Skip to comments.'Vikings' Portrays Crucifixion as Normal Church Punishment for Apostates
Posted on 04/04/2014 7:19:32 AM PDT by PJ-Comix
Your humble correspondent is a fan of the History Channel show, "Vikings." However, its historical accuracy leaves something to be desired to the extent that a week ago I posted a thread at IMDB, Things I Learned While Watching 'Vikings', which humorously mocked such inaccuracies as well as anachronisms on the show. Along with noticing that Rollo wore L.A. Ink type tattoos, I also took note of a completely unhistorical type of punishment meted out to the apostate monk Athelstan: "The Church punished apostate monks by crucifying them and doing their best to make them appear like Jesus including a crown of thorns and a lance in the side."
As a history buff, I could recall of no instance in which the Church punished apostasy by crucifixion. Well, several websites researched that subject and found it not only to be completely unhistorical but also absurd. A.J. Delgado even contacted a well-known medieval history professor and got this response:
(Excerpt) Read more at newsbusters.org ...
The show must have hired some of 0bama’s retread writers this season. The story has gone awry.
Those Viking chicks are hot, though.
Yep. That’s what I’ve learned.
You give your Viking wife a compliment and she stabs you in the eye and some guy cuts off your head.
Your Viking neighbor invites your company to go on a fishing trip, and then he locks your employees in the barn and burns them up.
The Vikings.....don’t go to their parties.
Think of this also: They both will be finished soon.
That will get the left's attention.
it was a Roman Empire thing and pre-Christian at that
"Good...Out of the door....line on the left, one cross each."
Ever notice, in the movie KING ARTHUR (2004) how those “evil” monks are torturing pagans to force them to become Chrisitans?
Never get your religious beliefs or historical learning from the movies.
The Bronze turned into a MILF last night.
I don’t watch it for historical value. Although the crucifixion scene was kind a bizarre, I watch it for pure entertainment value. And it is great from that perspective. There is so much going on in one hour, you can’t help but be entertained. Great show.
Yeh the boyfriend thing was a stretch but c’mon its a great show. Its entertainment not historical fact.
Although, I watch almost no drama on TV, I watched this series last year because I thought I would learn some history. The only reason, I think, that I did not give up on it when it veered off into stupid stuff was that the lead male actor looks very much like my deceased son.
There is so much history that could have been done well here, but they just had to junk it up. Will not be watching this year.
Painted lips, eye and face make-up, and plucked eyebrows. Viking women were just like todays women.
Say what you will,
What I’ve taken from this show is my new Smith and Wesson.
A Battle axe made by the arms company.
Jayzus! people, lighten up and enjoy an exciting TV series containing enough realism, plot and good acting to put it into the top ten of all programs watched on Thursday nights.
It is obvious that a good deal of research has gone into the series, nitpicking aside, and before Freepers rail on about the Church not crucifying apostates, be happy that the History Channel isn’t doing a series about the Inquisition or Puritan witch burning or the religious motivations behind the 30 Years War. Believe me, Christian history, like the history of any religion, will net you enough blood, gore and sadism to keep your stomach empty for a month.
+1. I think the show's producers have achieved a balance between entertainment and historical fact. Let's face it, for the Average Joe, life really sucked back in those days. Famine, pestilence, constant wars, infant mortality @ 50%...makes for great entertainment, doesn't it?
Showed Vikings wearing horned helmets, LOL.
PS: I happen to like the show!! (better than the usual drivel on the History channel, except for Pawn Stars).
Maybe this movie was more accurate??
You got that EXACTLY right!! (I value DH’s opinion on the women).
I am of Norwegian ancestry, we females don’t fool around when it comes to male perfidy.
I told DH to carefully watch that scene VERY carefully (rolled it back). Because if he ever decides to cheat...
The Puritans were burning witches?
I know that burning alive was common among American Indians, but I don’t think whites were using it.
“Its entertainment not historical fact.”
Agreed. I call it Viking soap opera.
The Puritans were burning witches?
In Massachusetts execution was carried out by hanging.
According to this article, hanging was the penalty in England during the Puritan ascendancy as well. An interesting read, but I can’t vouch for its accuracy. “English law with regards to handling witchcraft cases differed from the rest of Europe. Torture was illegal and witches in England were not tried for heresy but for the act of maleficium, or evil deeds, and were not therefore liable to be burned at the stake but hung [sic] instead.”
I like it that they all look dirty most of the time and their clothes are not spectacular. More realistic of the grimey way life really was.
If you want torture, though, read what happened after the Anabaptist Munster Rebellion was put down.
Whenever the characters start to get jiggy I cant help but think: “How bad must have the real Vikings smelled?”
The point is, there was no witch burning in America by the Puritans.
In the New World, burning alive was limited to practitioners of Native American religions, who among other victims, also burned witches.
Indians burning witches, that doesn’t get mentioned much.
Just “Look on the bright side of life...”
My understanding is that the idea for the character for Athelstan came after reading two accounts in the sagas and Saxon records of prior priests kidnapped by Vikings, assimilated in their society and that later went raiding with them.
One of them was captured, and crucified for being an apostate, as was written in the records
So it actually happened and they made a movie about it.
What’s the OP complaining about? That it doesnt fit his world view of Christians?
The claim is what you read, do you have a source that contradicts it?
Crucifixion? Tempting, but no.