Talk:Ragnar Lodbrok/Archive 2

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

Archive 2

Inconsistent with other Wikipedia pages

This page, English version, about Ragnar Lodbrok is a bit inconsistent with other sources and pages here on Wikipedia. The text here states right now the following:

"To court his second wife, the Swedish princess Thora, Ragnar traveled to Sweden and quelled an infestation of venomous snakes, famously wearing the hairy breeches whereby he gained his nickname. Supposedly, the breeches were made from bearskin dipped in pitch and sand, making them fireproof."

First the terms "Swedish" is not correct. Thora was a Götisk/Gothic/Gauti princess - other sources says daughter of the earl of Götaland. The Götar/Goths/Geats/Gautar lived in Götaland south/south west of Svitjod/Sviar/Svear/Swedes that lived around lake Mälaren. This is of important as there was not a single national identity called "Swedes" of "Sweden" as we know it today in that time and Götar/Goths/Geats/Gauter and Svear/Swedes was considered two different people with different traditions and even spoke a bit different - however often ruled by the same king though - just as Swedes and Danes was. Just as it is possible to be CEO/Owner/Chairman in several different companies at the same time today.

Furthermore the Swedish version of this page (and some literature I have read) they said that he was clad in pants of wolf skin and is seen in full leather armour in the TV show (not bear as it says here) that was covered by pitch (resin) to withstand the corroding poison of the Lindworm, (pitch was used to make stuff waterproof) - not to with stand fire.

The Swedish version of this page also states that it was one Lindworm that had taken Thora hostage - not a "infestation of venomous snakes". The English wikipedia page about Lindworm states that the information comes from Saxo Grammaticus. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 113.162.54.216 (talk) 03:17, 7 February 2013‎

You are right - there are several mistakes in the english version - i Tried to change some of Them but they have closed it due to vandalism. The administrator who did it will not accept references from Saxo or historian researchers, potdocs and PhDs from both Copenhagen, Aarhus, Stockholm or Oslo University. It seems the administrator have made some nasty personal changes in this section and locked it so People with academic knowledge of the actual events Can give the more reliable analytical facts made in general from Saxo and the Iceland sagas. Mikkel1984 (talk) 13:38, 10 July 2017 (UTC)

Helloooo! This man may never even have existed - so why on earth is he being discussed in terms of "actual events" as if he definitely did exist? The TV series is fiction. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 09:15, 1 August 2017 (UTC)

Add to article

Some of the information above seems like it can be incorporated into the article. The article could also use a picture or map to round it out, if someone could make or find one. --Ignignot 14:38, Aug 3, 2004 (UTC)

Thanks whoever found the picture. --Ignignot 15:44, Aug 15, 2004 (UTC)

You're welcome!--Wiglaf 16:10, 15 Aug 2004 (UTC)

King of Sweden who conquered Denmark? lol

How typical that user:Wiglaf make it like this. Both Ragnar Lodbrok and Sigurd Ring was Danes. They lived in Denmark they came from Denmark, they had Danish families and their sons and nephews was Danes. And sorry to say it wiglaf but Saxo Gramacius write his history of Danes, not swedes.

So if we gonna make witch nationality he was (witch not was important that time in Scandinavia). He was surely more Danish than Swedish.

Remember Sigurd Ring the father, who was king of Denmark ca. 800-810. Was a Nephew of the Danish king Harald Hildetand who put him on the Swedish throne. And Sigurd Ring only won(maybe or got offered) Zealand, not hole Denmark.

--Comanche cph 22:34, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Comanche, every single Scandinavian source but one, Hervarar saga, describes Ragnar's father Sigurd Ring as a king, or a Danish subking, of Sweden who became the ruler of Denmark after the Battle of Bråvalla. This means that according to ALL sources, Ragnar began as the king of BOTH Denmark and Sweden. Your edits on the other hand claim that Ragnar Lodbrok began as an earl of Denmark and later became the king of Sweden too. Let us see what The Tale of Ragnar's Sons says about what happened when he had ascended the throne: After the death of King Ring, his son Ragnar came to power in Sweden and Denmark. Then Ragnar Lodbrok loses Denmark and is apparently not interested in the territory but leaves it to his sons to conquer Denmark for themselves: Now when Ragnar's sons were fully grown, they went raiding far and wide. The brothers Eirek and Agnar were second in rank after Ragnar, and Ivar third with his younger brothers, and he was the leader because he was very clever. They conquered Zealand and Reidgotaland, Gotland, and Öland and all the smaller islands in the sea. Then Ivar set himself up at Lejre in Zealand with his younger brothers, but that went against the will of King Ragnar. According to the Tale of Ragnar's sons, Denmark was a fringe territory that Ragnar was not very interested in, but left to his sons to conquer for themselves. If you have an alternative theory, please cite sources and present them in the article.--Berig 15:48, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

-- The identity was more connected to the family/the bloodline/the "clan" then the people, and certainty not modern national terms of Denmark and Sweden, and as the same family ruled both in Sweden and in Denmark the modern "national identity" is irrelevant - they were both Danes and Swedes, probably with bloodlines deep rooted in both people. We can never know where he was born (as far as I know there are no source on that) and we can not tell where he spent most of his time (we only know the probably was on a constant travel as all kings of that age) and we can not hear his view of his identity. Also the term king and earl is a bit fluent in this time. A king could be a subject king to another. A earl could on the other hand be totally independent and have no allegiance to any king. One that a king saw as his earl could see him self as a subject king - or just a king. Also whats the difference between a drott and a king? And so on and so and so on. In short: Stop try to place him according to moderns standards - look on how the world looked back then.

Theres no doubt that Sigurd Hring and Regnar Was both danes, at least if we are to believe the stories of Saxo and the proven historical events. Claiming different is wrong and if you try to disclaim that they are danes please quote your source afterwards i will quote a more trusted governmental source just to show you that your Way off when saying they are NOT danes!

Also note that there are very few historical evidence and NOT evidence is actual from Danish historical sources! Mikkel1984 (talk) 07:12, 9 July 2017 (UTC)

Someone needs to remove the propaganda in the article from tv shows etc and talk pages. "Sweden" did not exist until 970AD after all of these wars etc. Here is a map that shows each year: https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=112&v=m7chLRd28_A

Also this quote is from Britannica to support the changes I will make to the article: "In the Gesta Danorum (c. 1185) of the Danish historian Saxo Grammaticus, for example, Ragnar was a 9th-century Danish king" from Brittanica.com : https://www.britannica.com/topic/Ragnar-Lothbrok — Preceding unsigned comment added by SNTOI (talk • contribs) 14:14, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

There seems to be confusion. Saxo was an actual 'chronicler and historian', born approximately 20 years before Snorri who was not a historian but a mythologiser and also involved in the courts of Norway, all according to current wikipedia articles. So what you are probably getting here is a tale teller in Iceland/Norway making it *localised*. You are getting the same in "sweden", which didn't seem to exist as a kingdom. Now Saxo is a Dane right? and writes about the Danish king (yes?). What is the situation then is the Danish king appears have to ruled the regions. The "swedish" then say after the kingdom of sweden is created that he is a "swedish" king because clearly sitting in their tribal valleys a century later they would look out and say something like, "who is our king? Oh he's the king of us, swedish" Because they are swedish they think, "he is the swedish king" etc. It's like an Australian or Canadian saying Elizabeth is the Queen of Australia/Canada". SNTOI (talk) 14:58, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

Where does it states that he was king of Sweden?

all the encyclopedia's i have looked up, dosent state that. --87.54.45.178 11:44, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

I was not surprised to see that your IP is located in Denmark, because only Danish IPs appear to object to this (I wonder why). No one knows for sure whether Ragnar was Danish, or Swedish or Norwegian. One medieval source (a Frankish one IIRC) says that he was one of the jarls of a lord in Denmark named Hárekr (which does not tell us anything about his nationality, really), whereas most medieval Scandinavian sources say that he was a prince who inherited Denmark and Sweden from his father, the king of Denmark and Sweden, or conquered Denmark after having secured his reign in Sweden.--Berig 12:09, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

What sources? He is not regarded a king of Sweden according to any book about Swedish history that I have seen. /Pieter Kuiper 12:40, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

I don't think that he has been claimed to have been a "historic king" of either Denmark or Sweden for very long time in history books. But that is besides the point here. Several medieval sources made him into a king of Denmark and Sweden, so that is relevant in the article.--Berig 13:29, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

If this guy is in the category:865 deaths, in my opinion he should not be in the category:Semi-legendary kings of Sweden. This blend of history and myth puts this article on the scholarly level of 17th century Gothicismus. /Pieter Kuiper 13:40, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

I hope you understand that what is relevant in a Wikipedia article is notability and not whether it can be compared to Gothicismus. Ragnar Lodbrok's appearance in legendary sources is notable enough for inclusion.--Berig 13:43, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Please note your source when claiming he is NOT Danish origin. Cause if so the Danish museum of history should change the history books, saxos saga is wrong and alot of other Danish history is wrong...

Basicly we do know that all evidence mainly point that if he existed he Was of Danish origin. Please dont say otherwize without quoting your governmental source! Mikkel1984 (talk) 07:37, 9 July 2017 (UTC)

No Ragnar?

I have a question about Katherine Holman's statement: "although his sons are historical figures, there is no evidence that Ragnar himself ever lived...". I have to wonder how "his sons" could exist without a father? Carl Lindgren, 70.181.203.223 (talk) 03:01, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

I suppose she meant that the men said to be his sons existed, but that they were all sons of the legendary Ragnar is unproven. Sandstein 05:01, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

I agree with Carl this sentence is terrible. I am not familiar enough with the subject to try and edit the article. This is the second example of terrible prose in the article. The nice thing about this sentence is that atleast it is written in such a way that it can be logically inconsistent. The historicity section lede is so poorly construted that it can mean anything the reader/author wants it to mean. I am surprised that a wikipedia article is so poorly written. Can someone familiar with English AND the subject material edit the article? DouglasCalvert (talk) 06:06, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

There were five historical figures, all known to be brothers. Two who bore the moniker 'Ragnarsson'. Unless their legend says they were fatherless, I'd say their historicity proves the historicity of a father for them, known at least to some as 'Ragnar'.69.158.124.43 (talk) 11:16, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

So if I named myself "Santasson" does that mean that Santa is real? Just because someone is named "Ragnarsson" means nothing. Except that possibly someone named "Ragnar" existed at some point. But that does not mean THIS Ragnar was real. There is endless historic evidence that Jesus was real. But then again, Jesus was one of the most common names back then. Just because there were a million Jesuses running around does not make the Bible real...184.155.138.213 (talk) 03:42, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

Actually, in the timeframes talked about, "Ragnarsson" definately means son of Ragnar. In the Germanic world at that time, Surnames as we know them today did not exist. You would not call yourself "Ragnarsson" if your father was not called "Ragnar" since everyone around you would know that is not your "true" name. Iceland I believe is the only such country to still use the old system today. To me that definately means their father was a man called Ragnar. The problem is identifying if that Ragnar was known by the nickname "Lodbrok" or if his alternative name was Ragnar Sigurdsson. 144.139.103.173 (talk) 15:36, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

Danish, Swedish and ---

Apparently, quoting this page and ignoring the theme of the highly inaccurate TV show the page was originally about, Snorri Sturluson wrote him as a Norwegian king. I thought this should be mentioned if it's true, but first I need to ask if any of you happen to know which saga depicts him this way? Quote from site below.

--- In the preface, she writes: "The Viking king Ragnarr Loðbrók and his sons feature in a variety of medieval stories, all of them highly dramatic." In a French version, he is a noble king in Denmark, father of a fearsome Viking who ravages France. In an English story, he "wickedly inflames" his three sons with envy for the English King Edmund, provoking the Danish invasion of England and Edmund's martyrdom. Snorri Sturluson, subject of my book Song of the Vikings, wrote one of the 32 known Icelandic tales about Ragnarr. To Snorri, Ragnarr was famous as the first Norwegian king to keep a court poet, or skald. He was "the conqueror who established the definitive boundaries of the Scandinavian kingdoms," Rowe writes, "and the symbol of the ancient heroism that would be eclipsed by the new heroism of the Icelanders." ---

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.202.83.247 (talk) 18:17, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

He is a Dane at least if we are to believe he is the son of Sigurd Hring and has family roots to Godfred/Gøtrik as Well. Its pretty simple we know the historic events and the sagas where the "evidence" is based upon is mainly Danish, also note that back Then sweden and norway and Denmark didnt look with the borders they have now, back Then alot of norway and sweden Was under Danish rule and territorium. This is proberly the reason Many regular People who dont know the historical events believe they are from norway or sweden. Mikkel1984 (talk) 07:23, 9 July 2017 (UTC)

Point form? Who wrote this, a 12 year old?

Show me one other high quality article or bio that lists things in the lede in point form. Point form is a blight brought to us from the humanities and arts - it is as unprofessional as one can get when it comes to styles of prose. Please, please refrain from using such hideousness. 124.190.227.150 (talk) 06:52, 29 December 2016 (GMT)

Done --SergeWoodzing (talk) 17:28, 21 May 2017 (UTC)

Please PLEASE get real folks!

The amount of edits and edit comments which treat Rainer Lothbroc (as I call him), and this article about that person of legend, as if we are dealing with a historical person is mindblowing. Television entertainment is not supposed to effect Wikipedia that way. Pardon my shouting in the heading, but the damage done to Wikipedia is considerable. Thank Goodness nobody has done a historical-factual article about King Stefan of Sleeping Beauty yet (farz I know?)! --SergeWoodzing (talk) 17:35, 21 May 2017 (UTC)

Bad Link

I do not know how to correct this. There is a link toward the bottom of the page that says that Ragnar was preceded by Harald Greyhide as King of Denmark. Harald's name links to a page on Harald Greycloak, son of Eirik Bloodaxe and grandson of Harald Fairhair, making him at least three generations too late to be Ragnar's predecessor. (Eirik Bloodaxe played his greatest role in York AFTER Ragnar's reputed sons had played their part.) I suspect there was confusion on the part of whoever created the link between the similar names Greyhide and Greycloak. The link between the name Harald Greyhide and the page for Greycloak should be deleted. Should you require sources, it should be sufficient to read the pages on Erik Bloodaxe and those on Ragnar's sons to see that the chronology is wrong for Greycloak to reign before a man who fathered contemporaries/predecessors of Greycloak's own father. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 47.222.33.190 (talk) 22:16, 26 August 2017 (UTC)