Vikings: don't dismiss this show as Game of Thrones-lite

It has been casually dismissed by some as Game of Thrones-lite, but to ignore Vikings would be a mistake. (Season one is currently airing on the History Channel in the UK, while both seasons one and two are available via Amazon Instant Video.) An altogether more streamlined affair than the HBO drama – it deals mostly with one family, rather than the dozens that populate the world of GoT – the show is as good, if not better, at a lot of elements familiar to fans of George RR Martin's epic.

For those just encountering the show on History, it was on Tuesday night that we saw Vikings really swing into action with its second instalment – like GoT it really could have done with a double-length opener. The first episode gave us a crash course in Viking village politics, a bit of religion, a feeling for Viking problems and ambitions, and introduced us to our hero Ragnar Lothbrok and his family. It was a lot to pack in, it did so with some grace, but Tuesday allowed us to start the adventure proper.

We began with Ragnar leading a famous raid. We don't know whether the real Ragnar was involved in the 793AD raid regarded as the start of the Viking age; a good example of how Vikings blends European history with its fictional storytelling. The drama plays fast and loose with recorded events, but you'll get some knowledge of the times from watching. Which is arguably more useful than a working knowledge of the sigils and royal houses of Westeros, much as I love them.

The vikings' deeply-held pagan spiritual beliefs also allows for drama around premonitions and hallucinations fuelled by religion and/or drugs. But there's no sorcery here. The only dragons you'll see in Vikings are the ones carved on the front of their warships.

But while the events are shuffled around, cultural aspects of viking life are treated with a little more care – the importance of a good death, what a blood eagle is, that sort of thing. A forthcoming episode deals with blood sacrifices – one of the strangest episodes, and a real standout. While the show could never be confused with a history lesson, we see a little of how the vikings interact with each other and other cultures. (Often disasterously for the non-vikings, as the raiders' world expands thanks to Ragnar's ambition and cunning.)

The cast also looks appropriately grubby and weathered: strong but not six-packed, as if their tough lifestyle as farmers and fighters – rather than thousands of ab-crunches in the gym – has made them powerful. The acting doesn't disappoint either: ex-Calvin Klein model and one-time tv Tarzan Travis Fimmel erases his past misdeeds as the charismatic, sly Ragnar Lothbrook; a man of few words, all of them important.

Elsewhere, Katheryn Winnick impresses as Ragnar's wife and shieldmaiden Lagertha, and Clive Standen is great as Ragnar's sibling Rollo who, forced to live in his brother's shadow, has the show's most interesting and eventful story arc. There's also Gustaf Skarsgård (another son of Stellan) as impish boat builder and mystic Floki, a character as amusing as he is deadly, and George Blagden as English monk Athelstan who serves as the audience's eyes and ears as he ends up deep in viking culture.

You never get the impression that anyone involved is giving any less than their all. There's no wheel spinning or time wasting – Vikings is a lean, mean show that starts off well then steadily improves. So what have you made of it? Leave your (spoiler-free, if possible) thoughts below.