Do you value historical accuracy, or is entertainment more important?

Do you value historical accuracy, or is entertainment more important?

Other urls found in this thread:

deremilitari.org/2014/06/english-refugees-in-the-byzantine-armed-forces-the-varangian-guard-and-anglo-saxon-ethnic-consciousness/
twitter.com/NSFWRedditGif

Fun over historical accuracy up to the point where random actual people get replaced by diversity hires.

How come diversity is where you draw the line, but not the inaccurate weapons or attire?

Alright what the fuck, is this from the Vikings show?

That nigger is slave.

>they are trying to make Hvitserk look like a younger Ragnar
>Sigurd looks like a dweeb
>Ubbe looks like someone with downs
>Ivar is a sperg

Bjorn has to call these retards "brothers"

If I were Bjorn I'd go ravage some Frenchie pussies with my cool uncle

>Kino above all.

The vikings traveled far and wide, even as far as Egypt, which is in Africa. It's not completely unlikely that they brought African slaves back with them.

Yes it is you fucking layman. I don't care if I'm taking the bait but assuming vikings did reach Africa (which they didn't, their Varangian counterparts really only got as far as Byzantium as far as we know) there still wouldn't be any fucking sub-Saharan black people like in OP's picture. They'd be swarthy and Arab in appearance.

probably because he's a polJW

autism

having a blond dude on a series about african tribes or a black dude on a viking show is obviously a bigger fault than some sword or type of clothing being wrong.

Not in the show. They just launched their first attempt to reach the Mediterranean.

Egyptian artifacts have been found in viking graves, which means they traded in Egypt, and Egypt is in Africa, so they probably bought African slaves.

Why is that a bigger fault? There is nothing unrealistic about having an African in viking Scandinavia, considering how much they traveled.

it depends

at the end of the day, historical accuracy can take a backseat to a good story

you just can't have Roman legionaries fighting velociraptors

>g-guize, you couldn't buy slaves in Byzantium

Sources will be needed to substantiate those claims. You see shit like this popping up in cracked.com tier publications on history in low-effort attempts to garner views. Even if Egyptian artifacts were discovered in viking graves that does not immediately imply that they bought African slaves (I'm not sure why you're so fixated on the Africans in question being slaves.)

1. Why would Africans forced into the slave trade by presumably Arab slavers be in possession of Egyptian artifacts.
2. What use would African slaves be of to vikings.

The Varangians in Byzantium weren't there to buy slaves, they held the position of body guards to the emperor.

>"well actually that axe's pommel would be square, not round"
vs
>"there weren't any fucking blonde nordics in sub-saharan Africa in 3000 BC, nor were Viking clans 30% black"

I wonder which one is going to be more noticeable

Only glorious Anglo blood could be THAT elite. There is a reason Constantinople didn't fall for fucking years.

>you just can't have Roman legionaries fighting velociraptors
Fuck you, I want to see that.

Yeah, like the Vikings could be historically accurate. Remember that was a culture that historically lied about everything. They could outright have Ragnar call down lightning and it's probably still be in the realm of "history" with how much the Vikings altered their deeds to seem more epic.

>What use would African slaves be of to vikings
Entertaining their women with their superior giant cocks

Sorry pal, but Varangians weren't Anglo. They weren't even German for that matter. In layman's terms they were more "eastern" counterparts to the vikings, hailing primarily from present-day Sweden. However by the time the Byzantines started grooming them to be the bodyguards of the emperor, they had come to inhabit the Kievan Rus (present day Russia)

What the fuck are you talking about?

Wouldn't have been big at that point. It's only because they've been bred for generations as workhorse slaves that there cocks got bigger. Bread to be strong, not intelligent. Higher testosterone levels, bigger cock.

>le debunked slave breeding hypothesis

A grave in Sweden was discovered to have a silver ring with Arabic inscription. It likely was just something they bought. It's very possible Byzantium traders bought stuff from Arabs and then moved it further in-land which the Nordic people bought and that moved all the way back up to Sweden.

But what the user is probably referring to is the Egyptian Glass Beads found in Viking graves.

Ahmed ibn Fadlan did meet Vikings (and wrote about them) and while he was impressed with their physiques he wasn't with them as people. That was about 1000AD though. So they defo met. The Arabs did trade in African slaves (despite the SJW of the world refusing to acknowledge this, African Kingdoms were built on slaving their own kind to others) so it isn't impossible they didn't have a slave.

But this is the same shit as having black people on Dunkirk, it's for fucking 'see see, we had a black person, now don't complain!'.

For one, history is written by the victors, so getting accuracy is already pretty hard. But when it comes to the Vikings, their history is so fucking inflated with BS to make their stories more epic.

So to the dude who was talking about "historical accuracy" it's a moot fucking point since the Vikings are probably have some of the least accurate history in the books.

You can't even give an example. There is no reason not to believe that what we know about the vikings is 100% accurate.

Malazan movie fucking when

Actually... If you want to actually read on this, try:

deremilitari.org/2014/06/english-refugees-in-the-byzantine-armed-forces-the-varangian-guard-and-anglo-saxon-ethnic-consciousness/

They were diaspora and the Varangian Guard was heavily Anglo-Saxon.

Because inacurate weapons don't push the SjW agenda down my throat.

Why is Linus Roache so underrated ? He should get an Emmy for his role in Vikings

Nobody is pushing anything down your throat, dramaqueen

>what use would chimps have for vikangz?

They are just maintaining the scandinavian tradition of accepting as many somalians as possible because they have so many gibs to spare.
Also they were big fans of Blacked.com and thought they could have some entertainment on their soil for the internet wasn't yet invented.

>Do you value historical accuracy
no, zero fucks given

oh, and if it's an adaption, go ahead, butcher the source material. just give me a good film.

t. Starship Troopers

Which is getting a reboot and won't be a brilliant adaption of the source material, it'll probably be faithful to the source material which means 75% of the film will be people talking in a military academy classroom about politics and shit

>tfw they don't go full satire again and don't include a bunch of bug lovers saying that not all bugs destroyed beunos Aries

imo they're trying to make Ubbe look like Ragnar. But yeh they look like mongs

I hope they do and people write articles on how it's a 'brilliant film about the plight of Muslims and blacks' and shit. Be hilarious.

Sick of "diversity" infesting everything. This new meme about multicultural Vikings "B...but guyz they travelled so of course they would have mass imported sub Saharan blacks! Europe is not white! Open them borders!"

You can have historical accuracy and fun at the same time. The one does not preclude the other.

The vikings pretty much 100% certainly had contact with black people, both in trading with the Byzantines, the Arabs, and from sailing all the way to fucking Africa. Far less likely is that they had many black people living with them, but a few slaves is completely plausible. Free blacks in scandinavia is pushing it. Considering that the viking merchants mostly conducted their trade with the aforementioned peoples on their travels, not at home, having blacks other than slaves in scandinavia is extremely unlikely.

The Varangian Guard is a different thing than the varangians. Varangians/varyags was just the name the greeks used for the vikings. While there were many vikings in the service of the emperor, there were lots of merchants as well. And on the point of the mercenaries, many of them became very wealthy and they sure as hell brought their household back north with them.

The timelines of the Vikings are extremely fucked anyways, and historical accuracy is pretty close to zero. No need to lament after something that never existed.

I am a huge manchild and a nerd who practices historical reenactment of the viking age in scandinavia, if anyone has any actual questions I believe I can answer.

Egyptians aren't black

Then what are they?

>Egyptians aren't black
Is this guy for real?

If you can't make it entertaining while keeping it accurate you are a scrub who shouldn't work with historical settings.

Entertainment. Often it's hard to make something entertaining on a grand scale within the confines of historical accuracy, because a lot of history is rather boring, and because there are often gaps that need to be filled. Knowing this, I never take anything presented in entertainment as fact, if I want to learn something I'll read some shit.

Are you an idiot? Vikings raided Tunisia, Mauritania, and Libya, just like the Vandals had. North Africa was a playpen for them same as everywhere else.

All stories are ultimately based on history in some fashion.

Its 1 (ONE) black guy in four fucking seasons, they clearly state Kattegat is a major trading outpost and there were one or 2 arabs in the last episodes, he could just be part of that trading party