He uses dynamic and flexible tactics as opposed to maintaining military doctrine or tradition.

Only a cripple would understand

yes, he was very much like ragnar. compared to bjorn

Well first the viking army is put into their strengths, now they are able to. Like how Roman General and consul Caesar have fought many battles and learned his mistakes and those of the enemies. He was one of romes finest generals during that age.

He is good at tactics but he is an awful leader. It takes more than a sense of tactic to be a King. But if he just would a warlord the saxons would be more fucked

Ivar was always masterful at getting Sigurd to spill his guts.

🤦‍♂️

This aged well

Then he permanently shut his mouth

Sigurd is a bitch, every time brame his brother for being a cripy, like his have a choice to not be.

Björn's logic.

That's also the definition and difference between being brave and being stupid.

I feel like they left it a little open ended if the battle is a draw?!

well it is pretty simple either it work or it dont haha

And the saxons think in the other way? 😂 if it doesn't work it's a bad plan, it means the same thing and most of us think in that way. You're just trying to sound smart but it's true, so why do you even mention it? It only makes you look narrow minded and hooked up on details that are completely irrelevant.

He needed to manipulate Bjorn that's why. By getting Bjorn to agree to his battle plan it puts him at the top of the pack once they win. He saw Bjorn was worried and took advantage.

@@shahidulkhan9566 Björn didn't need manipulation, He knew that Ivar was unpredictable therefore he figured that Ivar's battle plan was much more interesting than their usual tactics. Also he is warrior I think he could tell Ivar was a great strategist so he listened to him as a good and responsible brother does.

@@gustaf3811 In a way, Bjorn heard his father when Ivar was explaining the idea of using the terrain to their advantage and stretching the battlefield. That's exactly something Ragnar would propose and Bjorn respected that from Ivar hence why he agreed to go along with the plan.

Yes he has

@@cassiusfelix2805 but he is a cripple how is he smarter and better tatcions than Bjorn 😠😠

@@chetanraikar7055 when it comes to strat no one is close to ivar

​@@chetanraikar7055 Stephen Hawking was a cripple and was one of the smartest ppl to live... Being disabled does not stop you from doing anything... Kinda pathetic comment

I dont think Ivar is better at tactics than Bjorn, he lost many times and he held cruel castle defence to win, burn people alive who live in this castle too. Bjorn let Ivar change tactics to see how its good, a talker, they both know they have quiet beef for long time (check it), just Bjorns now knows what Ivar is capable and how he thinks. Good tactician stays good, the smartest one i leading this world, it cant be the dumbest im sure.

You are so right!!!!!

Just like Sima brothers conquering a dynasty then all of china

It wouldn't happen because Bjorn would just be the warrior and Bjorn wants to be a ruler.

nah then who would lead them? no great army has ever led by 5 leaders in history. If all of them followed Ivar as the leader, maybe they even could have conquered Paris.

If I recall correctly IRL they did work together and most of them became kings before their deaths

Hvitserk has Ragnar's penchant for madness...

Hvitserk has his father's genuine interest for other cultures

@@ambrosiacanelo9014 and for narcotics apparently

@@samuelhutahaean2537 oh god why would you make me laugh at something so horrible? 😂🤦‍♀️

Hvitserk has his father's drug addition traits lol

But King Ecbert got tactical lessons from Roman texts.....probably a more qualified commander than Athelwolf.

chandragupta maurya ummm no Ivar would still out smart him Ecbert would have done the same thing as Athelwolf

@@MrJAMESTAKER how would you know he would have done the same thing???

@@MrJAMESTAKER its a show anyways, so the writers decide

@@chandraguptamaurya6594 Ivar is out of syllabus

He was willing to listen because his only idea was to face them in one attack like they did with aella. He knew if he lost too many warriors against aetholwolf army they would not follow him after.

I think Bjorn knew there was a good chance they were going to lose if they fought them head on, which made him more open to a different strategy.

he witnessed Ragnar listen, I bet that changes a man

I agree with you. BUT I do believe Ubbe has a bit of both. Hvitserk has some cunning and cruelty while Sigurd has... blonde hair.

Ubbe has his fathers love.

Sigurd is the misfit, it seems he doesn't fit. See his reaction to the blood eagle for example, his face said "this is horrible" whilst the others watched with pleasure. He doesn't have what it takes to be great, he has nothing from Ragnar either, he's just there.

I think Sigurd would've canceled the execution and made a deal for Aelle's riches.

Gamerxbetax Ubbe has Ragnar's charisma.

So Ivar,

😂😂😂

But why Ivar don't respect Sigurd 😂 Like he respects other brothers 🤔

Sun tzu would have been impressed

Use the terrain, use the enemy's strengths against them and attack unexpectedly. Straight from Sun Tzu the art of war

If you really think about it Ivar wasn't crazy at first. His mother was killed by Lagertha. That completely justifies him wanting revenge. For some reason his brothers sided with her and just acted like Ivar was crazy instead if being mad at Lagertha. I do think the writers ruined his character this last season but I just saw an interview with the writer and he said that it will be hard to not love Ivar in season 6A. He becomes extremely sympathetic and is reborn. I guarantee after season 6A you'll be seeing a lot of people changing their opinions on Ivar. Hirst says he does a complete 180. I cant wait for season 6. 5B was not good in my opinion. We need a rebound.

Bjorn didn't want to be around Ivar. He saw him as a threat to his own fame. Spying on Ivar even before going to England and saw the connection between floki and Ivar.

@@shahidulkhan9566 and that was smart and providently behaviour from him.

@@HardTruthsReviews dude he bashed a kids head in when he was a kid. Ivar was always insane

@@HardTruthsReviews agreed. Lagertha was a bitch

ARCHER OF BRUTALITY BJÖRN IS A FUCKING GENIUS HERE RIGHT, LOL

+Alex Triggered Bjorn fanboy

You described a sergeant and a general

Ill give you this time to take it back cause Bjorn so outsmarted Ivar!!!

+Fairy Tail when

before ivar had to call his uncle to back him up cuz hed lose otherwise

@@fluidfnbr well truth be told, in that scenario, you see that Ivar still had a lot of forces left apart from the ones engaged with lagertha and co. Franks just expedited the process as his own army was tired and somewhat depleted from the wars in england.

They both great, in the sagas Bjorn lived a long rich life as king of Sweden. Ivar tried to be king of all England until he died. The other brothers king of Ireland and Norway. Ragnaars sons all rulers.

I think Ivar did not try to be King of England at all, of course he plundered the Saxon kingdoms, but he left the saxons to your brothers Ubbe and Hvitserk. He died in Dublin, Ireland, he established a kingdom there. And England did not exist at the time, that word did not even exist; They only saw as Saxon realms. England, Ireland, Wales, Scotland, there were none of these countries, only fragmented kingdoms.... sorry if I was not very clear, my English is not very good.

Me too! Ivar knows

Raregaminglol u do know that Bjorn was king longer than any other Viking outside of Rollo right and that's from the history books

Ye cause he failed and just stayed safe in kattegat till he died or Scandinavia where ever but he just did nothing so there wasn't opportunity for him to die dude lol

You prolly dont give a shit but does anyone know of a trick to log back into an Instagram account?? I somehow forgot my password. I appreciate any tips you can give me!

@Nathanael Bishop instablaster :)

I mean that is obviously set up by the producers but glad you managed to grasp that

Ubbe has Ragnar diplomacy skill

Ubbe is most like ragnar

This was Ivar just thinking ahead and making his own credibility with the Vikings.

lyanna lyanna congrats. He has those in spades if you look at him currently

Why Ivar don't respect Sigurd 😂 like he respects other brothers 🤔

@@chetanraikar7055 sigurd was always a bully to Ivar. Dude should’ve been better, at least he had his legs

Yeah well he is son, lol.

That’s so detailed 💀💀

No Ragnar had a better mind and 2nd to him is Ivar

Not to forget ivar was bullied and molested when he was much younger because he was crippled. Now he stood up for himself

@@yemidada9924 when was he molested?

​@@micahmills5769 He was molested by Ube. Then lagurtha killed his mother and Ube sided with his mother killer because he got butthurt that Ivar became the leader of the great army even though it was his own fault..he humiliated himself and proved to be unfit for any leadership role, so the army didnt want him around..

@@dimel1347 When/how did Ubbe molest him? I don't remember that

Her response: 1:41

@@klaupasija you ruined the first comment. your comment makes no sense, even as a joke.

@@edofluit6568 it makes sense tho

@@klaupasija then explain it to me, how does the wife saying "we are brothers" make sense? Cause the joke went over my head

@@edofluit6568 en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Incest

Hunter Golden people feel differently

Ivar have also ragnars rage

Hunter Golden ivar is also insane lmao

Actually, Ivar is completely sane, and perhaps the most logical and rational of Ragnar's sons....he's just immature and impulsive and needs to learn how to control his rage, or it will kill him.

Sarah Gray I understand that comment 100% and Most Of That is True But I don’t think U Can Watch S5 E3 And Watch Ivar And Say He’s Not Crazy. The dude is Off his Rocker Lol. He’s not 100% Insane at all but he has a Switch lol

To be fair tho other than Bjorn all the brothers are a bit green when it comes to full scale combat like this.

Wasn't done often? Romans fought dozens of time in open battles, I could name 30-50 at least. Hit and run was done when one's army was less superior than it's foe's army, but a decisive victory was crucial in order to win a war, which can be achived by defeating an army in a battle. Even in skirmish battles, there were thousands of soldiers. When Varro led his 80,000 men against Hannibal, his skirmisher forces numbered 16,000 men. I agree that Vikings, for instance, done hit and run and guerilla tactics often, as their biggest advantage was suprise and quickness, but they raided in small numbers so it made sense to do. But now, when they had a "great army" numbering 4000-5000 men why wouldn't they opt for a decisive victory?

This is true. Vikings preferred to avoid pitched battles since they didn't really have the numbers to risk open engagements where their enemies could bring their superior numbers to bear on them. That's not to say they didn't fight pitched battles, but they largely tried to avoid them where they could, and if they did fight them, they only did it when they were certain to win or at least outnumbered their opponent.

agreed !

also the lusitans kept the romans away from hispania by using guerrilla warfare to make up for the lack of men and it worked against the legions that the romans sent and this was also before christ

Well, I know 2 main Germanic/Viking strategies or battle tactics or battle formations: 1) Shieldwall (more defensive) 2) Svynfylking (Cuneus, Eberkopf, Caput Porcinum in Latin or Roman language, embolos in Greece language ) - offensive battle formation for attac with one or two or more triangles for breaking through the enemy lines or battle formation But this indeed were the main battle formations, except for guerilla warfare and fighting from longships... More complex battle tactis and logical-rational thinking and strategies and good discipline needed for it had in original (with origins in the Orient and northern Africa) from the peoples in Europe indeed only the Greece and Phoenicians (Carthaginians) and Persians. The Italic People like the old Etruscans and Romans then learned it from the mediterranean people like the Greece and Phoenicians or Carthaginians. The Romans especially learned from the Greek Logic and rational thinking and good discipline and more complex strategies (the Greek Phalanx and Alexander the Great, also see the Roman legion developing in fighting with the Greek and Carthaginians). Julius Ceasars legions indeed had the advantage of superior discipline and rational thinking, while the Celts like the German tribes were still able to fall in trance and become berserker. As the vikings still could do it, although these fighting machines lacked discipline and strategic thought then. As it could bee seen at the battle of Stamford bridge 1066. Ironically, the Normans then brought the chivalry and knighthood together with the French forward. The advantage of the Christian states were: 1) Better weapons (Celtic and Roman art of metallurgy and weaponry) as the more civillized states. 2) Horses (you could not transport war horses so good on a viking longship - and you also would have had to feed them and so carry also their proviant with you ...!)...one reason why the Franks developed the Christian knights! 3) Often superior battle order and discipline, not with the same joy of fighting the vikings had, but with rational strategic thought and disciplined soldiers...and - in equal numbers - trained and disciplined soldiers can beat pure rage (at least most times). The metallurgy and weaponry had evolved and developed further since the Romans. 4) As the bigger and more populated and more civilized states the bigger numbers of soldiers and bigger armies. In long terms this meant, civillization had to win against the wild viking hordes. Pure statistics, numbers and Economy. The polytheistic religious system of the vikings was not able to build up a stable, lasting administration. 5) And of course, the attackers always have to conquer the well defended fortresses and walled cities and castles. While the defenders of a nation can attac them from there when they wish and then withdraw every time. The Byzantines destroyed the Norman viking fleet with Greece fire, their secret weapon, also using it against the Muslims. The Muslims lacked the Logic of the Greece philosophy in their Quran you can find in the bible. In the bible also usury is forbidden, and only these two factors made it possible for Christian Europa to develope the Renaissance. It is not without reason, that neither centralistic China nor India with the rigid caste system nor Islam with his extreme patriarchy and Sharia and capitalistic egoism and slave trade could develope this cultural techniques. Although every of these three once leading advanced civilizations with high culture once headed into this direction with the technical knowledge and philosophy of the antiquity and their own way of living and special spirituality. But India stayed politically fragmented by Hindhuism and China bureaucratic inefficient and isolationist.

Bones D Weiser colors colors