I know it's a TV show, but how historically accurate is it? I know that the characters on the show are supposed to be real historical figures, but are they portrayed properly?
it's gotten better, the first few epsisodes of Season 1 were eye-rolling with the "Vikings don't know about this mythical land called "England"" since then its gotten better, and its nice to see characters actually make use of shields and axes not just swords.
Some aspects of the customs and traditions are hit or miss, like the pagan temple in Uppsala being built in a Stave Church style (which is very ahistorical) and the use of throat slitting as opposed to hanging for human sacrifice. The prevalence of female warriors is a tad much and they have taken some liberties regarding Norse mythology and the emphasis on Odin over the other deities such as Thor and Freyja.
However, I'm willing to overlook most of that, as there hasn't been anyone particular thing making me particularly angry in regards to accuracy, though as I said, some liberties are taken. I applaud them for using anglo-saxon and old norse when applicable for speaking, and the army numbers and armaments are also accurate which is a nice touch
though you have to keep in mind, much of this story line is based off of legend, some of the people were historical, King Ælla, Ragnar's sons, Princess Aslaug, Rollo, and when we get to France later this season I'm sure we'll see more of them, were all historical (with the possible exception fo Aslaug). Ragnar and Lagertha are legendary figures, and the other supporting cast is made up