King Ragnar Lodbrok of Vikings??? :(

[Hagbart]

Look at this! Who is Ragnar? I've never heard of that guy before, I think it is a very bad choice of a Viking leader!

[Hagbart]

Here it is:

[notyoueither]

Do some additional research?

http://www.wikipedia.com/wiki/Ragnar_Lodbrok

[Galvatron]

Ragnar Lodbrok? Sounds like a Firaxis creation . Well if you are searching for a good choice for a Viking leader than it's no other than Harald Hadrada, the greatest Viking leader of all time he came so close to conquer Britain in the end he failed but he did really well.

[Panzer]

Hmmm, Ragnar is not a Firaxis creation:

Ragnar Lodbrok was a semi-legendary King of Denmark and Sweden who reigned sometime in the eighth or ninth centuries. Although he is something of a hero in his native Scandinavia, reliable accounts of his life are very sketchy and heavily based on ancient Viking sagas. Even the dating of his reign is not certain; there are sources that date it from 750-794, and others from 860-865. Neither jibes with what we know of him, and he probably held power as a warlord from approximately 835 to his death in 865, perhaps only being recognized as king in the last five years of his life.


There is more on this site:

http://www.wikipedia.com/wiki/Ragnar_Lodbrok

[Panzer]

EDIT: Doh! I just saw that notyoueither had already posted the link. Oh well.....

[Gangerolf]

That's why they made them mil/exp... Ragnar was quite a conqueror, a Viking equivalent to Attila the Hun

[Gangerolf]

But IMO, as Galvatron said, Harald Hardrada would have been a better choice.
On the other hand, Lodbrok was one of the first major Viking rulers and a typical Viking raider

[Galvatron]

Originally posted by Panzer
Hmmm, Ragnar is not a Firaxis creation:

Ragnar Lodbrok was a semi-legendary King of Denmark and Sweden who reigned sometime in the eighth or ninth centuries. Although he is something of a hero in his native Scandinavia, reliable accounts of his life are very sketchy and heavily based on ancient Viking sagas. Even the dating of his reign is not certain; there are sources that date it from 750-794, and others from 860-865. Neither jibes with what we know of him, and he probably held power as a warlord from approximately 835 to his death in 865, perhaps only being recognized as king in the last five years of his life.

Well so in the end it would even be possible that this guy had never existed after all ? From what I read Ragnar should be put in the same category as King Arthus. A legend nobody knows if he really lived and when? I don't think people from sagas should be put in as leader in a game that refers to history otherwise it would be a fantasy game.

[Gangerolf]

It says "King Ragnar Lodbrok of Vikings". Isn't that bad grammar?
Same thing with the others, except for "Queen Cleopatra of Egypt".

[Hagbart]

I think Canute (Knud) the Great is far the best choice for a Viking leader. From Denmark he ruled England, most of Scandinavia, Iceland and other lands.

To my knowledge this Ragnar guy is no hero here in Scandinavia, in fact I've never heard the name before and I thought I knew much of the Vikings.

[Hagbart]

One of the Haralds would be ok leaders too.

[WarpStorm]

But none of them were called "hairy breeches" and killed by being slowly lowered into a pit of poisonous snakes.

[History Guy]

Oh come on!! Ragnar Lodbrok is a good choice in my opinion. He was a conquerer, a Norwegian who took over Denmark while a jarl, and conquered Sweden. He is the father of Ivor the Boneless, and the guy who took Paris in 845, but did not sack it because Charles gave him 7000 gold. He died a'raidin', like any good Viking. Great choice!!

[Darkworld Ark]

Ragnar's proboly one of the best leaders they could of chose, because he represents every thing the Vikings are 'famous' for.