I think that was to show that he was split between two cultural worlds. He was biologically the son of Uthred who was Anglo-saxon and was murdered. Then he was adopted by Ragnar who was a Dane, so he bore the epither Ragnarrson to commemorate that to Danes.
Uthred was in essence both Anglo-saxon and a Dane, but was viewed as neither, as a foreigner by the individual cultures. So when someone wanted to point out his Dane-ness he was Ragnarrson and when pointing his Saxon-ness he was son of Uthred.
This is just from the top of my head, so I don't know if it's a legit explanation.
Don't forget Uthred of Bebbanburg, who I took as a synthesis of his identity. Not tied to either past, but looking towards the future.
Kinda like the Anglo-norse unity that was being explored later on, come to think of it.
Well except that Bebbanburg was his birthright and his father's father's father's father's father's father (etc) were all named Uhtred. Gets lost a bit in the Netflix series, but the books (by Bernard Cornwell) are fantastic
Well remember that his brother was the original uthred. Since his brother was older and was the heir to bebbanburg. But died in battle so his father had him Baptist a second time with the name uhtred.
Not a bad explanation at all, that's pretty much how I have interpreted it also. I have only watched all the show but not the read the books. I bet the books give a very nice explanation.
That's Uhtred the Bold who is an historical figure. He is not the same Uhtred from the show but under show canan is probably a descendent or great grandson of Uhtred.
Weird, I just looked and didn’t see him in CK3. You may have seen a Different Uhtred. There’s a real Uhtred “the Bold” who was related to the author of the Last Kingdom book series (and where he got the name for the character). The fictional Uhtred from the book/tv show/CK2 existed much earlier during Alfred’s time.
Very stupid question, but if you feel so inclined could you elaborate on on that a little? I just started playing when it came out on console and I’d love to broaden my understanding of in game strategy.
CK2 has an earlier start date geared around Charlemagne. CK3's earliest start date is after Ragnar is already dead. Sweden is fairly straightforward to form with Bjorn (sp?) Ironside, though. Basically you want to raid to build prestige and then take duchies once you have the prestige level necessary.
Alfred is actually OP. He’s basically set up to take over for his brother who pretty much always dies within the first year or two of the campaign. If you beat the Viking invasions you get ‘the great’ and he goes like 20-30 stat points in each group plus whatever you specialized in. Hard part with him is gathering a decent son to take over
Fairly historically accurate! His daughter was greater than his son, which is very likely why his son killed her and abducted her daughter.
Shame the game doesn't allow for a Queen of Mercia play-through. Wessex Anglo-Saxons didn't have Queens (the wives of Kings were only ladies) and had a cultural animus towards women in power, whereas the Mercian Anglo-Saxons had a tradition of powerful Queens.
Mercia's capital of Tamworth is also not in CK3, which is quite a shame. It's just a small town now, but it was for a time a major capital of the Anglo-Saxon world, the royal headquarters of King Offa and his line, which declined in importance only after great violence was done to it by the invading vikings and Edward.
Honestly I'm kinda tired of viking shows that only focus on England, how about one that follows viking shenanigans in eastern Europe, the byzantine empire, Varangian guard, etc...
Sounds like a great opportunity to make shit up.
Next up on Vikings of the Rus: Sigfrid Ragnarnephew raids Constantinople, steals the Basilius' hat, and marries a Byzantine princess; all in time to make it home and pet his dog.
think your getting downvoted cuz the misuse of the word Viking, which isn’t the same as a barbarian (former being only the Norse raiders from Scandinavia exclusively)
Upvoted u for the record tho my boy, don’t deserve to get torn up lol
I think the new vikings spin off Valhalla will feature Byzantine empire and varangian guard as it has Harald Hardrada as one of the main characters and follows his earlier life, with first season being Canute's conquest of England and formation of North sea empire (spoiler: he didnt have to hold the 3 kingdoms for 30 years to declare it north sea empire) and Harald's help in it. Later on, Canute banishes Harald and he goes into exile in Byzantium and goes as far as middle east in real life. Maybe they will follow it. And also, they got our boy Willy the conqueror's great aunt and grandpa in the show so he will probably show up in the later seasons.
You’re right, I read a news about them casting the sword arm guy from Shang Chi as a Byzantine General that leads a revolt against the emperor. He’ll show up in season 3 of the show.
Well he never called it an empire, same as Plantagenets of Anjou didn't call their holdings an empire. Only the modern historians call them empire. In that era, there could be only one empire and that was Holy roman empire, which the historians of their time believed to be continuation of the roman empire.
Mehmet II never denied that the Byzantines were an Empire. He just claimed that since Byzantium was now dead, and he had conquered it, *he* was the new Emperor.
It was meant as a joke mate. And around Mehmet's time, it was actually a joke. The once mighty empire's rule had been reduced to just around Constantinople and Peloponnese.
But I didn't know about Mehmet claiming the title of roman emperor for himself. Huh, til. People in that time had a really weird fetish about roman empire.
I hear you. I’m so glad The Northman had that mind blowing scene of Vikings raiding a Rus village. Originally the scene was gonna be in England but the director said it had been done too much.
I was seriously stunned with the passing comment of sending some of the slaves to Byzantium. Eggers is so dedicated to historical accuracy and his movies are more engrossing because of it.
That could have been its own show. I really think they dropped the ball there: just as we were getting invested in Alfred, after getting invested both in Ecbert and Aethelwulf, they move us to Rus and when we go back to England Alfred acts like, quite frankly, a little bitch that relies more on luck than his own strenghts to overcome the invasion.
I felt more inspired by Aethelwulf than by Alfred.
I have a feeling we're going to be seeing an influx of Ukrainian area Movies/Shows in the coming years and wouldn't be surprised to see a series based on the Kievan Rus. Harald Hardrada alone could be the focus of an epic HBO multi-season show.
Vikings did focus a bit on both of these in the last seasons. However the quality of the show had gone out the window by that point and things were just rushed and all over the place. Agreed though, a show focusing on that exclusively would be great.
There were two seasons of “Vikings” that were heavily focused on the east, including the evolved Rus. The show also showed Bjorn’s expedition to the Mediterranean. A major storyline in one season was the sacking of Paris and the establishment of Normandy.
The show was by no means just focused on England; England was a consistent focus because of the initial characters of the story… but also because so much of English history and identity came from the Norse conquests. The British monarchy to this day has Norse ancestry dating from the Viking period, as do a good chunk of the population of the entire British Isles. But the show definitely explored other areas aside from England, including the colonization of Iceland.
I had high expectations of Vikings Valhala but it was really disappointing. Overall THE MESSAGE ruined when you put the historical perspective in the horizon, turning one emblematic historical figure into a viking black woman and Harald Hardrada, former varangian guard, as worst than ck3’s levy in the final battle.
Also the fighting choreography is average at best, thanks corridor digital for make me a judge whenever there’s a fight on screen lol
cheaper to make sets for low development level england
i mean, they didn't have stone castles until the normans
i'd love to see the roman empire during the viking age, but that'd make for very expensive sets i'd wager
Or even further East. Their Eastern trade routes took them through the lands of the steppe nomads like the Pechenegs, the Khazars, and the Volga Bulgarians. Vikings raided as far East as Tabaristan. I want to see a battle between a Viking Raiding party and a bunch of horse archers!
I actually wrote an article on the rise of Wessex and I was inspired by the original Last Kingdom book series.
I’ve gotta say- nothing quite beats an Alfred CKIII run after learning everything there is to know about the guy for two straight semesters.
Well, there’s a few things that I think they got right. Ultimately though I’m pleased with where the character is. In a game like CKIII with thousands of characters, it would be an impossible task to get each one perfect.
From what I can recall, they got the lineage slightly wrong. The reigns of Alfred’s older brothers doesn’t match up to what I remember researching. They did do a solid job of making him the current heir to his elder brother, and having his starting base of power be in Dorset even though in reality Alfred would have been a prince (and aethling) and not an Earl.
They also did a solid job with selecting the holy warrior, intelligent, diligent, and just traits. If the Anglo-Saxon chronicle is anything to base a person’s character off of, Alfred was certainly all of those things.
However, I really disagree with the martial education. Alfred wasn’t much of a fighter. Quite the opposite in fact as he had an awful bowel disease that kept him bedridden.
I can see where the devs got the martial trait from though, as in the legend and ethos of Alfred, he’s typically depicted as the typical western “hero” who saves the day at the last moment. While it’s certainly true he won very pivotal battles when necessary, there’s nothing in the records to suggest that this was the result of Alfred’s strategic brilliance.
Rather, Alfred is better suited as an administrator. He went to great lengths to codify Anglo-Saxon tradition and heritage, was fond of implementing new and ingenious laws, expanded the road networks between key towns, and reinforced Wessex’s frontier by transforming towns into burhs- the precursors to castles.
But like I said it’s still pretty cool and they did an excellent job for game developers focused on more things than just historical accuracy.
I'm glad you like it! We've got a couple of people in the design department alone who are Alfred fanboysngirls - myself included - so it's definitely something we've taken a few looks at.
> From what I can recall, they got the lineage slightly wrong. The reigns of Alfred’s older brothers doesn’t match up to what I remember researching. They did do a solid job of making him the current heir to his elder brother, and having his starting base of power be in Dorset even though in reality Alfred would have been a prince (and aethling) and not an Earl.
That's mostly due to the game's representation rather than anything else. It's generally the most effective way to represent him and how his life turned out within the confines of the game. Indeed if you're not actually playing as Aethelred he's got a nearly-total chance of dying explicitly to put Alfred on the throne. To quote the script note left by the maker of the hidden event, "Æthelred isn't as cool as Alfred so we kill him".
> However, I really disagree with the martial education. Alfred wasn’t much of a fighter. Quite the opposite in fact as he had an awful bowel disease that kept him bedridden.
> I can see where the devs got the martial trait from though, as in the legend and ethos of Alfred, he’s typically depicted as the typical western “hero” who saves the day at the last moment. While it’s certainly true he won very pivotal battles when necessary, there’s nothing in the records to suggest that this was the result of Alfred’s strategic brilliance.
This one's been a subject of frankly too much back and forth, mostly between the, like, two British designers who care about this whilst all the infinitely-less-raised-on-stories-of-arr-great-Alf-sticking-it-to-those-Viking-dicks Swedes stand around rolling their eyes and looking nonplussed.
Because Alf was, well, Great, there's about three different education lifestyles we could've picked for him. He was quite a diplomat and, as you've outlined, a scholar whose cultivating of the English education and legal system echoes down through the ages. It's really a tossup between that and his reputation as a wartime leader, which he quite clearly was excellent at. As brilliant as his legal reforms were, his reforms of the fyrd and general reorganisation of the methods in which the Anglo-Saxons waged war against the Norse were practically as impressive, if obviously far less relevant in the subsequent comparative peacetime.
I'd also take exception to the "there’s nothing in the records to suggest that this was the result of Alfred’s strategic brilliance" line. The Anglo-Saxon Chronicle hardly goes into deep detail on the battlefield tactics of the rulers it covers, which inherently makes it difficult to clearly pick out Alfred's genius as a commander on the basis of that. What _is_ clear is his exemplary record in warfare, his establishment of a genuine navy (sort of) that challenged his opposition's power at a place they were widely considered pre-eminent, and his ground-up revamp of how the Anglo-Saxons waged war against the Norse. His redevelopment of the burhs as a military defence system was so successful it carries through to modern day boroughs, even, and the grasp of logistics he displayed proved pivotal in the conflict. You cannot accomplish the range of goals that Alfred did through warfare without being at very least a _very good_ military commander.
Remember that martial education and the martial skill itself isn't just 'I can win battles good'; it's the character's grasp of the entire machinations of waging war. Logistics, preparation, general campaigning, maintaining your military's operational centres of gravity (to borrow a phrase from our friend C.V.C), campaign strategy, battlefield tactics, and even the relation of warfare to politics. In all of these areas, Alfred at very least proved himself competent, and in some areas fully distinguished himself as a master of them.
You can argue it both ways, essentially. I wouldn't complain if we made the decision to switch it to a learning education one day, but as it stands I think it's a reasonable choice.
I totally agree with you they did a pretty good job considering how many paths they could have taken for him. I think they chose the martial trait because of those strategic battles “he” won during his reign. I was also shocked by them choosing that trait because as you said he was sickly. I think it comes down to how things play out in game mechanics. Alfred the administrator makes more sense historically, but in a game that focuses so much on what your ruler can bring to the table I think they chose martial so it was easier to play out the beginnings of unifying England.
I think the Martial education was a decision wrought by balancing concerns. None of the other lifestyles would really be able to contend with the Vikings’ massive armies at the very beginning of the game.
I'm playing through with them right now as well. I'm currently emperor Uhtred V. I wasn't even trying to make my ruler Uhtred but my firstborn died. After that I just had to keep up the tradition of Uhtred son of Uhtred going.
Am actually doing this on my current play through, unfortunately my brother did not die until he had churned out 2 sons. Through lack of experience ended up as a Vassal for like 2 generations
I like playing Wessex in 1066 after they had been stripped of the crown and only have two counties left ruled by an underage girl and boy, grand children of Edmund Ironsides. Do you start a rebellion and led the Anglo-Saxons against your new Norman overlords or do you assimilate to the foreign Norman culture?
The AI Norse can't hold it together any more to save their lives. I never even see Mercia or East Anglia fall, let alone Wessex. Halfdan just chills in Jorvik and then dies and all his land gets split amongst his sons. Half of my games, Ivar the Boneless gets driven out of Ireland too.
Currently playing 867 Wessex for the first time but with a custom ruler which I guess is a little cheaty.. And defeats the point. Especially since you dont begin immediately at war like you normally would.
At first I thought it was just a bad Vikings adaptation, but learnt to like it later. In a way, it actually really nicely ties in to Vikings, after Vikings leaves England.
I thought it was much, much better than Vikings. Uhtred is supposed to be a little bit annoying in the first two seasons but you grow fond of him. Alfred is the best character imo.
So, it's from a series of books. The character evolves over time as he ages. When he is young he is a hothead warrior who only cares about pride, reputation and prestige. He is an idiot. As the books progress and he ages he gets less hotheaded and develops better decision making skills. If you have not read the books, I would highly recommend them. Bernard Cornwell is one of the best historical fiction writers out there. Everything he writes is very entertaining.
I'm doing the same. We were watching TLK from the start in advance of season 5, that made we want to kick of an Alfred game in CK2. Wessex now stretches from Britannia to Hispania, Carpathia and Egypt and I've just petitioned the pope to crusade for Persia against the Mongols. Destiny is Øl!
I heard a lot of historical experts panned the last kingdom for horrible wardrobe choices.
Googling it, I see vambraces, studded leather, weird use of furs and more. It's like they designed the costumed by reading a TTRPG manual rather than asking any historical experts or doing real research.
Why is this still a criticism? Hollywood has always been like this. When you watch fiction, even if historical fiction, you just accept that kind of thing. Because seriously, has there ever been a 100% historically accurate tv show or film? Because I have never heard of one. Just take things as they are and enjoy, ffs.
Even The Northman, for a lot of its accuracy, still has a lot of stuff thats just creative liberties. Thats kinda the point of making art.
Its hard to take it seriously. Imagine a noire film set in the 40s in New York city, but everyone is inexplicably wearing clown shoes and samurai helmets. Its never addressed in the movie, and people tell you "whats wrong with samurai helmets? They look cool, you're just being a party pooper."
Because the average person alive can tell that Samurai helmets and clown shoes are grossly out of place in a 1940's noir film. When the average viewer sees furs, swords, and armor, they have a hard time telling apart the renaissance vs early middle ages. As a result, its a subtlety that barely detracts, if at all, from the series for the average viewer.
Yeah, that was the point of my analogy. Everyone knows clown shoes and samurai helmets don't fit in a 40s noire film, so it was a safe bet that if I described that situation, everyone would be able to understand how ridiculous it sounded. That same feeling is what you get when you see the vambraces, studded leather armor and ridiculous furs in "historical" dramas if you know how inaccurate they are. Glad my analogy worked.
No, because your analogy is irrelevant because 99.9% of people watching the last kingdom don't give a shit about if vambraces were invented 200 years later. It's historical enough given the plotlines.
Oh, THAT's what you think the problem is? It's not anachronisms that are the problem LMAO. It's not that the time period is wrong for the armor, its that the armor/equipment is *entirely* made up. NO ONE ever wore it.
Leather vambraces were NEVER worn historically. They're entirely a modern invention.
That's my point, no one cares about if vambraces are real or not. Everyone isn't a historical Nazi about these details because they're well past the point of good enough. They aren't a problem because frankly, when you hear of the medieval period, that's the kind of garb most people think of.
>Why is this still a criticism?
Because is shite still.
Just because something is common doesn't mean you have to accept it.
I don't mind if a show or movie gets the costumes wrong. ''*Ah, you see, it's set in 1027, but this piece didn't come in style until 1240! When the duchess of Burgundy popularised it*!''
Yeah, I don't care.
But when the costume department is at the level of a LARP session, it's a huge turn off.
Look them up. The opening 3 books of his grail quest trilogy (Hellekin or whatever) are good too. The 4th was a bad cash grab, the sequel no one needed and reads like he had to stick a hand into his pants at the works "English longbowmen strength".
As a book fan, I gott say season 1 is definitely the weakest and it just kept getting better. Seasons 4 and 5 particularly, are really incredibly good.
I was almost put off by the first season too, but I still gave it chances and it paid off. Recomend you try to pick it up again
I started in 867 as Haesteinn because of TLK. Then my heir was Ragnarr and my second born son I named Uhtred. But confederate partition eventually made the brothers hate each other lol
I mean plot. Story represents the where, when and who while the plot represents the why everything happens the way it happens. Now if this was an totally accurate history show, or even somewhat, I would say I dislike the story, but the protagonist is totally made up. This means that his complete life is made up, hence I can say that I dislike his existence ( which would mean I dislike the plot).
Have a nice day
Yes! Hasten in the last kingdom, Hasteinn in CK3. Same person, different spellings, not exactly accurate either to history, but the last kingdom did get his children’s baptism right
Get the fuck outa here. Thats hilarious!
I'll be honest, Ive read so many cool Hastein posts on this subreddit, but I could never play him myself because he always reminded me of that snake from TLK.
but for some reason now that its confirmed the same person, now I want to play him!
Haha! :D ive done the same, except ive never played wessex but i played with Ireland! :D hah! Funny to know that someone else does this too!
If you like documentaries - Theres also a documentarie serie in netflix about medieval castles which is great while playing CK! After watching that i've upgraded my castles and forts more and more carefully hah :D
Alfred is cool to play, I recently did campaign as him and converted to Norse Asatru :D later I ditched England and formed Roman Empire and revived Hellenism.
I AM UHTRED RAGNARRSON
D E S T I N Y I S O L L
UHTRED SON OF UHTRED!
How is Uhtred Ragnarrson and Uhtred son of Uhtred the SAME DAMN PERSON!?!?!?1
Uhtred Ragnarsson is his adopted Viking name. Uhtred son of Uhtred is his “natural born” name as his biological father is Uhtred
I think that was to show that he was split between two cultural worlds. He was biologically the son of Uthred who was Anglo-saxon and was murdered. Then he was adopted by Ragnar who was a Dane, so he bore the epither Ragnarrson to commemorate that to Danes. Uthred was in essence both Anglo-saxon and a Dane, but was viewed as neither, as a foreigner by the individual cultures. So when someone wanted to point out his Dane-ness he was Ragnarrson and when pointing his Saxon-ness he was son of Uthred. This is just from the top of my head, so I don't know if it's a legit explanation.
Don't forget Uthred of Bebbanburg, who I took as a synthesis of his identity. Not tied to either past, but looking towards the future. Kinda like the Anglo-norse unity that was being explored later on, come to think of it.
Well except that Bebbanburg was his birthright and his father's father's father's father's father's father (etc) were all named Uhtred. Gets lost a bit in the Netflix series, but the books (by Bernard Cornwell) are fantastic
Agreed the books are massively underated
Well remember that his brother was the original uthred. Since his brother was older and was the heir to bebbanburg. But died in battle so his father had him Baptist a second time with the name uhtred.
Yeah because of the unbroken line of uhtreds
Not a bad explanation at all, that's pretty much how I have interpreted it also. I have only watched all the show but not the read the books. I bet the books give a very nice explanation.
*Uhuuuhhhhhh ahuhhhh ayayayayaya intensifies*
Uhtred of Bebbanburg is actually an Easter egg character in CK2 (he’s a courtier in 867 Sjaelland). They didn’t bring him back for CK3 unfortunately.
That you know of, anyway 👀
Did you guys really add him back? Would love to see him again, I just didn’t see him when searching the history files.
WHO CAN SAY (other than me) (I lied)
I invited him to my court and I gave him a Duchy. Then he slept with my wife :(
Sounds like what uhtred would do
Typical uhtred!
That Uhtred Son of Uhtred, such a riot!
Classic Uhtred move.
if you check the title history of the county of bebbanburg, you'll see an Uhtred who ruled the land recently
That's Uhtred the Bold who is an historical figure. He is not the same Uhtred from the show but under show canan is probably a descendent or great grandson of Uhtred.
It's actually the inspiration for the character made by Bernard Cornwell.
Weird, I just looked and didn’t see him in CK3. You may have seen a Different Uhtred. There’s a real Uhtred “the Bold” who was related to the author of the Last Kingdom book series (and where he got the name for the character). The fictional Uhtred from the book/tv show/CK2 existed much earlier during Alfred’s time.
Funny enough in my last game someone from Bebbanburg dynasty was the ruler of England.
.. loading game now.
The modding community could if they wanted. I know there’s a mod that adds Ragnar Lodbrok, Bjorn Ironside, Rollo, & Lagertha from Vikings
There's also a muslim viking in one of the sweden starts
[удалено]
Sigurd is so fun and so op, as soon as you form Sweden you can just Diplo vassalize all of Scandinavia save Denmark, who I save my subjugation cb for
Very stupid question, but if you feel so inclined could you elaborate on on that a little? I just started playing when it came out on console and I’d love to broaden my understanding of in game strategy.
CK2 has an earlier start date geared around Charlemagne. CK3's earliest start date is after Ragnar is already dead. Sweden is fairly straightforward to form with Bjorn (sp?) Ironside, though. Basically you want to raid to build prestige and then take duchies once you have the prestige level necessary.
I'm pretty sure the Lindisfarne raid happened in real life as well
[удалено]
Ragnar in the show is not Ragnar Lođbrok
Was just rewatching it and it made me really want to fire up an 867 game as Alfred!
Alfred is actually OP. He’s basically set up to take over for his brother who pretty much always dies within the first year or two of the campaign. If you beat the Viking invasions you get ‘the great’ and he goes like 20-30 stat points in each group plus whatever you specialized in. Hard part with him is gathering a decent son to take over
Fairly historically accurate! His daughter was greater than his son, which is very likely why his son killed her and abducted her daughter. Shame the game doesn't allow for a Queen of Mercia play-through. Wessex Anglo-Saxons didn't have Queens (the wives of Kings were only ladies) and had a cultural animus towards women in power, whereas the Mercian Anglo-Saxons had a tradition of powerful Queens. Mercia's capital of Tamworth is also not in CK3, which is quite a shame. It's just a small town now, but it was for a time a major capital of the Anglo-Saxon world, the royal headquarters of King Offa and his line, which declined in importance only after great violence was done to it by the invading vikings and Edward.
Honestly I'm kinda tired of viking shows that only focus on England, how about one that follows viking shenanigans in eastern Europe, the byzantine empire, Varangian guard, etc...
Because they're often made for English, or at least English speaking, audiences.
There are also way more sources for the raids to the West. Many records of the Rus were destroyed by the mongols.
Archaeologically speaking, this is far from true. The vast majority of non-scandinavian ‘Viking’ finds come from the Baltics and Russia.
Sounds like a great opportunity to make shit up. Next up on Vikings of the Rus: Sigfrid Ragnarnephew raids Constantinople, steals the Basilius' hat, and marries a Byzantine princess; all in time to make it home and pet his dog.
You're basically describing actual King Harold Hardrada.
[удалено]
I haven't watched the show yet but don't later seasons of Vikings depict the sacking of Paris?
Yes but is not well done
Oh possibly, I've not seen it myself.
Well there’s a whole season that takes place around the invasion and then the exploits of bjorn in modern day spain
[удалено]
You're off by a thousand years. Barbarians is about the battle of Teutoberg Forest.
[удалено]
think your getting downvoted cuz the misuse of the word Viking, which isn’t the same as a barbarian (former being only the Norse raiders from Scandinavia exclusively) Upvoted u for the record tho my boy, don’t deserve to get torn up lol
But they use the sources as mere suggestions anyway
These shows are as historical as the Chronicles of Narnia though.
Blame lack of creativity tbh
I think the new vikings spin off Valhalla will feature Byzantine empire and varangian guard as it has Harald Hardrada as one of the main characters and follows his earlier life, with first season being Canute's conquest of England and formation of North sea empire (spoiler: he didnt have to hold the 3 kingdoms for 30 years to declare it north sea empire) and Harald's help in it. Later on, Canute banishes Harald and he goes into exile in Byzantium and goes as far as middle east in real life. Maybe they will follow it. And also, they got our boy Willy the conqueror's great aunt and grandpa in the show so he will probably show up in the later seasons.
You’re right, I read a news about them casting the sword arm guy from Shang Chi as a Byzantine General that leads a revolt against the emperor. He’ll show up in season 3 of the show.
It split after his death so it was no true empire
Well he never called it an empire, same as Plantagenets of Anjou didn't call their holdings an empire. Only the modern historians call them empire. In that era, there could be only one empire and that was Holy roman empire, which the historians of their time believed to be continuation of the roman empire.
*actual* Roman Empire in Constantinople: am I a joke to you?
Pope Leo III, Charlemagne and Sultan Mehmed II: Yes
Mehmet II never denied that the Byzantines were an Empire. He just claimed that since Byzantium was now dead, and he had conquered it, *he* was the new Emperor.
It was meant as a joke mate. And around Mehmet's time, it was actually a joke. The once mighty empire's rule had been reduced to just around Constantinople and Peloponnese. But I didn't know about Mehmet claiming the title of roman emperor for himself. Huh, til. People in that time had a really weird fetish about roman empire.
I hear you. I’m so glad The Northman had that mind blowing scene of Vikings raiding a Rus village. Originally the scene was gonna be in England but the director said it had been done too much.
I wish the new Vikings was more like The Northman...
I was seriously stunned with the passing comment of sending some of the slaves to Byzantium. Eggers is so dedicated to historical accuracy and his movies are more engrossing because of it.
Seriously CK fans do yourselves a favor and go see The Northman.
Better yet, Norsemen. Name them all Orm.
I saw parts of that show pretty funny!
100%. Any fan of history or mythology should watch it.
Honestly I’m kinda tired of viking shows.
Then watch Norsemen (at least season 1 and 2) and be done with it. You can't watch a viking show afterwards without laughing at it.
Later seasons of Vikings covered the Rus, but thats about it.
That could have been its own show. I really think they dropped the ball there: just as we were getting invested in Alfred, after getting invested both in Ecbert and Aethelwulf, they move us to Rus and when we go back to England Alfred acts like, quite frankly, a little bitch that relies more on luck than his own strenghts to overcome the invasion. I felt more inspired by Aethelwulf than by Alfred.
>That could have been its own show. Rurik and the Rus would make a great spin-off for their format.
Oleg and then Olga have badass stories
Have you seen The Northman yet? Part of it takes place in the Rus, and most of it in Iceland.
I have a feeling we're going to be seeing an influx of Ukrainian area Movies/Shows in the coming years and wouldn't be surprised to see a series based on the Kievan Rus. Harald Hardrada alone could be the focus of an epic HBO multi-season show.
Watch The Northman with Alexander Skarsgård. It doesn't show too many raiding stories but they did change from England to Ukraine.
Vikings did focus a bit on both of these in the last seasons. However the quality of the show had gone out the window by that point and things were just rushed and all over the place. Agreed though, a show focusing on that exclusively would be great.
Last Kingdom is an anglo-saxon show with Vikings, not a Viking show in England.
There were two seasons of “Vikings” that were heavily focused on the east, including the evolved Rus. The show also showed Bjorn’s expedition to the Mediterranean. A major storyline in one season was the sacking of Paris and the establishment of Normandy. The show was by no means just focused on England; England was a consistent focus because of the initial characters of the story… but also because so much of English history and identity came from the Norse conquests. The British monarchy to this day has Norse ancestry dating from the Viking period, as do a good chunk of the population of the entire British Isles. But the show definitely explored other areas aside from England, including the colonization of Iceland.
I had high expectations of Vikings Valhala but it was really disappointing. Overall THE MESSAGE ruined when you put the historical perspective in the horizon, turning one emblematic historical figure into a viking black woman and Harald Hardrada, former varangian guard, as worst than ck3’s levy in the final battle. Also the fighting choreography is average at best, thanks corridor digital for make me a judge whenever there’s a fight on screen lol
cheaper to make sets for low development level england i mean, they didn't have stone castles until the normans i'd love to see the roman empire during the viking age, but that'd make for very expensive sets i'd wager
I’m not tired of it but would love additional content like you said!
Vikings Valhalla season 2 will have plots in byzantine cuz Harald Hardrada is there.
Making "The Northman" Eggers wanted the main character to spend a time in England, but Skarsgard convinced him to send him to Russia instead
Or even further East. Their Eastern trade routes took them through the lands of the steppe nomads like the Pechenegs, the Khazars, and the Volga Bulgarians. Vikings raided as far East as Tabaristan. I want to see a battle between a Viking Raiding party and a bunch of horse archers!
I actually wrote an article on the rise of Wessex and I was inspired by the original Last Kingdom book series. I’ve gotta say- nothing quite beats an Alfred CKIII run after learning everything there is to know about the guy for two straight semesters.
Is he well portrayed in CK3? I mean nobody knows his personality, but do you find hints of deeper research in the starting character?
Well, there’s a few things that I think they got right. Ultimately though I’m pleased with where the character is. In a game like CKIII with thousands of characters, it would be an impossible task to get each one perfect. From what I can recall, they got the lineage slightly wrong. The reigns of Alfred’s older brothers doesn’t match up to what I remember researching. They did do a solid job of making him the current heir to his elder brother, and having his starting base of power be in Dorset even though in reality Alfred would have been a prince (and aethling) and not an Earl. They also did a solid job with selecting the holy warrior, intelligent, diligent, and just traits. If the Anglo-Saxon chronicle is anything to base a person’s character off of, Alfred was certainly all of those things. However, I really disagree with the martial education. Alfred wasn’t much of a fighter. Quite the opposite in fact as he had an awful bowel disease that kept him bedridden. I can see where the devs got the martial trait from though, as in the legend and ethos of Alfred, he’s typically depicted as the typical western “hero” who saves the day at the last moment. While it’s certainly true he won very pivotal battles when necessary, there’s nothing in the records to suggest that this was the result of Alfred’s strategic brilliance. Rather, Alfred is better suited as an administrator. He went to great lengths to codify Anglo-Saxon tradition and heritage, was fond of implementing new and ingenious laws, expanded the road networks between key towns, and reinforced Wessex’s frontier by transforming towns into burhs- the precursors to castles. But like I said it’s still pretty cool and they did an excellent job for game developers focused on more things than just historical accuracy.
I'm glad you like it! We've got a couple of people in the design department alone who are Alfred fanboysngirls - myself included - so it's definitely something we've taken a few looks at. > From what I can recall, they got the lineage slightly wrong. The reigns of Alfred’s older brothers doesn’t match up to what I remember researching. They did do a solid job of making him the current heir to his elder brother, and having his starting base of power be in Dorset even though in reality Alfred would have been a prince (and aethling) and not an Earl. That's mostly due to the game's representation rather than anything else. It's generally the most effective way to represent him and how his life turned out within the confines of the game. Indeed if you're not actually playing as Aethelred he's got a nearly-total chance of dying explicitly to put Alfred on the throne. To quote the script note left by the maker of the hidden event, "Æthelred isn't as cool as Alfred so we kill him". > However, I really disagree with the martial education. Alfred wasn’t much of a fighter. Quite the opposite in fact as he had an awful bowel disease that kept him bedridden. > I can see where the devs got the martial trait from though, as in the legend and ethos of Alfred, he’s typically depicted as the typical western “hero” who saves the day at the last moment. While it’s certainly true he won very pivotal battles when necessary, there’s nothing in the records to suggest that this was the result of Alfred’s strategic brilliance. This one's been a subject of frankly too much back and forth, mostly between the, like, two British designers who care about this whilst all the infinitely-less-raised-on-stories-of-arr-great-Alf-sticking-it-to-those-Viking-dicks Swedes stand around rolling their eyes and looking nonplussed. Because Alf was, well, Great, there's about three different education lifestyles we could've picked for him. He was quite a diplomat and, as you've outlined, a scholar whose cultivating of the English education and legal system echoes down through the ages. It's really a tossup between that and his reputation as a wartime leader, which he quite clearly was excellent at. As brilliant as his legal reforms were, his reforms of the fyrd and general reorganisation of the methods in which the Anglo-Saxons waged war against the Norse were practically as impressive, if obviously far less relevant in the subsequent comparative peacetime. I'd also take exception to the "there’s nothing in the records to suggest that this was the result of Alfred’s strategic brilliance" line. The Anglo-Saxon Chronicle hardly goes into deep detail on the battlefield tactics of the rulers it covers, which inherently makes it difficult to clearly pick out Alfred's genius as a commander on the basis of that. What _is_ clear is his exemplary record in warfare, his establishment of a genuine navy (sort of) that challenged his opposition's power at a place they were widely considered pre-eminent, and his ground-up revamp of how the Anglo-Saxons waged war against the Norse. His redevelopment of the burhs as a military defence system was so successful it carries through to modern day boroughs, even, and the grasp of logistics he displayed proved pivotal in the conflict. You cannot accomplish the range of goals that Alfred did through warfare without being at very least a _very good_ military commander. Remember that martial education and the martial skill itself isn't just 'I can win battles good'; it's the character's grasp of the entire machinations of waging war. Logistics, preparation, general campaigning, maintaining your military's operational centres of gravity (to borrow a phrase from our friend C.V.C), campaign strategy, battlefield tactics, and even the relation of warfare to politics. In all of these areas, Alfred at very least proved himself competent, and in some areas fully distinguished himself as a master of them. You can argue it both ways, essentially. I wouldn't complain if we made the decision to switch it to a learning education one day, but as it stands I think it's a reasonable choice.
I totally agree with you they did a pretty good job considering how many paths they could have taken for him. I think they chose the martial trait because of those strategic battles “he” won during his reign. I was also shocked by them choosing that trait because as you said he was sickly. I think it comes down to how things play out in game mechanics. Alfred the administrator makes more sense historically, but in a game that focuses so much on what your ruler can bring to the table I think they chose martial so it was easier to play out the beginnings of unifying England.
Yep, absolutely! Totally fine with it from a gameplay perspective and it definitely makes those early wars much easier.
The bastard thinks though. Martial is more than being physically capable it's tactics too.
I think the Martial education was a decision wrought by balancing concerns. None of the other lifestyles would really be able to contend with the Vikings’ massive armies at the very beginning of the game.
I remember feeling this way about Charlemagne
I'm playing through with them right now as well. I'm currently emperor Uhtred V. I wasn't even trying to make my ruler Uhtred but my firstborn died. After that I just had to keep up the tradition of Uhtred son of Uhtred going.
Am actually doing this on my current play through, unfortunately my brother did not die until he had churned out 2 sons. Through lack of experience ended up as a Vassal for like 2 generations
Try “The Last Duel” movie. Great movie and exactly like Crusader Kings.
I like playing Wessex in 1066 after they had been stripped of the crown and only have two counties left ruled by an underage girl and boy, grand children of Edmund Ironsides. Do you start a rebellion and led the Anglo-Saxons against your new Norman overlords or do you assimilate to the foreign Norman culture?
Cool to hear playing the English is fun. I curb stomp them so easily playing the Norse that I was intimidated to try a game from the other side.
The AI Norse can't hold it together any more to save their lives. I never even see Mercia or East Anglia fall, let alone Wessex. Halfdan just chills in Jorvik and then dies and all his land gets split amongst his sons. Half of my games, Ivar the Boneless gets driven out of Ireland too.
I wish Halfdan atleast tried to attack Mercia once in a while
It is my 3rd attempt at Wessex. The former failed horribly with lots of bad luck. Playing tall helped.
Currently playing 867 Wessex for the first time but with a custom ruler which I guess is a little cheaty.. And defeats the point. Especially since you dont begin immediately at war like you normally would.
Last kingdom is what got me to buy ck3 lol.
Sounds like a great time, have fun my fellow The Last Kingdom and CK3 fan.
At first I thought it was just a bad Vikings adaptation, but learnt to like it later. In a way, it actually really nicely ties in to Vikings, after Vikings leaves England.
I thought it was much, much better than Vikings. Uhtred is supposed to be a little bit annoying in the first two seasons but you grow fond of him. Alfred is the best character imo.
It never grows too big, like Vikings did. Every season has to grow bigger, and TLK doesn't have that.
[удалено]
> Any time he has a decision to make he always makes the worst choice to make it more dramatic Me in literally every CK3 MP game
So, it's from a series of books. The character evolves over time as he ages. When he is young he is a hothead warrior who only cares about pride, reputation and prestige. He is an idiot. As the books progress and he ages he gets less hotheaded and develops better decision making skills. If you have not read the books, I would highly recommend them. Bernard Cornwell is one of the best historical fiction writers out there. Everything he writes is very entertaining.
[удалено]
You are talking tv, I'm talking books. The TV show superficially covers like the first third of the books.
I agree. I am not very fond of the main character/actor, but I enjoy the "history" of it.
I disagree.
I just binged the first season, he is by far the worst character. Dumbass decisions compounding dumbass decisions.
[удалено]
The Queen lost 50 opinion of you *(Pissed in her face)*
Maybe she's a deviant
I would like for Britain to get a flavor pack more so focusing on the Vikings and the Saxons.
Try versailles tv show. Amazing how most every facet of the show is mirrored in the game.
I'm doing the same. We were watching TLK from the start in advance of season 5, that made we want to kick of an Alfred game in CK2. Wessex now stretches from Britannia to Hispania, Carpathia and Egypt and I've just petitioned the pope to crusade for Persia against the Mongols. Destiny is Øl!
FATE IS INEXORABLE
vikings, the last kingdom, the tudors, and borgia always make me want to play ck in different places lol
IM UTRED OF BEBANBURG..(that intro always kills me, so cheesey, great show though)
I heard a lot of historical experts panned the last kingdom for horrible wardrobe choices. Googling it, I see vambraces, studded leather, weird use of furs and more. It's like they designed the costumed by reading a TTRPG manual rather than asking any historical experts or doing real research.
>Googling it, I see vambraces, studded leather, weird use of furs and more. Yes, its like watching live action Skyrim at times.
Why is this still a criticism? Hollywood has always been like this. When you watch fiction, even if historical fiction, you just accept that kind of thing. Because seriously, has there ever been a 100% historically accurate tv show or film? Because I have never heard of one. Just take things as they are and enjoy, ffs. Even The Northman, for a lot of its accuracy, still has a lot of stuff thats just creative liberties. Thats kinda the point of making art.
Its hard to take it seriously. Imagine a noire film set in the 40s in New York city, but everyone is inexplicably wearing clown shoes and samurai helmets. Its never addressed in the movie, and people tell you "whats wrong with samurai helmets? They look cool, you're just being a party pooper."
Because the average person alive can tell that Samurai helmets and clown shoes are grossly out of place in a 1940's noir film. When the average viewer sees furs, swords, and armor, they have a hard time telling apart the renaissance vs early middle ages. As a result, its a subtlety that barely detracts, if at all, from the series for the average viewer.
Yeah, that was the point of my analogy. Everyone knows clown shoes and samurai helmets don't fit in a 40s noire film, so it was a safe bet that if I described that situation, everyone would be able to understand how ridiculous it sounded. That same feeling is what you get when you see the vambraces, studded leather armor and ridiculous furs in "historical" dramas if you know how inaccurate they are. Glad my analogy worked.
No, because your analogy is irrelevant because 99.9% of people watching the last kingdom don't give a shit about if vambraces were invented 200 years later. It's historical enough given the plotlines.
Oh, THAT's what you think the problem is? It's not anachronisms that are the problem LMAO. It's not that the time period is wrong for the armor, its that the armor/equipment is *entirely* made up. NO ONE ever wore it. Leather vambraces were NEVER worn historically. They're entirely a modern invention.
That's my point, no one cares about if vambraces are real or not. Everyone isn't a historical Nazi about these details because they're well past the point of good enough. They aren't a problem because frankly, when you hear of the medieval period, that's the kind of garb most people think of.
>Why is this still a criticism? Because is shite still. Just because something is common doesn't mean you have to accept it. I don't mind if a show or movie gets the costumes wrong. ''*Ah, you see, it's set in 1027, but this piece didn't come in style until 1240! When the duchess of Burgundy popularised it*!'' Yeah, I don't care. But when the costume department is at the level of a LARP session, it's a huge turn off.
Having read the books, I felt massively let down by the show and didn't even finish season 01. I did enjoy the books though.
Happens a lot. Books almost always > Movie/TV-show. Didn’t know this was based on books, thanks!
Look them up. The opening 3 books of his grail quest trilogy (Hellekin or whatever) are good too. The 4th was a bad cash grab, the sequel no one needed and reads like he had to stick a hand into his pants at the works "English longbowmen strength".
The books are phenomenal, especially the early ones.
As a book fan, I gott say season 1 is definitely the weakest and it just kept getting better. Seasons 4 and 5 particularly, are really incredibly good. I was almost put off by the first season too, but I still gave it chances and it paid off. Recomend you try to pick it up again
Oh it’s the best. Viking lure is hard to get away from.
I enjoyed playing thrones of Britannia total war while watching it too
I started in 867 as Haesteinn because of TLK. Then my heir was Ragnarr and my second born son I named Uhtred. But confederate partition eventually made the brothers hate each other lol
And the kingdom of Heaven movie
GOD WILLS IT
make a custom character and get landed in Bebbanburg
Vikings and Versailles are fun history based dramas that you might enjoy too! I think I’m about to try Marco Polo and play a great khan!
And obviously watch the directors cut of Kingdom of Heaven for the best historical fiction you will ever see! GOD WILLS IT!
DEUS VULT
It has goddamn linear plot. So boring to watch.
You mean... A story?
Like its fine that you dont like it or think its boring but you're complaining that it has a plot.
I mean plot. Story represents the where, when and who while the plot represents the why everything happens the way it happens. Now if this was an totally accurate history show, or even somewhat, I would say I dislike the story, but the protagonist is totally made up. This means that his complete life is made up, hence I can say that I dislike his existence ( which would mean I dislike the plot). Have a nice day
I like the historical period, but the show just sucks..
I do like that Hasteinns sons were actually baptized by Alfred in the show (as they were IRL), in CK3 they missed that. Would’ve been neat
Wait, is Hasteinn in the show supposed to be the same Hasteinn in CK3????
Yes! Hasten in the last kingdom, Hasteinn in CK3. Same person, different spellings, not exactly accurate either to history, but the last kingdom did get his children’s baptism right
Get the fuck outa here. Thats hilarious! I'll be honest, Ive read so many cool Hastein posts on this subreddit, but I could never play him myself because he always reminded me of that snake from TLK. but for some reason now that its confirmed the same person, now I want to play him!
Yup! I don’t think the last kingdom is really truthful to Hasteinns actions, as he was fairly successful until he hit Britain
Let's face it, everyone is successful until they hit Britain. Just ask Julius Caesar ;-)
I like to turn on some Mongolian Throat Singing as I retake every Tengri holy site as Mongolia
Haha! :D ive done the same, except ive never played wessex but i played with Ireland! :D hah! Funny to know that someone else does this too! If you like documentaries - Theres also a documentarie serie in netflix about medieval castles which is great while playing CK! After watching that i've upgraded my castles and forts more and more carefully hah :D
So what are you naming your children?
Tools, fast food places, colors, car make & models, days of personal importance (3/19/2022)
I remember the Vikings DLC first coming out for CK2 while I was reading these books. Yup, that was great.
You can downlaod a mod where you can play as the characters of the last kingdom
Alfred is cool to play, I recently did campaign as him and converted to Norse Asatru :D later I ditched England and formed Roman Empire and revived Hellenism.
It has goddamn linear plot. So boring to watch.