Talk:Eric Bloodaxe

Eirik and Eric

I've changed Eirik to Eric (except as the Norwegian spelling where it provides useful information) for three reasons:

• First, the spelling Eric is vastly more popular in English (a Google test of "Eric Bloodaxe" yields 19,500 compared with 669 for "Eirik Bloodaxe").
• Secondly, it is inconsistent to have Eric in the page name and Eirik in the text.
• Thirdly, it is odd to mix English and Norwegian in the name "Eirik Bloodaxe"

Whilst on the potentially disputable subject of names, it would be useful to have Eric Bloodaxe's name in other languages of his day - Latin, Anglo-Saxon, Old Irish - can anyone help? Greenshed 23:19, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

The above has not been questioned or contradicted by anyone, but a couple of anonymous editors have seen fit to change the spelling in the text of the article, without giving any reason or taking part in any discussion. Most recently this was done by a user from IP address 67.149.140.252 on 18 April 2008.

I agree with Greenshed on all points. In addition, what is the justification for "Eirik"? It is neither the normal English spelling, nor the spelling used by the people to whom the man himself belonged (which was Eirikr). Since nobody has given any reason for doing otherwise, I am reverting to "Eric".

JamesBWatson (talk) 23:20, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

I don't understand the logic here.

• On the first point: not sure that the popular spelling of the name in English is a good measure of what he should be referred to (e.g., Charlemagne, not Charles the Great; Juan Carlos I, not John Charles I; Margrethe II, not Margaret II; Toomas Hendrik Ilves, not Thomas Henry Ilves).
• On the second point, you would change the page name to reflect the name you want to use, not feel constrained to use the page name everywhere in the article and not be able to change the page name.
• On the third point, there are a lot of mixes of different languages in titles, monarchs especially. See Władysław I the Elbow-high, Charles the Bold (a Frenchman), Harald Fairhair, Louis the German, Louis the Younger, Ivan the Terrible, Vlad III the Impaler, Vlad II Dracul, Akbar the Great, Some of these are even titles of the Wikipedia articles.

Ufwuct (talk) 21:53, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

In answer to Ufwuct I can only repeat his own words: I don't understand the logic.

• Charlemagne is usually known in English as "Charlemagne", so anyone with any sense writing an article about him would refer to him as "Charlemagne" why even consider "Charles the Great"? Likewise Juan Carlos I is generally known in English as "Juan Carlos I"; "John Charles I" would be an English translation of the name, but it is not in use, so nobody would be likely to use it to refer to him in an article. In exactly the same way the subject of the present article is most commonly known in English as "Eric Bloodaxe", so that is the most useful title for the article, and the most natural name to use in referring to him.
• On the second point surely Greenshed was merely saying that one should have consistency; he achieved this by changing the title not the name within the article. There is no suggesation that he felt "constrained" to do so, or unable to change the article's title. His first point, however, gives a justification for changing it this way, not the other. Or have I missed something?
• On the third point I agree with Ufwuct: while what Greenshed says may well be true, it is not very relevant. If the mixed-language form were usual in English it would be a natural one to use, as is the case with Ivan the Terrible etc.

JamesBWatson (talk) 22:52, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

• The official policy on this can be found at WP:COMMONNAME and WP:ENGLISH - in general, the "popular spelling of the name in English" is exactly the one that should be used.FlagSteward (talk) 16:28, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Naming ? Move ?

A fairly simple question: is Eric Bloodaxe sufficiently well-known by his epithet/cognomen to justify calling the article Eric Bloodaxe ? Eric/Eirik Bloodaxe apparently beats Eric/Eirik I handily on Google books. So, the question is, how overwhelmingly does Wikipedia:Naming conventions (names and titles) actually demand before the exception reading "a monarch or prince is overwhelmingly known, in English, by a cognomen" applies ? My superficial inquiry leads me to suppose that even sources which refer to "Eric I" mention "Eric Bloodaxe" whereas the far larger number which mention "Eric Bloodaxe" do not necessarily mention "Eric I". Seems overwhelming to me, but I'm biased. I imagine this is sufficiently controversial in any case that the requested move procedure would be in order. Angus McLellan (Talk) 18:39, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

No Norwegian king before Haakon V Magnusson is primarly known by numeral, well until now when wiki has become the global policy maker Fornadan (t) 08:40, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

On Wikipedia we are supposed to follow usage in other works and not to engage in exciting original research, so they say. If Harald Fairhair is better known as that, or Eric Bloodaxe in this case, that's what the articles should be called. It might be easier to change Wikipedia:Naming conventions (names and titles), but until then every case will need to be done on its merits. I assume that you would be in favour of Eric Bloodaxe or some similar title ? Angus McLellan (Talk) 08:55, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

I think it would reduce confusion to use cognomens or patronyms for, at least, the first few kings:

Harald I of Norway > Harald Fairhair Eric I of Norway > Eric Bloodaxe Haakon I of Norway > Haakon the Good Olaf I of Norway > Olaf Tryggvason

The numerals can be confusing and misleading. For example Eric the Victorious is the first historical king of Sweden but we list him as Eric VI of Sweden. The king we list as Magnus VI of Norway actually called himself Magnus IV of Norway and is often referred to as such - Magnus the Lawmender is unambiguous. And who remembers what numeral Harald Hardrada had? I always have to look it up when I want to make a link to his article. Haukur 09:24, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

The inflexibility of that convention has been annoying me for quite some time. Angus might remember the Orkney earls move marathon some months ago, and then there's Kristina of Norway and Margaret of Sweden, Queen of Norway. Magnus Eriksson has been moved around several times because it's not entirely obvious how many Swedish Magnuses there are, (Which resulted in Magnus Henriksen being moved to Magnus (II) of Sweden) (needs to stop ranting) Fornadan (t) 10:30, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Allow me to pitch in as well: Fornadan summarized it well: "No Norwegian king before Haakon V Magnusson is primarly known by numeral". Wikipedia is entirely unique, as far as I know, in naming Norwegian medieval kings in this way. But: Eric Bloodaxe is not any different from all the others in this respect. So, if he is moved, all the others up to Eric Magnusson should be moved as well. The advantage of the current naming convention is that it is reasonably unambiguous. If we start using cognomens, where should, for instance, Harald I of Norway go? Harald Fairhair, Harald Hairfair, Harald Finehair or Haraldr hárfagri? Still, this is a problem that could be solved with disambiguation pages, I guess. --Barend 14:24, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Btw, I have asked a related question on Talk:Margaret of Sweden, Queen of Norway --Barend 14:31, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

A different solution can be seen on the official webpage of the Norwegian royal family, [1]. It is impossible to link straight to the relevant page, but if you go to this link, click on Monarkiet i Norge at the top left of the screen, and then on Kongerekken at bottom right. You will see the official list of kings. Eric is listed as Eirik I (Haraldsson) Blodøks. All the kings up to Christian I are listed with ordinal number and cognomen. This is the way it is commonly done in Norwegian encyclopedias as well.--Barend 08:26, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

It's also the solution that can be seen in the index of The Cambridge History of Scandinavia. Sigo 15:01, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Most Anglo Saxon kings had cognomens as did the Franks. Egbert was sometimes known as "the Great"- as were Cnut and William the Bastard. Otherwise we have Alfred the Great, Edward the Elder, Athelstan the Glorious, Edmund the Magnificent, Eadwig the Fair. Edgar the Peaceful, Ethelred the Unready, Edmund Ironsides, Harald Harefoot and Edward the Confessor. Workersdreadnought 15:51, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Other requested moves

Please see the discussion at Talk:Harald I of Norway regarding other requested move of early Norwegian kings. With the exception of what to call Harald Sigurdsson, I believe they are fairly uncontroversial. Angus McLellan (Talk) 17:52, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Requested move

Eric I of Norway → Eric Bloodaxe – Eric Bloodaxe (even discounting the hacker) wins overwhelmingly on Google books. Even Encarta use Eric Bloodaxe. Most results for plausible searches on Google books find a different "Eric I", Eric of Pomerania. Seems obvious and uncontroversial but the target has an edit history so it isn't a trivial move. Angus McLellan (Talk) 12:16, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Survey

Add "* Support" or "* Oppose" followed by an optional one-sentence explanation, then sign your opinion with ~~~~

• Support obviously. Angus McLellan (Talk) 12:17, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
• Support per my comments above. Haukur 12:21, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
• Support Fornadan (t) 14:02, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
• Support if it is done for all Norwegian kings up to and including Eirik II of Norway/Eirik Magnusson. --Barend 14:32, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
• Support "Overwhelmingly known, in English [and other languages], by a cognomen". Let's respect the rule, even if I don't appreciate it much, because it creates inconsistencies (some titles using the numeral, some the cognomen, some the patrony - Olaf I of Norway should probably be moved to Olaf Tryggvason for instance). Sigo 14:44, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
• Support. I do not agree with Barend's generalization, however. Bloodaxe, Olaf Tryggvason, and a few others are overwhelmingly known by nicknames; but not all of them. The only reason to accept the inconsistencies is when the article name is itself surprising. Septentrionalis 20:57, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Discussion

Add any additional comments.

The only problem I have with these names (Bloodaxe, Fairhair, etc.) is that they create inconsistencies which may (or may not) be more confusing to people unfamiliar with the subject matter than the current (rare) forms. Certainly I wouldn't expect the form "Eric I of Norway" to appear anywhere in the actual article, as "Eric Bloodaxe" would, but I am comfortable with the current titling. If it is changed, I won't complain (I may even be glad). Let me just if Google Books and like searches are really relevant? If I were writing a book, I would probably have little cause to use the form "Eric I of Norway," if I were encyclopaedist on the other hand... Srnec 03:40, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Popular Culture

I have been looking for a reference but I cannot find one, but am I the only person who remembers a heavy metal band called "Eric Bloodaxe's Squashed Bunnies" ? Workersdreadnought 16:57, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure that's a fictional band name from the Steve Bell comic "If...". I remember reading that name decades ago in a compilation book entitled "If ...only again". There were a few strips with the theme of "Heavy Heavy Metal" (sic) on the radio, and one of the "featured" bands was "Eric Bloodaxe's Squashed Bunnies". There was a lot of "AYEEE!!! AYURRGGHHH!!! WHAMAWHAMAWHAMA!!!" in the strip which, I suppose, sums up Bell's notion of Heavy Metal music rather succinctly. :) Turb0flat4 (talk) 11:03, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

"Eric Bloodaxe - axed? The Mystery of the Last Viking King of York"

Has anyone read Clare Downham's piece on Eric in Medieval Scandinavia vol. 14? Angus McLellan (Talk) 23:38, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

"spelt" vs "spelled"

" ... in English almost always spelt Eric". For some reason this has been altered to " ... in English almost always spelled Eric". I am aware that I tend to be conservative in my use of English, and people who are more modern may not like the older "spelt", but personal taste is not a reason for changing another editor's writing. It does not really matter, and perhaps I should leave it alone to please the anonymous editor who changed it, but I have reverted it, because I feel that, in the absence of reason to the contrary, anything written in an accepted form of English should stay as it is. JamesBWatson (talk) 20:53, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

I suspect this is a US versus British English thing. Since he obviously has a much greater connection to Britain than the Americas (unless he sneaked off to Vineland at some stage), then WP:ENGVAR requires positive discrimination in favour of British English for this article. FlagSteward (talk) 16:28, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Date of Erik's birth

I have noticed that RafaAzevedo has changed Eric's estimated date of birth from 895 to 885. A Google search reveals that each of these dates is supported on numerous pages. Does anyone know whether this is an indication of genuine differences of informed opinion, or the all too common "someone makes a mistake, and everyone else copies it"? In the former case I think the article should reflect the doubt, in the latter we should establish which is the true estimated date and use it. (To make matters even more doubtful, the Microsoft entity known as "Encarta" gives the date as 910, but this is so completely unsupported by other sources that I am much inclined to dismiss it as an error by Microsoft. Nevertheless, if anyone knows better about this then please let us know.)

For the time being I am changing the date in the article to 890, on the principle that for a date which is in any case only an estimate, a further uncertainty of 5 years is less bad than possibly 10 years out. However, I would much prefer it if the matter could be settled more definitely. JamesBWatson (talk) 17:42, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

There's no evidence of when Erik was born. We don't do our own estimates, we do verifiability. Admittedly, this article is rather poor on that front in other respects, presenting saga stories as if they were history, but that's for another day. Angus McLellan (Talk) 17:56, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

I simply used the data available in both Norwegian wikis ([2] and [3]). It might be interesting to ask them for the sources. RafaAzevedo ^msg 18:48, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

Neither the Oxford DNB nor Kirby et al's Biographical Dictionary of Dark Age Britain gives a birth year for Eric, but no idea what the 2nd edition of the Norsk biografisk leksikon says. Angus McLellan (Talk) 19:47, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

(1) In reference to "We don't do our own estimates, we do verifiability": Yes indeed, I was just wondering if either date is verifiable.

(2) For what it is worth, a search on Norwegian Google for "Eirik Blodøks 895" produces significantly more hits than "Eirik Blodøks 885" (313 vs 113). I am, of course, aware that a count of Google search results is not a reliable way of getting authoritative information. However, it is conceivable that, if one of the dates is an error, it may have propagated through Norwegian webspace less than through English webspace. I have also found a few pages, both in English and in Norwegian, which give one date at one point and the other date at another point. Not surprising, unfortunately.

(2) The more I think about it, the more I am inclined to think that, for a date which is only estimated anyway, giving c. 890 is probably about as good as either of the others. Even so, it would be interesting to know whether one of them is just an error. JamesBWatson (talk) 20:24, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

The 2nd edition of the Norsk Biografisk Leksikon says: ca. 895. The entry is written by the Norwegian historican Claus Krag. Vkp2 (talk) 08:27, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Citations

Insanely interesting read but doesn't have any citations :( Jwh335 (talk) 15:00, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

Death ?

The article lists him as dying in 952, but says he was killed at the battle of stainmore in 954. Erm? 151.196.49.88 (talk) 13:18, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Anglicised name?

The article begins with "Eric Haraldsson (Erik, anglicised form of Old Norse: Eiríkr;[1] died 954)". Yet immediately to the right is a coin on which the name "Eric Rex" is prominent. That seems to suggest that Eric wrote his name as "Eric", so how is that an anglicisation? Wouldn't it be more proper to say that his name is Eric Haraldsson, nicknamed Eric Bloodaxe, and known in Norway as Eirikr Haraldsson, similarly to how an article on Timisoara might mention that it is known in Hungarian as Temesvar? I believe it's Wikipedia policy that the subject in question gets to determine how his name is written (e.g. Mehmet Oz, in the argument about the accent mark) or what his nationality is (e.g. Pierce Brosnan, in the argument about whether he's Irish or Irish-American) or indeed any other personal detail. 166.161.133.47 (talk) 04:54, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

That coin would have the abbreviated latin version of his name, Eric(us) Rex. As far as I know, we don't have any sources indicating that he called himself Eric Haraldsson. Finn Rindahl (talk) 17:23, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

Got it, thanks. 166.161.133.47 (talk) 05:43, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

One Eric or two?

Is the identification of Eric Bloodaxe with Eric of Northumbria so certain that there should only be a single article? I'm not so sure, any thoughts would be appreciated. Retroplum (talk) 01:38, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

@Retroplum: The section Sources makes it clear that the identification is not entirely certain, but that it is generally accepted by consensus of most scholars. In the terms of Wikipedia's policies, that justifies keeping it as one article: we go by what most respectable scholars say, even if there is a minority viewpoint which differs. However, we also indicate that there is some doubt, as the article quite rightly does. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 15:11, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

Fair enough. Retroplum (talk) 15:13, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

Just noticed in another article someone used this as a ref: [4] Footnote 48 notes Downham and Eric.--Brianann MacAmhlaidh (talk) 01:26, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

Yep, reading that was what made me question how secure this identification was and is. Just wasn't too sure if Downham's hypothesis was a minority view or an idea which has been around for a long time. Retroplum (talk) 00:11, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

I don't think it is true any longer that there is consensus about the two Erics being the same. A lot of the scholars who write about it just haven't engaged with/ are aware of Downham's argument, but those who have seem to think that her case was good. This article is very long anyway, we can have separate articles for Eric of York who only appears in England in contemporary sources and the literary character Erik Bloodaxe in later medieval Norwegian-Icelandic tradition whose tradition has been rightly/wrongly conflated with him, obv. with acknowledgement of the issue? Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 15:17, 6 October 2023 (UTC)

Children

The infobox gives Harald a list of children, but they are nowhere mentioned in the body of the article. They need to either be added to the article or removed from the infobox, but I am not familiar enough with modern historical consensus to know which is appropriate. Agricolae (talk) 17:02, 31 August 2020 (UTC)

Popular Culture

I do not know how to add to wiki, but I believe Eric Bloodaxe is portrayed by Eric Johnson in Vikings. 2603:9001:9200:5E96:B44B:F42E:F7B7:B112 (talk) 17:07, 12 July 2023 (UTC)