#hiccup the second | Explore Tumblr posts and blogs

companion-of-the-dragonmark · 6 months ago

Text

Are the Hamishes Based on Book Characters? (HTTYD)

(Special shout-out to @yv-sketches and the link to this particular fanart here. I'll never stop looking at their book drawings, they're so good!)

Well met, my fellow Dragonmarkers! Here's another article for Character Comparison series, where I try to find a plausible, even possible, comparison between show and book characters of HTTYD.

Today, we'll be diving into the Hamishes. Very well-timed, considering what I had found recently.

Shout-out to @noctusfury and his article on the Hamishes and the Mystery of the Missing Portrait(s). Very good read.

Now, for those of you who haven't watched DreamWorks Dragons, or have forgotten who these two are, they are two of several Chieftains of Berk that is seen in the Riders of Berk episode "Portrait of Hiccup as a Buff Man".

The portrait below is supposed to be that of the two Hamishes.

It must be said, of course, that there is some debate about that due to an apparent error that was made during production and that the portrait of the 1st chieftain and his son (the top left in beginning picture) was the real Hamishes, design-wise.

You'll have to read the post in the link above, since that gets into greater detail.

However, we're not here for that. We're here for who the Hamishes are and who are their closest comparison, in MY opinion.

Hamish the First was Berk's most successful and wealthiest chieftain, having been a raider and pirate and accumulated for himself a massive hoard of treasure. We can assume that his rule was a successful one based on the only description we have of this historic figure.

His son, Hamish the Second, was a Hiccup, in reality, and, after his father's death, and, presumedly after he was coronated as the new chief, he built a labyrinth of traps and riddles to protect his father's treasure, hoping that his successor, a future Hiccup, would be able to find it.

It must be noted that this young man was a rather masterful riddler and engineer — to the point that NOBODY was able to even FIND the labyrinth, much less REACH the treasure. He was also assumed to have been a friend of dragons, since it would've been impossible to build it without their help. Plus, he also knew dragon characteristics and intentionally built the labyrinth to be impossible to navigate without a dragon (you most certainly wouldn't have survived the fall without one).

Now, it is my belief that the two Hamishes — and this is rather obvious given their backstories — are based on Grimbeard the Ghastly and his son, Hiccup the Second.

Like Father, Like Son

When you think of it, everything fits — albeit, with SOME differences.

For instance, they were kings (Hiccup a prince), while the Hamishes were just chieftains — that we know of, anyway, from their VERY SPARCE backstory (come on, DreamWorks, get it together!). Hamish the First died before his son, while Grimbeard lived sometime after Hiccup (for certain - ahem! - reasons). Hamish the First had a successful reign as Chief while Grimbeard's rule as King ended literally in flames due to his crappy parenting. Hamish the Second was the one who hid his father's treasure, when in the books, Grimbeard hid his own treasure for his future Heir to find. Hamish the Second was also a genius engineer/architect, while Hiccup the Second was not, though both were excellent riddlers and writers.

And, while not proven, it is assumed that Hamish the Second wasn't your typical Viking, while Hiccup the Second, despite being a Runt, was your Viking's Viking, but with brains, beauty, and brawn (if yv-sketches' sketches are to be believed lol 😂).

That being said, there were several similarities.

1) Both Hamish the First and Grimbeard had successful reigns for the most part and were best known for their pirating and attaining massive wealth.

2) Both fathers had Runts for sons, but loved them dearly (probably at the expense of their thrones).

3) Both leaders had treasures that Vikings, greedy to acquire the hoard for themselves, tried to find but failed and even lost their lives over it. In fact, in both instances, the true locations of the hoards were hard to find in hard-to-reach places, were booby-trapped, and had dragon guardians watching over it.

4) Both Hamish the Second and Grimbeard had a LOVE for booby traps and hard riddles.

5) In both the show and in the books, it's shown how both Stoicks were greedy for the treasure, but later realize that their greatest treasure was their sons (Hiccup the Third).

6) Both pairs were Berkians and Hooligans.

7) Both Grimbeard and Hamish the First felt confined on Berk and preferred going to other places.

8) Both sons had a great love and loyalty for their fathers, and both, respectively, have shown that through their actions.

9) Both sons have had an ambiguous imprint on history that can't immediately be seen at first glance.

10) Both sons loved dragons very much.

11) Both likely met fatal ends due to schemes for the throne and the treasure. (There is no portrait of Hamish the Second and his son, so it's possible that, like Hiccup the Second, Hamish the Second could've either lost his life or was exiled because of the dragons he was friends with or simply due to the schemes of those who wanted the treasure and throne of Berk.)

12) While the TV show would've never had this in their content for viewer reasons, it would be interesting if both Hamish II and Hiccup II shared similar childhoods of being abandoned and then taken care of by dragons, only to be reunited by their fathers later.

13) Both pairs were likely succeeded after their deaths-cum-disappearances by their respective Chuckleheads as Chieftains of Berk, respectively.

The Viking portrait on the right kinda looks like Chucklehead, doesn't it? 👀

Okey-dokey, I think that's everything. Interesting how I had a point for every Wilderwest King in the books. There are 13 points for 13 kings.

Anywho, that's all for this article.

What do you guys think? Let me know if you have anything to add that I missed or needs correction.

Thank you so much for reading and for your support. It's been VERY fun writing these posts for you guys! 😁

Have a wonderful week!

Long Live the Wilderwest!

— Companion of the Dragonmark

24 notes · View notes

noctusfury · 7 months ago

Text

The Story Behind the Portraits (A HTTYD/Riders of Berk Theory)

Hello, my fellow Furians! And welcome to another HTTYD article!

Today, we’ll be diving into the background and mystery behind the Portraits of the Chieftains and their Heirs!

This is a continuation, sequel, and expansion of my original post here.

We know very little about Berkian history aside from the fact that Berk has been around for 7 generations (8 if you include the Gang... maybe?) and that Berk celebrated their 400th Anniversary (more on that in my previous article here).

Other events and people in Berkian history that were mentioned were the Dragon Wars (for 300 years), the Berserker Wars (during Stoick’s father’s and grandfather’s time), the skirmishes with the Outcasts, the Rise of Alvin the Treacherous, even about the fame of Hamish the First. There are mentions of other noteworthy people that were part of Berk’s history (at least, I assume they’re part of Berkian history since Fishlegs mentions them), but to regale you of them when I haven’t watched the series in a while isn’t worth it.

However, there is one glaring absence among the row of portraits on the wall: there is no portrait of Hamish the Second and his son. Why?

Let us go through the events of the Riders of Berk episode “Portrait of Hiccup as a Buff Man” to find out, since that is where we will receive the story of Hiccup the Second.

We know that Hamish the First was a famous chieftain in Berkian history, said by Fishlegs to have been: “the most successful and wealthiest chieftain in Berk’s history, who amassed a fabulous and massive treasury.”

However, there may be some conflict over who was actually Hamish the First, since according to the Wiki, the blonde Viking is NOT Hamish the First, but actually the first portrait on the wall, the dark-haired Viking, and that Hamish the Second was named after him.

Of course, I’m not sure if the animation error is true or not. If Hamish the First, according to the Wiki, truly was the first chieftain to take his portrait in this, then it doesn’t make sense that Hamish the Second would put the treasury spanning from the First Chieftain into a secret place several generations later. But could it be that his (the first chieftain’s) son is really Hamish the Second?

I don’t know. It’s difficult to tell. I’ll leave that to you guys, and I’ll think about it a little more. I might even write another article about this apparent discrepancy.

While it may be a stretch, it's possible that Hamish the Second switched the portraits and that the first chieftain’s portrait was actually the portrait posing as the two Hamishes (the blonds) while the true portrait of the Hamishes was put into the First Chieftain’s portrait spot.

Anyway, back to Hamish the Second’s background.

After leaving behind a literal golden and colorful legacy, Hamish the First stepped down (or died), leaving Hamish the Second to succeed him as the 5th-Generation Chieftain of Berk. After that, he hid the majority of his father’s treasure hoards and created the labyrinth and riddles for the next “hiccup” to find in the future. We don’t know the later events or accomplishments of his reign — or anything else about him, for that matter — before the succession of either Stoick’s grandfather or father.

But here’s where it’s gets even more hazy.

The Case of the Missing Portraits

If you count all of the portraits in total, there are only SIX of them, including Hiccup’s portrait! We’re missing Hamish the Second’s portrait with his son.

Where is it? What happened to it? Why is it missing?!

In the intro to the HTTYD 1 film, Hiccup stated that they have lived on Berk for “seven generations,” so whether you include his own generation as the 7th generation, or if the 7th generation is Stoick’s generation while Hiccup’s generation is the 8th is its own topic altogether.

Though you could argue that only Hamish the Second's portrait is missing, since if you HAD included that, it would've been 7 generations of portraits, including Hiccup's portrait with Stoick, and, even IF Hiccup was the 8th generation instead of the 7th, there wouldn't be an 8th portrait until the coming-of-age of Hiccup's OWN children.

We get an interesting hint by Fishlegs as they observe the line of portraits:

So according to him, Hiccup is one of the “few” who wasn’t killed by their successors — which usually implies that regicide was somewhat commonplace. Of course, “few” could just imply more than 3-4 individuals, and it’s possible that only a few in their history were actually killed by their successor.

Another theory is that Fishlegs is talking about successors and predecessors in general throughout the Archipelago in all of Viking history.

It’s not really stated what “the elite few” is referencing, whether it’s concerning the Berkian chieftain bloodline, or is including the chieftain bloodlines of other Tribes as well.

What do you guys think?

At any rate, let’s start with Hamish the Second.

Hamish the Second

Hamish the Second is definitely a curious individual in Berkian history, shown to be a nod to Grimbeard the Ghastly's son, Hiccup the Second, in the Books. Both are friends to dragons, both were Runts, both loved their fathers despite their grievances, and both their fathers were successful pirates who collecting a massive hoard of treasures.

Since after his father's death, Hamish the Second, being a brilliant engineer and nasty trapper and riddler, used his (presumedly) secret relationship with dragons to build a massive complex to hide his father's treasure (most likely due to the infighting over the said treasure, as was seen in HTTYD Book 2) and protect it from thieves and raiders.

That was his first job and project as the 5th(?) Chieftain of Berk.

So, if Hamish II became the next Chief, what happened to him and why isn't there a portrait of himself with his own son?

Well, we simply don't know, unfortunately. There are some theories and plausibilities that could explain its disappearance.

1. Hamish, much like his Book counterpart, perished at a young age — most likely as the victim of what Fishlegs mentioned as "being one of those killed by their successor."

2. Hamish could've died as a result of an accident, disease, injuries, battle, or even a shipwreck or a storm.

3. Hamish's secret of befriending dragons could've been discovered and was either killed or exiled for "betraying Berk". (Of course, this is assuming that Berk hadn't tamed dragons back then since Hamish the First obviously had time to raid and pillage to get this massive hoard of treasure without much problems with dragon raids. And the flashback with Stoick and Hiccup in HTTYD 2 and HTTYD 3 seem to support that.)

4. Hamish could've been killed or forced to leave due to people seeking his father's treasure.

5. Hamish could've had a son but, like Thugheart from the Books, decided to overthrow Hamish II and got rid of him.

6. Hamish, not wanting to endanger his dragon friends, pulled a Valka-move and either made it look like dragons killed him, or, like what Hiccup tried to do in HTTYD 1, decided to quietly leave Berk without telling anyone.

There might be more, but those are the main ones.

Heck, perhaps even one of these two portraits IS Hamish the Second and his son, presumedly Stoick's grandfather. Who knows? 🤷‍♂️

At any rate, for any or a combination of these reasons, this resulted in a tragic early death before having an heir, or he did have an heir but died before his son came of-age, thus the portrait couldn't be made.

Considering Hamish the Second is based off of Hiccup the Second from the Books, let's just assume the chieftainship was left vacant after his disappearance, for whatever reason it may be.

Of course, if this is true, does this simply mean that the portraits got switched? If so, then we can continue with the theory that a relative of Hamish the Second, Stoick's grandfather or father, became the new Chief of Berk — assuming there wasn't an upstart before that who tried to take advantage and take the throne for himself.

This would effectively make Stoick's family a new dynasty, even if they're part of the same family. Assuming that they're not just a family of Vikings that the residents voted in and that the official line of Berk ended with Hamish the Second.

If it's TRUE that the Hamishes WERE, in fact, the FIRST and SECOND Chiefs of Berk, then that would change things a bit.

For instance, if we were to be loyal to the Books, after the deaths of Grimbeard and Hiccup the Second, and the disownment and exile of Thugheart, Chucklehead would become the new Chieftain of Berk.

Meaning that after Hamish the First's death, and Hamish the Second's early death/disappearance, Chucklehead would be the next Chieftain of Berk.

And if you look at the portraits, the one on the right looks like what Chucklehead would look like, doesn't he? 👀

Conclusion

To conclude with this rather long article, regardless of Hamish the Second's fate, or what timeline he truly hails from, he left a seat vacant, and the absence of his theoretical portrait of himself and his heir is likely due to his early death or disappearance, or, if he HAD an heir, or contenders, they might've dealt with him and got rid of the portrait.

The only reason why I didn't mention the possibility of his secret — that of his friendship with dragons — being found out, and that's what caused his downfall, is that if that had been the case, then why didn't they destroy the portrait of Hamish the First and Hamish the Second as well?

If the Hamishes were the First- and Second-Generation Chieftains, then the next chieftain would've been [insert Viking] (I'm going with "Chucklehead").

If not, and it was during Stoick's grandfather's or father's time, then it's possible that Stoick's grandfather and father were part of the continuation of the dynasty left vacant by Hamish the Second. Assuming they're not a new dynasty altogether, which is unlikely.

<><><><><>

Anyway, I hope you enjoyed this article. If you have any thoughts about this mystery, or about Berkian history, please feel free to give your thoughts.

Thank you for reading. I hope you have a good weekend.

Long Live the Night!

— Noctus Fury

23 notes · View notes