Talk:Anund Jacob

Untitled

I removed the text mentioning that Anund died during an attack against Finland. This information is not found in any historical source I know of regarding Anunds's reign (and I think I know them all). Nor do I recognise the theory from any litterature I have read about the subject (Swedish and English books). A similar addition was removed earlier because it was obviously wrong, confusing the Swedish king Anund Jacob with his nephew prince Anund Emundsson who died during an viking raid to the Land of the Women. That land have by some been identified with a Finnish speaking area in northern Sweden and Finland, while others have more convincingly identified it with Georgia in the Caucasus.

To put it short, the teory appears to be a loony-theory, and even if it have a reference to a Finnish book published in 1997, it should not be added again without an explanation on what historical sources the theory is based on. If it is what I suspect, wild speculation without general support from the scientific community, it should not be included at all.--84.217.122.84 (talk) 21:40, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

The point was added in the first place because it is very common knowledge in Finland (as one could expect). The book from which the info was taken is written by a person of academic backround, so the source is of course trustworthy, as according to the Wikipedia standards. And there are at least half a dozen other books mentioning it, in Finnish. Indeed, the idea that it would have been some other Anund makes me wonder as I'm well informed on available sources, texts and books on this matter. By the way, who says Women's land is in Georgia? (Totally unheard-before theory, and not just to me personally.) So, it's not a loony theory or wild speculation unsupported by scientific community. I'm not sure from what corner of planet Earth you two hail from, but I can tell in Finland it's not something to normally debate of or question but indeed something that has been printed on history books for an century, if not more. There seems to be very little this kind of knowledge at all outside Finnish academic circles (it seems not even in Swedish academic circles, which is odd considering the subject at hand) and for 99,99% time these facts or stories are not published in English language books. Not because they lack credibility but because English-speaking academia is not interested or more probably has never even been aware of the whole matter. So, this is not the only article in English-language Wikipedia to suffer from this kind of selective use of sources (ie. if it's not mentioned in English language sources nobody adds it to Wikipedia and even if somebody does, it's automatically considered rubbish by other not-so-well-informed editors even when the source is valid and academically approved). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.248.138.208 (talk) 21:59, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

As I wrote in this page before, I have read litterature in Swedish and English and the statement that Anund Jakob died in Finland is completely unknown in the books I have read, and they are many since this time period is a special interest of mine. Even if the English-speaking world is ignorant of this subject, you can not say that Swedish academic circles are less interested in the history of a Swedish king then Finnish historians. As I wrote before I think I know (as well as having read them) all existing historical sources (not 20th century litterature) about Anund Jakob's reign. These are Adam of Bremen, Snorri Sturluson, the appendix to the Hervarar saga, the appendix to Västgötalagen, Saxo Grammaticus, and Yngvars saga víðförla. I have also read Agrip, Theodoricus monachus and Fagrskinna which also covers this time period, but I do not remember if they actually mentioned Anund Jakob (which I would if they had said he died during a Finnish crusade). The leading Swedish encyklopedia on historical persons, Svenskt biografiskt lexikon also do not mention Anund Jakob's death or a crusade to Finland.

There is however a tale mentioned in Adam of Bremen about a son to Emund the Old named Anund who died in the Land of the Women. This land was by one Swedish historian in the 18th century identified with the land where Ingvar the Far-Travelled and most of his men died 1041 according to Yngvars saga víðförla. This historian also noted that Anund Jakob was mentioned early in this story and that Adam of Bremen probably got the names confused (In both stories, the expedition-leader had a father named Emund). Anund Jakob was however never on the expedition to the Land of the Women. Another Swedish historian from the same century thought that Adam of Bremen's "Land of the Women" was a bad translation of "Kvänland" (i.e. Adam had misstaken it to be "kvinnolandet"). This would mean that the "Land of the Women" was located in northern Sweden and Finland, and this was long accepted as the most likely interpretation (even though scholars could point to inconsistencies in Adam of Bremen's text if this was true). The first historian's view would never become commonly known since he died young. But in the late 1980:s, the Swedish Archaeologist Mats G. Larson began to study Yngvars saga víðförla and to compare it with other less known sources (such as Georgian chronicles). He could conclusively state that Ingvar the Far-Travelled's journey went to Georgia and that the similarities with the story told in Adam of Bremen are so great that they had to be the same story.

With this said, there are now two "theories" that can be found in Swedish academic litterature. 1) An old view saying that Emund the Old's son Anund died in Kvänland and that he was not the same person as Ingvar the Far-Travelled who died far east in Särkland (according to contemporary Runestones). 2) A new theory (or an old view reborn) saying that Emund the Old had no son named Anund who died in Kvänland, and that the story about this son is in fact a less accurate description of Ingvar the Far-Travelled's illfated journey to Georgia. Apparently some Finnish historian have made a weird mix of these theories and, just like Adam of Bremen probably did, identified Ingvar the Far-Travelled with an Anund (this time Anund Jakob), but kept the location of the Land of the Women in Scandinavia (this time to southern Finland!!!). This is obviuosly pseudo-history where you pick the pieces you like from the available theories to create completely new ones without bothering to check the historical sources for (non-existing) proofs.--84.217.155.74 (talk) 14:34, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

English exonyms

As per a source added now, I believe it has been clearly established that Anwynd is an English exonym, albeit not too too famous, for the Swedish name Anund. James is a well known English exonym for Swedish Jakob. Thus I believe the English name form Anwynd James warrants a mention in the lede. SergeWoodzing (talk) 13:37, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

Unknown names should not be presented as established. If no one else calls him "Anwynd James", there is no reason we should either. And if the only source is some webpage citing an 1823 translation of the Anglo-Saxon chronicle, I'd say we're a far cry from even being able to call "Anwynd" an established anglicisation of "Anund".

Further, while British kings by the name of "James" are called "Jakob" in some languages, including Swedish, I don't believe that the reverse is always true. While the apostle James is known under that name, the patriarch is Jacob.

Andejons (talk) 14:51, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

Anwynd is at least as well established as a linguistically correct and accepted exonym for this king as Charles (who was called Carolus in his own time), is for Charles VII of Sweden. As for Jakob-James, there is no established precedent, since no other Swedish royal was ever called Jakob, but I don't think a debate over whether or not the two names always are interchangeable between the Germanic languages, re: all historical persons, really is necessary. They are. My opponent seems to believe that exonyms are personal. I do not. SergeWoodzing (talk) 15:11, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

"Anwynd James" is just an invention by Woodzing, should be removed per WP:MADEUP. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 16:15, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

Thank you Kuiper! I have added this - "just an invention" and "made up" - to my ongoing collection of all your unnecessarily rude, degrading, insulting and uncivil comments on the work of other editors on several projects who are usually just trying to do their best for WP, as they see it, and almost never deserve the amount of cruelty that you often are at hand to dish out, in larger or lesser doses, rather than just discussing the issues in a non-personal and constructive manner. Eagerly, in this case, since you didn't even want to respect the third opinion process. SergeWoodzing (talk) 19:42, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

Third Opinion--We should use the names that are used to refer specifically to the article subject in reliable sources. Better not to make decisions about adding material based on our own deductions as that is Original Research ie applying general info about names to the specific topic of this article.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 17:22, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for helping! A name is a name is a name and for it an exonym is an exonym is an exonym, whether or not you put two of them together. I don't see this your way, but respect your opinion. SergeWoodzing (talk) 19:42, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for your civility and patience with the situation even though we disagree. :-)-- — Keithbob • Talk • 21:34, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

That is just veneer. Woodzing has no regard for your efforts, and just reinserts his WP:MADEUP name. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 21:53, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

Made a note of that personal slur also as per above. I reinstated it because your edit comment revealed that you removed it only for personal reasons. Let someone else remove it for neutral reasons, not just as a result of your stalking of me for years now. SergeWoodzing (talk) 21:55, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

"Let someone else remove it for neutral reasons" - what a waste of typing time! SergeWoodzing (talk) 22:22, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

So much for WP policy to always mention exonyms (4th par. lead of guideline)? SergeWoodzing (talk) 00:29, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

You have still not established that there is an exonym. The claim that an exonym has to do with the name and not the person is clearly incorrect; persons named "Karl" are not known in general as "Charles" in English.

Andejons (talk) 07:31, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

--SergeWoodzing (talk) 13:53, 22 December 2021 (UTC)== External links modified ==

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Anund Jacob. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive http://wayback.vefsafn.is/wayback/20070508170621/http://www.heimskringla.no/original/fornaldersagaene/hervararsaga.php to http://www.heimskringla.no/original/fornaldersagaene/hervararsaga.php
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20061227085107/http://www.home.ix.netcom.com/~kyamazak/myth/norse/kershaw/Kershaw1s-hervor-and-heithrek.htm to http://www.home.ix.netcom.com/~kyamazak/myth/norse/kershaw/Kershaw1s-hervor-and-heithrek.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 18:59, 7 July 2017 (UTC)

Large rollback

I am going to roll back all recent edits by an IP primarily because of very poor English, incomprehensible in part, and also due to a lack of reliable sourcing (personal interpretation of old stories?). --SergeWoodzing (talk) 13:53, 22 December 2021 (UTC)

Rolled back again & wrote to IP re: language & sources. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 22:55, 23 December 2021 (UTC)