Talk:Battle of Stiklestad

Naming

It is probably wise to use the english names of the scandinavian kings in the english version of wikipedia. I guess the norwegian/danish/swedish names could (should?) be included if the english name is presented in the same article.

For a norwegian like my self it is awkward to see "Snorri Sturluson" used for Snorre Sturlason. I assume Snorri Sturluson is the Icelandic spelling. Snorre (Snorri) being from Iceland I have introduced this form and made an internal link. Snorri Sturluson is the only version to be found in wikipedia. Is this correct? Should there be any redirects?

I have made an intro, added external link and corrected a few typos as well. Hope the result is ok.

Crukis 22:37, 15 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Snorri Sturluson is both the modern Icelandic and Old Norse form of the name, clearly it is better to use this than a modern Norwegian corruption. The same goes for the spellings of Olav, Tore, Kalv Arneson, et cetera which I have changed to Olaf, Thorir, Kalf Arnason which are closer approximations of the original spellings and pronunciations aswell as being more common in modern English scholarship. Someone seemed to have gone through and systematically changed all of these names to modern Norwegian forms, this needs to be guarded against. BodvarBjarki (talk) 14:45, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Found this in Wikimedia Commons

http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Image:Stiklestad.jpg has an interesting picture of this battle. -- 199.71.174.100 01:56, 25 July 2005 (UTC)

The picture in question is made by Halvdan Egedius. Some of his pictures has becomem famous as they are used as illustrations to many publications of the Norse Saga. His rendition of the Battle of Stiklestad is probably one of the most famous.

'Civil war'?

Using the term 'Norwegian Civil War' is in my view incorrect with regards to the conflict between Olav Digre and the Danish-supported lords. Traditionally, 'civil war' has been used about the period between 1130 and 1186, as numerous pretenders to the throne clashed (partly) because of the liberal succession laws. Some even feel it includes the bagler/birkebeiner conflict, thus not concluding before 1217.

The conflict between Olav and King Canute/The peasant leaders is, in its deepest sense, the same conflict that ensued when Håkon jarl broke the Lade family's alliance with the Fairhair decendants. However, this conflict has no real name. Suggestions?

References?

(Hardwarecompugeek (talk) 23:16, 19 February 2008 (UTC)) I didn't see any references. Did the writers reference the play, or what???

It really need references. Some of the speculations in the article is dubious. "The rather barren and hostile Trøndelag..." - hostile yes, but barren? The lowland around Trondheimsfjord has lots of marine deposits as it is an old seabed, rich in nutrients and easy to grow crops in, indeed the dense population in the Trondheimsfjord-area is why this often was considered the most powerful area of Norway in the Viking Age ("where the largest power of the country lies" is a frase often used in Heimskringla to describe the area); see this picture from Verdal, parts of the valley. And Nidaros (Trondheim) was considered the capital of the country, and the Ting here was were kings were traditionally acclaimed and accepted as King of Norway (not always accepted in the whole country, though). Orcaborealis (talk) 18:55, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Battle of Stiklestad. 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 https://web.archive.org/web/20090408023410/http://www.stiklestad.no:80/historie/Slageti1030/slaget.html to http://www.stiklestad.no/historie/Slageti1030/slaget.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070309034257/http://www.stiklestad.no:80/english.shtml to http://www.stiklestad.no/english.shtml

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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) 21:15, 28 October 2016 (UTC)

Depiction of the battle as non-fictional

Given that all contemporary sources say that this was a betrayal by his own men, or an ambush, it seems a bit silly to embrace the canonization of the battle. Is this personal opinion only, or should this page get an edit for tone?

It's also interesting that the most likely founder of the town, Stikla, was the second of the notoriously brutal Rusla and did so relatively close to that period historically. Less than 50 years. A town founded by a brutal viking raider who would likely have been alive within the lifespan of some of the older residents seems like the sort of place that would have been unlikely to bow to a new leader attempting to lead in the - unelected and heredity - fashion that spread by force of arms from western europe and overtook the folk tradition of an elected king. (See [Thing_(assembly)]) 2601:545:4600:D514:7861:4331:49AE:CDCB (talk) 17:45, 26 March 2018 (UTC)

Legal regicide =o)

Hi, SNL says this about the background:

"https://snl.no/Slaget_på_Stiklestad#-Konfiskasjonspolitikken

Konfiskasjonspolitikken

De trønderske bøndene utgjorde langt den største delen av dem som nå gikk mot kongen. Hvorfor kom det til et slikt alminnelig trøndersk folkeoppbud? Spørsmålet kan ikke besvares med sikkerhet, men da de norske lovene senere ble skrevet ned, tok man i Frostatingsloven med noen helt spesielle «motstandsbestemmelser» – helt uten sidestykke i andre nordiske lover:

«Ingen mann skal gjøre atför [egentlig «tilferd»] mot en mann, verken kongen eller annen mann. Men hvis kongen gjør det, skal det skjæres hær-pil [krigsbudstikke]. Den skal gå i alle åtte fylker, og alle bøndene skal gå mot kongen og drepe ham hvis de kan. Men hvis kongen kommer unna, skal han aldri få komme tilbake til landet. Hver den som ikke vil gå mot ham, skal bøte tre merker, og likeledes den som ikke bringer pilen videre.»

«Tilferden» det her handler om, ser ut til være en juridisk term for ulovlig tvangsinndrivelse og jordegodskonfiskasjon – det vil si eiendomsbeslag bare på kongelig maktbud og uten tingets dom.

My hasty transgoogling:

«The confiscation policy

The landholders in Trøndelag made up the largest contingent by far of those who now opposed the king. Why was there such a widespread Trøndelag levy? The question cannot be answered with certainty, but when the Norwegian laws were later written down, some very particular "resistance provisions" were included in the Frostating Law - completely unparalleled in other Nordic laws:

"No man shall do atför [actually "imposition"] against a man, neither the king nor any other man. But if the king does it, one must carve the host-arrow [war-message stick]. It shall go out into all eight counties, and all the farmers shall fight the king and kill him if they can. But if the king gets away, he shall never be allowed to return to the land. Anyone who does not want to fight him shall be fined three marks, and likewise whoever does not pass on the arrow."

The "imposition" referred to here appears to be a legal term for illegal forced recovery and confiscation of landed property - that is, seizure of property by royal fiat alone and without the verdict of the Ting assembly.»

A fairly rare circumstance, having a law that raises the Law above the king. T

84.208.65.62 (talk) 23:12, 8 May 2024 (UTC)