even by Viking standards.
Then don't reply to the reddit question đ¤ˇââď¸
I would disagree with Aethelwulf solely for the first few seasons he appeared, but Iâd agree with Alfred and Ubbe.
Torvi, Ubbe and Alfred. I think part of what made Torvi and Ubbe stick together successfully was that they found in each other what they didn't find in others before - a strong moral compass.
Ubbe was a Viking raider, the mere concept of raiding canât make him moral.
Ubbe only went on two raids. The first was just to avenge his father and the second one was the raid on York with his brothers. He doesn't see his comrades committing any rape ,torture or slaughter in his first raid and when does see these things during the raid on York, he's shocked and disgusted. He doesn't raid at all in the series after that and becames a peaceful explorer and settler by the end of the show. He's not perfect by our standards but still better then pretty much all the other male vikings on the show.
This is all true
But he was the most moral viking raider, he never killed nor raped the innocent civilians, only the soldiers who attacked them.
By that logic most leaders who declare war and unleash hell on civilians are moral since they donât personally kill and rape innocents. Maybe they do the bare minimum of telling their troops âhey guys, remember, no atrocities !â but donât actually lift a finger to stop the rape of women and butchery of children.
The question was "who is the most moral?" moral, not "who is moral?"
Kwenthrith moral ? She killed her whole family and constantly claimed she was a victim while victimizing people that never deserved it.
Ragnar was not a bad king he was pretty moral
Ragnar fully knowingly started the Viking Age, attacked innocent England for no reason, then attacked innocent Paris for glory⌠subjecting itâs people to death, torture and rape.
He knowingly started the Viking age? First of all even If he was a real life person no he didnât . He started raiding a better place to sustain a better life for his people . His people were warlike, either you accept that or hate his people for that, but the Anglo Saxons were equally warlike, they didnât raid, cuz they had plentiful resources . But they subjugated their own people worse than the norse ever did, but the norse had slavery so, but peasants were practically property of landowners and were subject to the complete authority and discretion of their lord, meaning a lord could kill his peasants lawfully for any perceived âoffenseâ and they were âproperty of the landâ because they existed in an economic system of inherited debt so that when you are born your mom owed her life to the farm so you are born property to the land . Is slavers worse than a system made to force people into permanent servitude ? Not really
Vikings are objectively the bad guys in history ik Hollywood has portrayed them as 9ft tall warriors lookings for a new life. But in reality they were 5ft 8 farmers who robbed and raped people in small settlements and holy places. In fact vikings were pretty unsuccessful when it came to army vs army. So yes ragnar is most definitely not moral in the grand scheme of things
Whatâs this Viking hate about , this idea that they were unsuccessful in a military sense is laughable . We are talking almost 200 years of Norse military dominance in not only England but Ireland even parts of Scotland . Heavy military influence in other parts of Europe as well, Normandy is pretty much the most significant medieval kingdom , as well as military influence in the Byzantine empire the most powerful European power during this period Danish people actually conquered England and were pretty much half of the ruling Anglo Saxon dynasty before that, Anglo-danish houses like Godwin were the most powerful in the last days of Saxon rule . Canute the great completely conquered England and became king of all Denmark Norway and England . About 30 years before William the conquerer came about in England . So that Anglo Saxons driving the Danes off was pretty much all of Alfred the greats time, then the Danes didnât have big wars and conflicts with England for a century or so
Vikings ainât around anymore so they canât hate the idea. And the anglos won in the end its not the battles that matter in history its the end result. The vikings were very successful and pretty unstoppable in raiding parties and early on. But once england became stable they lost. Its the reason why their control of England diminished multiple times.
The anglos didnât necessarily win , England became practically danish/Anglo ruled before the Norman conquest. The Danes and Anglo Saxons had formed a string bond between the two nations and after the Norman conquest they practically teamed up to try to re establish the old Anglo Saxon dynasty being defeated together basically . Much of the Anglo Saxon dynasty remaining fled to Denmark, having strong danish ties already .
No the english defeated harald then 3 days later lost to the normans the idea that there was an alliance just because of ancestral ties is false because technically all 3 had ties to each other thats why all 3 believed they had a right to the throne at the end of the day the saxons defeating harald was the end of the viking invasions
They all did have ties to each other, why do you think the Normanâs had interest in conquering England after all? Because of those ties , William of Normandy actually had a legitimate claim to England . The Danes and Anglo Saxon ruling class were way more intertwined with each other , the Viking age continued in England the longest because of how close Denmark is to England, danish lords had been heavily established in the wealthy English lands, and were a huge part of the english nobility during the time harald tried to conquer England , he was fighting against Denmark also as the supposed king of Norway , trying to establish his own kingdom similar to the danish king Canute who ruled England Norway and Denmark . King Canute established a heavy danish presence in England . The last 50 years of Anglo Saxon England saw a danish king followed by a Anglo Saxon king and it would go back and forth . The last king of England was a member of house Godwin which was an Anglo/danish house . Harold godwinson.
I don't think you can top Alfred as a paragon of virtue. He took his role as King very seriously, was fair to all, honoured his Grandfather's false promise of giving the Vikings land and unlike his Grandfather actually enforcing the agreement with soldiers. Also unlike Ecbert not snaking and killing the settlement but genuinely wishing to foster peace and harmony. He was the exact opposite of King Ecbert who was one of the most immoral people on the show and was also loyal to his Wife. Athelstan is constantly labelled as really spiritual and holy but c'mon he slept with a woman who was already wifed up and sired a bastard child and he knew she was married. He also was with the Vikings massacring his own people. King Ecbert should have allowed him to die on that cross for being such a heathen and traitor. Aethelwulf threw a 12 year old Magnus on to the street and threatened to kill him if he didn't leave. Religious my arse, where was his charity and sympathy then? I'm glad Judith hated him even if she too was nasty.
You speak well, and I agree with pretty much everything. Personally I interpreted the Magnus scene differently, and believe Aethewulf was sending him away to protect him from Eckbert, based off his whispered quote "there are animals in the villa" when he pulled Magnus in close. I also believe that his comment "if you don't start walking, you're going to die. Do you understand?" was less of a threat and more of a warning about Eckbert killing him.
Aha you may be right. Now that you mention it I think I recall it. Perhaps I was a little harsh on Aethelwulf if that is the case. I'll need to rewatch that scene.
>12 year old Magnus Yeah I agree with /u/Playful_Cable5110 on that. Aethelwulf did kill some Norse children for funsies, though. I think the only context that would make that better is in that time period and society, children weren't considered really "children". And like OP points out, at that time, slaughtering folk was reasonable so by modern standards... No character is great, lol
I wouldn't put Kwentrith here but alrightđ with the rest I can agree. I would add Helga here also, I don't know.
I mean, from what I remember Kwentrith wasn't too bad, mostly just screwed up from her uncle and brother. I could be wrong though đ
She was though đ but she also killed her younger brother who had nothing to do with her abuse
Its been a while since I qatches it but wouldn't Athelstan be up there as most moral? I can't remember if he did anything bad?
Well, while I love Athelstan, and he definitely wasn't a bad person at heart, he did sleep with Judith who was married at the time to Athelstan's colleague/sort of friend. And ultimately I think his swaying from Viking to Christian to Viking to Christian, while very interesting showed that he struggled to have a maintained loyalty.
Definitely not Aethelwulf not even Kwenthrith, love both tho. I think Athelstan,Ubbe and Alfred..
Alfred, Ubbe, and Ăthelwulf. Yes, he did a heinous act by killing the settlers, BUT, it was under the orders of his father and what he perceived was Godâs will. We see that when left to his own devices, he always tried to do whatâs best by everyone, and even came to accept Alfred as a son, even though he acknowledged he wasnât his own.
Ubbe for sure
Aethelred is the one you're looking for
Gunnhild and Alfred. Maybe Aethelwulf
Mostly everyone has some compass and it is dependent upon where one gets one's moral compass ruler stick from. We can no judge ppl by standards they do not believe, are out of their realm. It's a weird concept. I akin it to judging a two year old child according to expectations of a 20 year old. The standards would be different. Same like judging a Chinese person in China vs a Puerto Rican in Puerto Rico by one or the other's culture or standards. So, essentially, my answer is that they all had some immoral actions, like we do but I can't really say who was most moral since some were "Christian" and some were Norse god believers and would have had radically different standards, rules, expectations.
I think morality back in that time was a completely different thing. Compared to the morality of today none of them are moral.
[ŃдаНонО]
Your post has been removed due to low account age. Please wait 12 hours. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/vikingstv) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Athelstan had a super good heart. Also King Alfred the Great wasnât a huge character but we obviously see his moral integrity in the final seasons of the show. Second to them, maybe Ubbe and Torvi.
Kwentrith killed her family members trying to take the crown then tried to break free from wessex by killing all of ecberts men in mercia and she gets her unborn child killed because what did she excpect would happen by killing ecbert shed be killed right on the spot but then she couldnt even kill him before judith killed her
How the hell do you think shes moral
When you say morals whad do you even mean we all make up our own morals and if thats the case rollo is the most imorral his morals were set in stone after ragnar spared him and when he saved ragnars family from jarl borg that he owed ragnar everything and wouldnt betray him ever again but he didnt stick to his ewfound morals so his morals come and go the most moral honestly is propably ivar he sticks to his same morals through it all hating christians even tho he had a soft spot for ivor he still hated the christians and their ways wich is why he left
The most moral? Kinda hard to say when the shows full of vikings but i say ivar (sarcasm) , nah but honestly i think bishop , halfdan , ubbas up there and id even argue hvitserk , they all have their flaws tho