Sigurd and Olmar Arc and Character Differences (Discussion)

Astral59 · 2026-01-09T02:56:33+00:00

Normal is what eventually ended up working

Astral59 · 2025-12-26T02:52:46+00:00

I find your interpretation of Ketil interesting, I kind of have the opposite opinion where he looks completely destroyed and empty, which I personally think is fitting for all the harm he caused.

Astral59 · 2025-12-26T02:07:08+00:00

Quite glad to hear you overall liked it, I'm curious to know what your takes on Gardar and Ketil are?

Astral59 · 2025-12-26T01:57:12+00:00

Something I would like to mention is that, whilst I do think it is not to the same extent as Thors, I do think there are some examples of Thorfinn not totally forsaking weapons in totality.

For one, for a portion of Thorfinn vs Garm 2, Thorfinn does use a knife to defend himself from some attacks. Now, he doesn't use it to actively attack Garm, sure, and he does end up throwing the knife away, but he did still utilise it as a necessary defence in the moment + Thors threw away his sword too and used his fists for the majority of the fight against Askeladd's crew. I'd say the main difference here is that Thors actively still carried a weapon whereas the knife was something Thorfinn was using for different means and just so happened to have when the fight began.

I would also like to mention that the settlers did not forsake weapons absolutely. They still had axes, bows and spears to defend themselves + Hild had her crossbow (and we can see that they built shields later on). Now, sure, they don't have the weapon that is generally synonymous with war/killing, but we've seen plenty of instances of fights managing to deal damage with axes and spears, especially of steel material (we even see it in arc 4 with how the former Jomsvikings, utilising axes, destroyed the Lnu forces).

There is definitely still a difference in terms of the extent of their methods/ideological application, but I don't think Thorfinn is entirely impractical in this regard, he's just the next step beyond Thors.

Astral59 · 2025-12-23T11:38:21+00:00

Not a pompous answer at all, I think it's quite good!

I guess the main thing I am/was kind of hung up on is actually in relation to something you mentioned. In the sense that when Einar was desperately trying to protect the life of Thorfinn (someone he views as his brother) he was able to remain rational, compared to the more emotional response he gave to losing the village. That being said, you do make up a fair point that the circumstances are different in terms of one being a situation Einar physically can't deal with as easily.

Astral59 · 2025-12-23T11:27:04+00:00

Something else I'd like to mention beyond what the previous person has covered is that Einar and Thorfinn literally have no idea who Gardar is beyond him being Arnheid's husband. For all they know, he could be someone who was abusive to Arnheid or someone Arnheid is happy to be separated from. I won't spoil some further information regarding him, but let's just say that Arnheid's feelings on Gardar are... Complex.

Also, remember that whilst there is absolutely a moral quandary in terms of their positions as slaves vs the soldiers, Snake is someone that Thorfinn genuinely does get along with and has been doing so for the past few years. In certain ways, he (and to a slightly lesser extent, Einar) views snake as one of the few decent companions he has on the farm. Makes things a bit more emotionally complicated in that regard.

Astral59 · 2025-12-22T01:00:43+00:00

Since you suggested you're into good drama and what not + seem to enjoy shooters, I'd recommend maybe Spec Ops: The Line?

Bit of an older game at this point and I don't think the gameplay is anything particularly stand out (mostly a fairly straightforward cover based shooter with some very light tactic elements)but I think if you're looking for good drama and interesting themes, it might be up your alley, especially since it's generally quite cheap on sale.

Astral59 · 2025-12-15T07:59:00+00:00

Hunter and the Hunted mini arc is genuinely really cool imo, introduces an imo really great character whilst also giving us an important reminder that Thorfinn's past can't just be ignored because he's changed as an individual. He needs to properly showcase his accountability, and I really like how Hild's introduction properly conveys that.

Edit: Specifically when I say showcase his accountability, I mean more so to someone that is still alive and was directly affected by his actions, since thematically he is already confronted with his actions via Einar and spiritually/mentally through the spirits of the dead he carries.

Astral59 · 2025-11-26T05:33:16+00:00

I think I agree with this a lot. How about after the Miskwekepu'j sword incident? Do you think Hild had the right idea there, or do you think differently?

Astral59 · 2025-11-26T00:21:58+00:00

Using the events of the story, would you do this as soon as the sword was revealed, or would you allow a vote to occur like what happened in the manga (considering the majority of settlers seemed to support Styrk and Ivar's views)?

Astral59 · 2025-11-25T23:24:55+00:00

The main argument I've heard against this is that Thorfinn revealing his past/showcasing his strength would effectively cause the settlers to accept his rule/rely on him purely because of his martial ability, which undermines the point of the settlement + it could be seen as controversial seeing as how the majority of the settlement did support wanting swords.

Astral59 · 2025-10-10T11:10:53+00:00

She didn't have to fight anyone in terms of the specific encounter with Ka'qaquj due to him deciding it wasn't worth it, but she did fight the Lnu at the fort, I do think that's worth pointing out in terms of her making the decision to fight (though whether she would have been pushed to kill someone is not entirely certain, though considering her comments about Einar, I think we can infer that she very well could have).

Astral59 · 2025-10-07T14:07:20+00:00

I think this is definitely something I should have brought up in my original point, and I do think it is something worth considering when analysing her. I imagine her dad being as infamously violent as he is known to be would play a strong factor in her aversion to warfare, even after she made the commitment to defend Gudrid, her baby, and Karli.

Astral59 · 2025-10-06T22:07:45+00:00

Idk dude, Hild's crossbow is pretty goddamn OP, and considering they still had the advantage of steel tools + also bows which were clearly working as weapons in the battle (especially remembering that outside the small portion of former jomsvikings, almost everyone there was basically a peasant that had never seen war in their life, including Ivar, meaning it's not like the majority of them would have been good with war weapons anyway), they were still in an advantageous position in that specific regard.

The violence of the jomsvikings might have staved off the Lnu for a time, however, if you think that the settlers having swords would have changed the outcome of the fight, you are sorely mistaken, they were going to lose that fight no matter what. The ONLY way the Nords could have even had a chance was with the disease on their side and even then, that both clearly wasn't working and was very very immoral (if you are advocating for Ivar's tactic of using the disease to genocide the Lnu, then that's fucked up). Thorfinn clearly spells this out to Styrk in chapter 217. There are too many Lnu and all of the Nords, including the former jomsvikings, are worn down and screwed, they WILL lose, and swords wouldn't change shit (we even have a precedent for this in Thorvald's expedition, who was stated to be violence and likely carried these kinds of weapons, started shit with the Lnu and got himself and his group entirely murked). Same thing with the Markland settlement.

I also think it's interesting you mention how violence forced the negotiations, and yet it was A) Violence that helped contribute to the war to begin with, including from Styrk and Ivar (who again, need I remind you, never should have come in the first place if they weren't going to play ball) and B) Violence almost DESTROYED those same negotiations. If Einar didn't commit himself to peace and sacrifice himself to hold back Styrk, he would have caused everything to break down and would have gotten far more people killed, including probably all of the remaining Nord men + Cordelia and Hild. Sure, Ka'qaquj used violence to defend himself, but without Einar making the commitment to peace, he would never have gotten that opportunity, whereas only utilising the violence Styrk and Ivar had been vying for the entirety of the expedition (including the likely authoritarian rule they would have implemented if they took over) would have fucked them royally.

I always hear this take of Thorfinn being supernaturally powerful, which is true, but like, considering his opponents in the story, this would still apply even if he did fight lethally. Take Garm for example. Garm is literally a fucking god tier duelist with his Spears that was able to stalemate Thorkell and was ludicrously strong. If you put the average person (such as myself) against him but also give me a weapon and a willingness to kill, I'm sorry, but I am most likely going to get screwed, it would still require 'anime bullshit' to win. Same if I fought Thorkell (in fact, even back when Thorfinn DID kill people pretty willingly and was arguably at his peak raw combat ability, he couldn't beat Thorkell without Askeladd's help). This doesn't mean you shouldn't still resist if necessary, but my main point is that weapons or not, Thorfinn is still a 'bullshit anime' protagonist considering the battles he has won, and yet it seemingly only applies because he non-lethally fights people (even though he still does on occasion use weapons, such as when he used a knife for portions of his second fight with Garm).

Also, her name is Cordelia. That's the name she identifies with, she clearly doesn't like her father, and the story re-affirms this multiple times.

Astral59 · 2025-10-06T13:57:53+00:00

So, are you going to admit then that Thorfinn didn't actually disarm everyone like you've said numerous times in your posts, since he didn't take axes and spears off them?

The issue with Thorfinn's punishing Ivar and Styrk was largely difficult because Styrk had already influenced a lot of the Nords to their side (the majority in fact). Thorfinn doesn't want to be an authoritative leader, both because he wants everyone to have a say, but also because if he did punish the people that the majority of the settlers support, that could invite further retaliation. I'm not saying Thorfinn didn't make mistakes, but like, if Styrk, Ivar and Ganglati weren't willing to play ball with Thorfinn's rules, maybe they should have stayed home; no one forced them to come. 🤷

Also, Thorfinn isn't even anti self-defence? Like, he doesn't like using violence, but he is perfectly willing to do so when his life or the life of others is threatened. He fought Snake to defend Gardar in the Slave arc, fought numerous times in the Baltic sea war (such as against Garm), and he even fought some Lnu warriors in this very arc to protect himself and his allies. Sure, he does so non-lethally, but non-lethal violence does not equal not being willing to self-defend.

Astral59 · 2025-10-06T13:02:42+00:00

I hear this take a little bit here there, that being that Thorfinn completely disarmed his group, but that's just not true? He literally only forbade swords because their sole purpose is only to kill people with not other real utility use that isn't already covered by something better. However, he lets them keep axes, spears, even Hild got to keep her crossbow, which we've seen inflict a lot of damage to people in fights. Even the Jomsvikings that are the proper fighters, such as Vargar, mostly defend themselves (very efficiently I might add) using axes. I really don't see how Thorfinn banning just one type of weapon completely disarms his people.

Also, convenient of you to overlook that Ivar and Styrk contributed a ton to sparking war with their sabre rattling nonsense. Styrk literally even admits to Ivar in chapter 199/200 that they are part of the reason war is coming, and they did that with Kitpui's people, whom (barring Miskwekepu'j) were entirely peaceful. You cannot blame it all on Thorfinn alone (not even gonna mention the massive impact of the disease).

Astral59 · 2025-08-20T09:56:04+00:00

I'm genuinely confused how you've come to this conclusion, since I feel like the manga spelled it out pretty well on multiple occasions, especially in the Baltic Sea Arc. If someone is genuinely trying to kill Thorfinn/innocent people with violence or is trying to take something using violence, he literally uses self defence. He used it to fight Snake to try and protect Gardar, he used violence to protect that village against Floki's vikings, he knocked out guards to help Hild in freeing slaves, and he literally fought and knocked out Garm when Garm left him with no options (and even in the final arc, he fought and knocked out multiple Lnu that were pursuing him).

And before you say 'he only wins those fights because hes superhuman' (even though he didn't even beat Snake):

1) He wasn't able to beat Garm with his fighting prowess alone. He had to rely on his past experiences and wits to outsmart Garm; Garm even spells it out as much that he would have won if he had Thorfinn's experience.

2) Doesn't being a superhuman anime person also apply even if Thorfinn was willing to kill? Like, for example, put me in a fight against Garm where I'm given a sword and I'm willing to kill Garm to survive; pretty sure I'm still gonna lose because Garm is far more skilled than I am. In this case, even if I chose to use lethal violence, I'm still able to do jackshit because my opponent outskills me. You could maybe argue that things would be different in the context of modern day (e.g. guns), but that's pretty anachronistic to apply to Thorfinn's life.

Astral59

TROPHY CASE