If it wasn't for Ragnar Lothbrok, the genius and fearless warrior, History's Vikings wouldn't be what it is today. As the protagonist, he led his people from being farmers to daring explorers. He showed them that anything is possible and conquered far-off lands as their leader. Even though he eventually became the King of Kattegat, Ragnar was never power-hungry. With greater power came more responsibilities and a rather sedentary lifestyle, which didn't sit that well with him.
But in Season 4, Ragnar is killed by King Ælle's men by being thrown into a snake pit. It was a great loss for Vikings, but the series managed to pick up right where it left off without looking back. However, the void Ragnar left behind is undeniably massive, leading to some parts of the show getting worse in his absence. Here is how Vikings improved following Ragnar's death and how it didn't.
IT'S BETTER: Ragnar Had Nothing Left To Live For Anymore
Ragnar went from being a poor farmer to the King of Kattegat thanks to his curiosity, restlessness and strength. He was the first that inspired his people to set sails to the West and thus expanded the horizons of his people. Throughout his life, he had two wives, Lagertha and Aslaug, and he fathered six children. He fought against the Anglo-Saxons and the Franks with a lot of success.
He always kept an open mind and that is how he began questioning societal traditions and even his own religion and beliefs. Before coming face to face with Christianity, he was a devout follower of the Norse gods, but as his doubts started gnawing at him, he deteriorated mentally. By Season 4, his arc had nowhere to go. The existential crisis Ragnar was experiencing was getting old, so it's definitely better that he died.
IT'S WORSE: There's A Lack Of Character Development
On the flip side, Ragnar was the one character the writers paid the most attention to. While he Björn is not as psychologically complex. Many things happen to him, yet the show barely explores just how his experiences affect his personality and behavior.
Vikings used to be better at creating complex, layered and lifelike characters but in the more recent seasons, most characters can be divided into clearly good versus bad. Ragnar was neither, and that is what made him so compelling.
IT'S BETTER: Ragnar's Sons Are Fiercer Than Him
Those who watch Vikings for blood and glory don't miss Ragnar all that much. By Season 4, the old man barely resembled the ionate, bloodthirsty warrior he was, so it's a good thing that he let his young sons take the wheel.
Just like Ragnar and his brother Rollo held grudges towards one another and even fought against each other, Ragnar's sons also set up two camps. On one side, we have Björn and Ubbe and Ivar and Hvitserk on the other. Since Hvitserk killed Lagertha in Season 6, Björn will most probably never reconcile with them. They have bigger armies than Rollo and Ragnar did, so the stakes are much higher than they used to be.
IT'S WORSE: There Is More Petty Drama
In Season 1, Vikings were presented as ruthless and savage people. The contrast between the Christian world and the world of the Vikings was well-portrayed when the Norsemen first came to the beaches of England and butchered everyone in sight. Fast forward to today, and the Vikings seem way too preoccupied with emotions and delicate family issues.
There is the plotline of Björn potentially being Rollo's son, but why would Vikings care about that? In Season 3, Rollo literally cut a guy's leg off because he "couldn't help himself." What a contrast to the world of the post-Ragnar Vikings.
IT'S BETTER: The Rise Of A New Empire
Empires fall for new ones to rise. If Ragnar stayed alive, the story would come to a halt. Instead, in Season 6, Vikings are dealing with new threats, such as the Rus. For the first time in the series, we get a chance to see how Vikings as a unit deal with invasions without Ragnar's mastermind to rely on.
Ragnar had to die in order for the Vikings to turn a new leaf in their collective history. He mingled with Anglo-Saxons and even with the illegitimate daughter of the Chinese emperor, but new seasons brought even more diversity than the ones before.
IT'S WORSE: There Is No Main Character
Even though there are many series that do just fine without having a designated main character, series are definitely more compelling when they have a central figure, be it a hero or an anti-hero. Vikings's main guy was Ragnar Lothbrok and when he died, the writers didn't make a new hero or villain. Instead, the remaining characters are all kind of equal in of screen time and psychological insight.
Not only do we miss Ragnar, but having a main character as well. It gives the audiences someone to really root for. Most are not as invested in the war of brothers that is going on right now. Sure, Björn and Ubbe are likeable enough, but they are not essential to the show. Ivar is insufferable, but he is the one that keeps the narrative of the show evolving. The essence of the former main character is scattered among his sons.
IT'S BETTER: Ragnar's Sons Achieved More
Historically speaking, it wasn't Ragnar Lothbrok who went down in history as a legend; it was his sons. From Season 1, writers must have known where the story is going since they didn't want to give the audience a historically fake death.
The real Ragnar indeed died in a snake pit, but he didn't achieve everything that the show would have us believe. Now, Vikings has an opportunity to deliver even more historically relevant events.
IT'S WORSE: Floki's Arc Deteriorated
Floki was introduced as Ragnar's loyal best friend. His character was always defined in his relation to the star of the show. Floki and Ragnar's friendship almost ended when Floki murdered Ragnar's beloved Anglo-Saxon priest, Athelstan. Floki always stood by Ragnar's side and fought bravely in his battles.
As they go their separate ways and especially after Ragnar dies, Floki gets his very own arc: he discovers Iceland and tries to set up a community there. Unfortunately, it fails to keep the audiences engaged. There are many things that don't make sense about Floki, and him without Ragnar is just a cherry on top.
IT'S BETTER: Ivar's Tactics Sur Ragnar's
If it wasn't for Ivar's intelligence and psychopathy, Vikings would be pretty boring after Ragnar's death. Ragnar was an incredible military man. The attack on Paris went down as one of the show's greatest battles and proved that Ragnar truly is a strategist like no other. Ivar, however, sured his father when it comes to tactics and the way he wages war.
Just like Ragnar, he also uses psychological tricks to his advantage and comes up with completely new ways to defeat the enemy. When it comes to that, the show is barely missing Ragnar: Ivar takes the crown.
IT'S WORSE: No One Is As Charismatic As Ragnar
Even though the show is still popular, most fans still grieve Ragnar's death. He was forward-thinking, courageous and exuded a healthy lust for his tormented (or psychotic) sons fail to do. Above all, he was the most charismatic character of them all and the show will never see the likes of him again. It is also worth pointing out that he was also one of the most handsome Vikings. By now, we are all used to the Viking aesthetic, but Ragnar introduced it better than anyone else could.
Other characters are fairly predictable. Ivar is hell-bent on warring and pillaging, Björn and Ubbe are trying to save their people and Floki's main theme is his devotion to the gods. Ragnar always did what was least expected. After all, the person he loved and trusted the most was his former slave turned best friend from Lindisfarne, Athelstan.