Was Ivar the Boneless a real Viking warrior? Probably. Did he really have no bones? Probably not.
Learn more about your ad-choices at https://www.iheartpodcastnetwork.com
Hey, and welcome to the Short Stuff. I'm Josh and there's Chuck and this is short stuff, just the two of us, um with the Viking hordes. We've taken a bunch of mushrooms and we're entering berserker mode. Now. Yeah, man, this I remember. That was one of the early, early, early stuff you should know episodes, was our episode on Vikings. That was one of the great facts of the podcast in the early days. Berserker in the mushrooms. Yeah yeah. Can you imagine seeing a Viking with the battle axe on mushrooms coming at you going crazy? Yeah? And I know I think I mentioned it recently, but the guy who did The Lighthouse, his his next movie is a Viking movie. I just that's a good reason to build a time machine so we don't have to wait around for that. Yeah, Robert Egger's boy, that's gonna be good. And I bet it's gonna be crazy. Yeah, I can't wait because the Vikings were crazy. And if you watch the History Channel show Vikings have not I haven't either, but it was pretty popular. It ran for about six seasons. But there was a character in their name I have are the Boneless uh And on the show, he was a ruthless guy. He was sort of the leader on the battlefield, and he had a medical condition on the show that made his legs useless basically, so he would crawl around and he would ride on chariots and stuff, and he had crutches. Um. But he led what was known as the Great Heathen Army on that show, and he was actually a real person. But there's a lot more mystery about who he was and whether or not he even had this condition in real life. Yeah, so I've are the boneless one of the great all time nicknames ever. Um. But he he does pop up here there in historic documents that chronicle the Vikings. Um. And we're working from a house Stuff Works article that I think makes a great point or one of the historians that they interviewed very cast historians in this article, which great, Um. But this this historian makes a really great point that first off, let's let's kind of get across that the Vikings and everything we understand about the Vikings were written by our historic or cultural ancestors here in the States and in the US or the UK and Australia and Canada, um, who were the enemy and the sufferers at the hands of the Vikings, so they didn't paint the most flattering portrait of the Vikings around. And um, you know, you can make a really good case that the Vikings were no more violent or terrifying than anybody else. Um, during the Medieval Age, it was a violent time. Like we're not saying they were, you know, just super chill dudes who had just hang around and and drink beer. But it was just a violent time, like everybody was killing everybody. Charlemagne, they you know, they point out this article ordered the beheading of Sacks since and he was in one day. He was the Holy Roman Emperor at the time too, not a Viking. Yeah, so there were plenty of violent cultures at the time, and this whole image of these barbarians that we get. You're right, it's because it was written by people who were their victims. And I'm sure they were pretty scared, right exactly, Um and again rightfully, So it's not that the Vikings weren't violent, it's just that everybody was violent. And I feel like that was such a mind blowing, paradigm altering part, Chuck, that we should take a break real quick. Let's do it all right, late ninth century. Ninth I said that weirdly, uh, something came out called the Anglo Saxon Chronicle, which was this, uh sort of a history book. It was a collection of records about English history and it was you know, update over over the next couple of hundred years. And in that book we do find a notation for the Great Heathen Army or the Great Army, which were the Scandinavian invaders in this big Viking army basically that hit the British Isles and eight right, So, um, this is like the Viking Horde that you think of. Apparently, this Great Heathen Army, which again they called it the Great Army too, but I'm not going to call it anything but the Great Heathen Army because it's just so much cooler. Um. This was a number of different armies from different Scandinavian lands that kind of um all work together. But over the course of more than a decade of invasions and conquerings and all that, they were just this kind of fluid group um that collectively were called the Great Huthan arm And it wasn't just one single solitary mass of the same people over thirteen years who invaded England. So they are mentioned in the Anglo Saxon Chronicle, and Ivar himself has mentioned I believe in the Anglo Anglo Saxon Chronicle as well, right, yeah, I think so it was Um, Well, at least the brother of Ivar was mentioned with two rs, which was would have been the North spelling of it. So it's the brother of Ivar has mentioned. Therefore Ivar has mentioned, right, and it actually makes Ivar seemed that much more important if you're you're saying that somebody is a brother of somebody else, you know what I'm saying. Otherwise, who cares? So I guess that's the only time that he pops up in the Anglo Saxon Chronicle. It's more that he's associated as a leader um of the Great Heathen Army in the Anglo sex and Chronicles. So we have a contemporary piece of writing that basically chronicles, at least in part, the Great Heathen Army coming from the North and messing stuff up pretty bad. Um. And Ivar is in there, okay, right, And he's also mentioned in some Irish records. The Annals of Ulster really cool, great read, and they reveal a Viking by the name of Ivar or Emar, who was the king of the Northman and all Britain and Ireland when he died in eighty three. And the thing here is, we just don't know if that is the same person, but chances are it probably was. Yeah, I think most historians of that period in that region tend to think that this is the same Ivar. Think the timing potentially works out. Um, And yeah, it's possible there's more than one Ivar. But if he was a leader of the Heathen Army in the Anglo Saxon Chronicles and the leader of all the Great Army um in the Ulster Annals or the Annals of Ulster, why not it could be the same guy. Doesn't really matter if it's not at this point really so, uh yeah, they think that the same You know, it's England and Ireland. They're close enough to where he was probably just conquering everywhere he went. But none of this has anything to do with his boneless nickname um that he that you know that we hear on the TV show. Uh So, now we need to talk about the Icelandic sagas which were transcribed in the thirteenth and centuries. These are pros narratives. These aren't history books. These are novels basically. Yeah, and they were written um by the descendants of these same vice king conquerors, who would have revered and looked up to and probably exaggerated the legends of these guys. But it's apparently in the Icelandic saga's and they've been compared to like historic novels, like definitely based on real things, but just maybe a little more overblown. So you got to take him a bit with a grain of salt. But apparently it was in the Icelandic saga's that um Ivar gets his boneless nickname. I guess that's boneless is just because all I can think of his chicken. Sure, you know, yeah, boneless wing is awesome. Uh So this is where you know, it could have been some transcription problem, like boneless could have met legless maybe, which you know that would make sense of if you've watched the TV show. He wasn't legless, but he at least didn't have the use of his legs, so they may have called someone with that disability legless at the time. But Chuck, there's another potential transcription error that makes the History Channel interpretation UM really unique or singular. I guess you could say, okay, let's hear it. So there's um two Latin words that medieval transcriptionists may have UM mistaken. One is exos, which means boneless. One is xo suss, which means detestable. So it's possible that Ivar's nickname really was i've are the detestable or i've are the hated, and that some medieval monk got it wrong and he became i've are the boneless, and then centuries after that some executive producers for History Channel decided to actually take that literally and create this character i've are the boneless, who did not have the use of his legs. Even probably the likely story is this great conqueror probably did not have no use of his legs, would be my guess, which makes it UM kind of funny and TV way right. But from what the historians are saying, it just it just doesn't jibe with the Viking culture. That's just probably not the case. Although they do say it's possible the History Channel's interpretation is correct, it's also it seems to be doubtful. You never know, you never know. Uh, that's what this is when we need the way Back machine, but it's in the shop right now. Unfortunately. Yeah, we uh, we should do a go fund me to pay that bill. We should, although I think we might be convicted of fraud if we actually collect any of those funny I think, So you got anything else? I got nothing else? Short stuff everybody is out. Stuff you Should Know is a production of I Heart Radio. For more podcasts my heart Radio, visit the I heart Radio app, Apple Podcasts, or wherever you listen to your favorite shows.