Viking Rant, You don't need to read this

[EvilNed]

Ok, I want to start off by saying this:

**** you, Marcus Nispel. **** you very much.

Now to the matter at hand:

There is a film coming out called Pathfinder. Perhaps you've seen the trailer. If you haven't, check it out here (http://www.pathfinderthemovie.com).

It's about one of the few Viking expeditions to America. Viking films are usually pretty inaccurate in depicting their culture, except for The 13th Warrior. But this film takes the ****ing cake.

The vikings, as you can see, look more like orcs. They are dressed in all black platemail, wield maces (what the ****? What the hell is a Dark Age Viking doing with a High Medieval period mace?), their helmets have huge horns (contrary to popular belief, there's no evidence to suggest vikings ever wore horns on their helmets and it would be very impractical to do so)
and they go around slaying, enslaving and raping pretty much everyone who crosses their path. None of this is true to the vikings of old.

Yes, vikings were raiders and pirates. But first and foremost they were traders. They were seafarers! They wanted to explore the world, and to find adventure. Vikings travelled far and wide, from North America to Egypt to the Caspian sea. Unfortunetly, Vikings are usually remembered for such incidents as the sacking of Lindisfarne, 793 A.D. Modern myth portrays them as bloodthirsty brutes with little or no culture, and with no sense of humanity (notice the skull-helmet in the trailer).

Well, it's wrong. Vikings hade a vast and interesting culture! It was harsh, yes, but vikings were harsh people. But they had monuments, tales of heroics and a high sense of honour. If a viking promised something, that promise was set in stone. To not fullfill that promise was dishonourable.

Yet it's ****ing pieces of trash like this Pathfinder that will keep the vikings from being remembered for what they truly were. Instead, people will think of them as huge orc-like brutes.

And what's more? Check out this from the ****ing director himself, Marcus Nispel:

"Nispel explained how, as an Eastern European, he was taught growing up that Vikings had reached America long before Christopher Columbus did. He wanted to portray Viking culture differently and more accurately than other films have, emphasizing how terrifying they were. "

Hello? Portray them accurately? Is that what you call this? Who the hell did you hire as a historical consultant, because he sure as hell did a ****poor job of giving you the right information! When watching the trailer, I couldn't spot a single accurate portrayal of the vikings! From their armor, weaponry, attitude and even their actions! The Vikings never ever attacked the indians in North America unprovoked. They, themselves, were the victims of the attack. It was the indians who struck the first blow, you ****ing idiot, go and hang yourself. Or better yet, go and make a historical accurate picture where the indians are the bad guys! Why don't we ever see one of those, you ****ing prick?

"Oh, no. The Indians are the victims, we took their land. They are noble, and wise. We can't portray them in bad light. But the vikings, nobody gives a **** about them. We can make them out to be Heil-****ing-Hitler. Let's do that!"

FUUUUUUUUUUCK YOUUUUUU MARCUS NISPEL!!!

[Mikey]

The vikings have Brad Johnson, but he's getting old.

[EvilNed]

Yeah, well that sucks too.

[rightwing401]

Damn, that was absolute ****. There are very few times that I can not watch a movie to the end because it is so bad, but I've never had to stop watching a trailer----until now.
You hit the nail on the head EvilNed, this film has nothing to do with accurate portrail of history. If anyone believes the depictions in this film, they seriously need to reevaluate their perceptions of the world and read up on history.
The vikings were indeed raiders and vicious warriors (who in the dark ages wasn't), but you're right in how they are made to seem in this film. Heck, they might as well be demons with how inhuman they appear.
And second, North America was not a garden of eden inhabited by pacifist people who were born with their feet planted in the ground and were half spirit with the world around them. (Anyone know of scalping?)
I will never waist even a single penny on such a dispecable piece of garbage like this.

[EvilNed]

Thank you! I've heard that the film was pushed back to January, because when they aired the trailer in theathers people would laugh at it. Doesn't surprise me.

But anyway, the worst part isn't the demonizing of the vikings (yes, as you put it, they just look like demons!), it's the fact that the director seems to think that this portrayal is more accurate than most others. That is so wrong, he's such an idiot.

When the Vikings came to America, they didn't even show any hostility, as far as I'm aware. The tales from that time say that they had problems with the indians (Skraelingar), becuase they were xenophobic against the newly arrived blondes. How is a viking colony of 20 persons, including women and children, supposed to pose any threat to an entire indian tribe?

Unfortunetly, this is Hollywood. A hollywood that is deeply racist. Germanic people are automaticly evil, Native Americans are automaticly good.

[MikePizzoff]

Amen, brother. Reppin you for this post.

[Mike70]

having read the viking sagas and the histories of snorri sturlusson, i remember the vikings with the honor and respect that they deserve. they were an intensely civilized, intensely artistic people, given to poetry, and nautical innovation; who accomplished things during the dark/early middle ages that no one else even dared to do. there weren't many (if any) cultures that had the balls to sail out of sight of land back then. the vikings not only did it - they crossed the atl several times and returned to tell the tale. not many people know that iceland was one of the great centers of learning, history and culture anywhere on planet earth at that time.

the vikings are some of the most interesting people ever. they are worthy of study and admiration. they deserve to be remembered with dignity and honor.


When the Vikings came to America, they didn't even show any hostility, as far as I'm aware. The tales from that time say that they had problems with the indians (Skraelingar), becuase they were xenophobic against the newly arrived blondes. How is a viking colony of 20 persons, including women and children, supposed to pose any threat to an entire indian tribe?


actually the first meeting between the vikings and the indians turned out rather badly for the indians:

"on their way back to the ship they noticed three humps on the sandy beach just in from the headland. when they went closer they found that these were three skin-boats, with three men under each. thorvald and his men divided forces and captured all of them except one, who escaped in his boat. they killed the other eight and returned to the headland, from which they scanned the surrounding country. they could make out a number of humps farther up the fjord and concluded that these were settlements." the Graenlendinga saga, sec 5 "thorvald explores vinland"

the saga goes on to describe the counterattack by indians and how the vikings, heavily armed and wearing helmets and armor were able to fight them off and how thorvald ericsson (brother of leif) was killed in the encounter by an arrow that got him in the armpit. but i am too lazy to sit here and type it all out. see "the vinland sagas" (which contains the graenlendinga saga and eirik's saga) translated by magnus magnusson (some very imaginative parents this guy had huh?) and herman palsson for the whole story.


also brother evilned what the hell would anyone be doing with plate armour during the dark ages?!! yet another high middle ages anachronism. the knowledge of how to make plate armour was lost in the west after the fall of the roman empire and didn't resurface until the late 13th-early 14th century and didn't reach its height (with the milanese armorers) until the 15th century.

[EvilNed]

Sounds interesting. Was that Leif Eriksens first expedition? I'm not surprised to read that the vikings fought them off, however, pretty much for the same reason that the spaniard would later decimate any indians they faced on the fields. The indians were pretty much a stone-age civilization, even their axes were made of stone. They had no armor, and no concept of fighting as a cohesive group.

I wrote an extensive topic on Hernán Cortéz campaign, and I imagine alot of the factors that weighed into his benefit would be in effect here as well. Steel is better than stone. It's easier to kill someone by thrusting a sword than to swing a club. Armor is your friend. Fight as a cohesive group, is better than individual fighting. Remember, vikings favoured the shieldwall formation and the svinfylke.

Too bad it was the spaniards who first settled in America, becuase I have a strong feeling that the native americans would have recieved a kinder treatment from the vikings (who would most likely be more interested in trading with these new people).

In later times, I heard quite an ironic story of how one of the viking colonies in North America came to exchange blows with the native americans.

I can't remember which colony it was, but they had found what could be remains of one all the way down in New York. It might have been that one. But anyway, the vikings had settled and had recieved a visit from one of the native american tribes in the vicinity. They traded gifts, and the vikings gave to the indians something that was very common to them. They gave them milk.

But when the indians drank it, they fell ill and thought that the vikings had tried to poison them. Indians are lactosintolerant. So the next time they met with the vikings, they weren't as pleased and the vikings had to take to sea since they were heavily outnumbered.

Scipio: Not only the platemail. If you watch the trailer again, you'll see that one of the vikings is swinging a flail/morning star... A weapon which was only every used by later knights, and not very commonly either!

[Mike70]

Sounds interesting. Was that Leif Eriksens first expedition? I'm not surprised to read that the vikings fought them off, however, pretty much for the same reason that the spaniard would later decimate any indians they faced on the fields. The indians were pretty much a stone-age civilization, even their axes were made of stone. They had no armor, and no concept of fighting as a cohesive group.

no this incident didn't happen on leif's trip to vinland but on a follow-up expedition led by his brother thorvald soon after leif's discovery of N. Amer. which was followed by another expedition led by thorstein eiriksson, yet another brother of leif's. what i think is amazing for this time is that leif's sister freydis actually led an expedition to vinland as well. a woman in charge? unheard of anywhere else in the west.

ok. i just watched this piece of s*it trailer and am just as appalled and outraged as evilned. what a piece of tripe.

for starters:
600 years before columbus?!! motherfcuker please. leif ericsson landed in north amer. circa 1001 AD. less than 500 years before columbus. the sagas say nothing ABSOLUTELY nothing about taking native americans as slaves. they say a great deal about viking attempts to trade with the indians and the viking interest in the plentiful timber (vital to the greenland colony) and the huge amounts of fish that were there for the taking. the sagas also talk about a great deal about the conflicts that erupted between the indians and the vikings. these conflicts were more the result of misunderstandings between the two cultures and less about blood thirsty vikings about to pillage and murder.

outfcukingrageous in the extreme.

[EvilNed]

I think it's now official that Marcus Nispel must die.

Also, I will do my part in ensuring that this film gets as little cash from the box office as possible, and encourage anyone I know who wants to see it to download it instead.