Talk:List of legendary kings of Sweden

Merge discussion

I propose that we merge Mythical kings of Sweden, Semi-legendary kings of Sweden and Saxo's kings of Sweden into one article and rename it something along of the lines of List of legendary kings of Sweden. Each page is currently a short list, with arbitrary division between them; some "Mythical" kings aren't strictly from myths, I find the term "semi-legendary" problematical, especially when applied to the range of kings/houses included, and Saxo's kings of Sweden is really a proto-article, and probably not notable enough in itself, as well as having a very atypical title. Merging them would bring them in line with other similar lists, such as List of legendary kings of Britain and List of legendary kings of Denmark, both of which have different sections for the sources they draw on, and would resolve most of the problems mentioned before. It would be good to have a discussion, but if no-one objects I'll do the merge myself in the not-too-distant future. --xensyria^T 01:22, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

• Support ~ I fully support this and thank you. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 06:14, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

Seems like a good idea. Andejons (talk) 19:42, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

 Done Merged after more than a week with no opposes; thanks for the supports! --xensyria^T 18:28, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

"numerical list"

Concerned about this, I purposedly did not auto-enumerate the list because the numbers aren't ad-hoc, they are part of the information being reported. The edit didn't break the numbering, but it is very easy to break this now (while, if the numerals are encoded explicitly, it would require a conscious effort to alter any of them). I also aligned the list as a paragraph because it doesn't strike me as aesthetic to keep a 100-item list of one name per line, but that's just a stylistic matter. --dab (𒁳) 06:43, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

Ah, I see. If so, I'll revert my edit in question. Gabbe (talk) 11:07, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

Something is missing.....

A huge effort and a lot of work have been put into the new version of the article, but still when reading the article I find some of the same mistakes or omissions or what we should call it as in the previous version. The two 'major' problems as I see it, if the purpose of the article is to give the reader a high qualified understanding or at least introduction to the world of the legendary kings of Sweden is first:

• A general explanation about what Sweden were or could have been before the 11th century, and what a Swedish kingship prior to Eric the Victorious would have been like, and the geography that might have been involved with these kings if at least just one or more of them possibly could be attributed to tales that tried to recollect the names and events of some actual kings from the distant past.

and secondly:

• Having an article with the name and subject "List of legendary kings of Sweden" and then the article have no mention of and don't give the reader the slightest clue as to what important tales of such 'legendary kings' could be found in Sögubrot af nokkrum fornkonungum is a huge error. And as I run through the article in it's 'new' form I don't see the king Sigurd Ring mentioned but in a single marginal comment. In my humble view, that's hardly the way to present this subject in a reliable and justifiable manner. Oleryhlolsson (talk) 23:46, 29 June 2020 (UTC)

The new version does mention what sagas/sources are used for each section (which the previous one did not) - Hervarar saga, which is used for the Vidfamne and Munsö kings here does not give Sigurd Ring as a King of Sweden; if you have a source for him you're welcome to add him in (but note that the sources are then contradictory - some sagas give him as a King of Denmark, not Sweden). Sögubrot af nokkrum fornkonungum was not mentioned in the previous version either, again you're welcome to add anything from it that you see fit.

The extent and power of supposed pre-Eric the Victorious kingdoms is mentioned a bit, but I could only find very few sources talking about it since no real evidence survives. The article mentions that "true" kingdoms probably did not form until the Viking age, which should be taken to mean that if some of these kings existed they were not "Kings of Sweden" in any real sense. If you've got more sources you're again very welcome to add stuff. Ichthyovenator (talk) 09:43, 30 June 2020 (UTC)

The state of this article

This article has to be rewritten. The article is called "list of legendary kings of Sweden", but in its current state it is a hypercritical essay.--Berig (talk) 17:12, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

Couldn't disagree more. The article does list the legendary kings of Sweden and goes through the scholarly consensus on whether they existed or not. This is fully appropriate since just listing the kings would give the impression that they may have been real historical figures - something most scholars agree they do not appear to have been. Ichthyovenator (talk) 22:27, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

So what does the word "legendary" mean to you?--Berig (talk) 05:27, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

I know what the word means. If you look at the state this article was in prior to me editing it you will see that IMO certain word choices lend themselves to be overly neutral in a topic that actually has consensus in academia - there were even regnal dates in the article, which suggests they were real rulers, and a citation to Lars Ulwencreutz, a far-right activist and author who honestly believes that Odin and the entire subsequent line of legendary kings were real. My "hypercritical essay" as you put it was a reaction to this, but it reflects current acedemic thinking and nothing goes uncited. To me, discussing the historicity of these supposed dynasties and rulers is highly relevant, one of the first thoughts you will have if you stumble upon a list of legendary rulers like this is whether there is truth to the legend. Ichthyovenator (talk) 10:56, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

What happened or not will likely never be known and we only have different primary sources that are interpreted in secondary sources to go by. I believe this text tries to flog a dead horse and I think it gets too tendentious. This is easy to do when you feel passionate about a subject, and I am not free of sin here. Moreover, there are some factual issues that make me react. To start with I react to the statement "The modern Swedish monarchy considers Eric the Victorious to have been the first King of Sweden" referring to the homepage royal house of Sweden. It does not actually say that because it only starts with Erik the Victorious. Also it says the following : "Sverige är en mycket gammal monarki. Vi har haft monarki i flera tusen år...." So the position of the Royal House of Sweden is not that the monarchy began with Eric the Victorious, it is that Sweden has been a monarchy for thousands of years. So, if we are to refer to the position of the Royal House, we actually need to state in the article that it considers the Monarchy of Sweden to be thousands of years old.--Berig (talk) 11:24, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

Of course we don't know what happened - as I understand it Wikipedia should not focus on what happened but on what reliable sources say happened - no reliable source considers the legendary kings to be likely to have been historical figures and this needs to be mentioned, along with relevant discussion on why they don't think so. As I said, the current state of the article was mostly a reaction to the skewed state it was in before, there are probably several statements that could be rephrased or removed but I think most of the content and discussion is relevant.

I think "monarki i flera tusen år" is a bit open to interpretation (does not necessarily mean Sweden as a united kingdom, does not imply recognition of these specific legendary kings since they are not mentioned etc.), perhaps the specific part you are questioning in the text right here could be changed to something like,"The modern Swedish monarchy begins their official list of monarchs with Erik the Victorious", which is true. Ichthyovenator (talk) 12:35, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

There are several things that need to be sourted out here. I will start by mentioning three of them. 1) The definition of "Sweden" of which I can think of four (4) different definitions off the top of my head. When we are talking of legendary matters the most common one is where Sweden evolved organically from the Germanic kingdom centered around Uppsala. 2) This article covers a large variety of mythical, legendary, semi-legendary and proto-historical kings, about whom the historicity or lack thereof can be quite complex and treated in many different scholarly sources, not all of which are as critical as the present version of this article. 3) The semantics of "chieftain" vs. "king", where "king" naturally did not have exactly the same meaning in the 11th c. as it has today, and where a choice different from most scholarly works on the matter needs to be discussed. I am a bit busy at the moment, and I am helping another editor out with a related matter, but we are not in a hurry.--Berig (talk) 16:22, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

If the situation in academia is not as clear-cut as presented here (I added what I could find), then I of course do not oppose the addition of more neutral viewpoints if those exist in any reliable sources. I agree with most of the stuff you say - you are welcome to go through this one when you have the time, I am also quite busy with other matters at the moment. The most important thing in my mind is that it is clearly laid out that these figures cannot be considered historical - the evidence is far too scant and from centuries later, many are clearly allegories or stories, and the sources we have that are closest in time (Ansgar, Adam of Bremen etc.) contradict the later accounts of the kings who supposedly reigned during their times. Several figures could be based on real historical chieftains or proto-kings, but there is no evidence that they are and an assumption like that would require some strong sourcing. Ichthyovenator (talk) 17:55, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

It is really "overkill" to argue that they did not exist in an article called "list of legendary...". It looks very POV, and it also looks very condescending towards the reader. We have to raise this discussion to higher level than "evidence" and "cannot be considered historical", which looks like things are simple and either black or white, right or wrong. Those things are for the secondary sources to decide, and not for us. I know that you are a serious article writer and that is why I bring this to the discussion page instead of simply deleting problematic parts or rewriting the entire section. Moreover, this is not a measuring contest, where one side has to provide a bunch of sources and the other one can provide one (because one is "right" and the other one is "wrong"). It is more about having an intelligent and balanced presentation.--Berig (talk) 09:41, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

I don't think "cannot be considered historical" is POV, it is true and what them being legendary means, and I have presented my arguments for why I consider it necessary to highlight that the consensus is that these kings probably were not real, or at least that the suggestion that they were is based on far too flimsy evidence. I found no sources to suggest anything else, but if you have them it would be easy to create a more nuanced version. I don't think I suggested that this was some sort of measuring contest - Wikipedia follows what reliable sources say and unless there are reliable sources with a more neutral or accepting approach, the article should be skewed towards the consensus (a big example, History of Earth will seem very condescending if you are a young-earth creationist).

I might be misunderstanding you, as I've said you are very welcome to delete and rewrite parts of the article (and bringing it up on the talk page before is a nice gesture), but the discussion (perhaps rephrased to be less condescending?) should stay, either here or in another article (if it is inappropriate for a "list of..." article). Under no circumstances should the article be restored to how it was before this stuff was added, with the invented regnal dates and very little indication that the consensus is that these figures are in most cases more fantasy than history (this is my biggest concern). It is probably possible to trim a lot of the discussion, however I don't think presenting the academic viewpoints for the historicity of these rulers is overkill, I think it's highly relevant. Ichthyovenator (talk) 15:22, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

I am sorry if I came across as rude, but would you not agree that it could seem condescending to explain to the reader of Lists of extinct animals that they are extinct? Also, the historiography surrounding these characters and the scholars who have discussed their fictiveness or historicity and the levels in between is too big to fit an article that is called a "list".--Berig (talk) 15:46, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

I'll apologize as well - I think I came of as a bit too stubborn and defensive here. I do see your point, the word "legendary" in of itself does indicate a lack of proper evidence, but perhaps you can see why I am concerned with the prospect of not commenting on the historicity at all as well. An article like this very easily lends itself to being overtaken by personal (non-academic) interpretations and fringe theories (which it was before, with the invented regnal dates).

List of extinct animals of course should not explain why the animals are extinct or what that means, but we have a detailed Extinction article to cover the whys and hows of that - there is no such corresponding article for this subject. I can agree that the article could use a facelift to some extent, but maybe you can see where I'm coming from. Ichthyovenator (talk) 23:37, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

http://blog.svd.se/historia/2011/10/13/varfor-jag-inte-tror-pa-sagokungar/ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hugleik — Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.227.81.54 (talk) 13:19, 5 May 2021 (UTC)

I won't be editing this article any more so anyone's free to do what they want with it. Hygelac is an exception and is not mentioned in this list since he was a ruler of the Geats and not the Swedes. You are free to add different interpretations to the article, but those interpretations need to be cited to reliable sources. I added what I could find, if you find reliable sources with different views, add ahead. For most of the supposed kings in this list, the evidence is a handful of documents written centuries after they supposedly existed, something which is nowhere near enough to establish them as anything but legendary. That they would be fictional seems likely in many cases since some information outright contradicts that is otherwise known of the period (see the Munsö kings), and other information reads more like social commentary and fairy tales than an attempt to tell history (see the Ynglings). I stand by that no serious historian considers most of these figures to likely have existed but I will not oppose anyone making the article a bit more nuanced. I don't know why you're so focused on Dick Harrison and it seems dishonest to call him "ultra sceptical" when his position on the matter seems to be the standard position of modern historians. Ichthyovenator (talk) 21:29, 5 May 2021 (UTC)

No, I do not think I have a problem with Dick Harrison at all. When I read his actual opinions they seem to be nuanced and well-considered. Just that some editors made it seem like he disrearded all sources before 1300 ad. I think there was a lot of border disputes and stuff like that. That a lot of different clans fought about territory. But for example, Anund and Björn Ironside are both attested in their timespan roughly the time they should have lived. So I find it strange that modern-day historians would deny Björn or Anunds historicity. Anti-royal commentary seems odd. Björn Ironside is not directly presented as incompetent exactly rather as a great smart and brave commander. Björn is mentioned in both Frankish, Italian sources from the time. So I would find it odd that they are all completly made up.

Also, he proposed in 2019 that the battle of Fyrisvellir did not happen then one year later a new lost source from five years after the battle is found that completely disproves his point. He claimed something false. The guy is pretty sceptical to me. Then archaeologist Sven Rosborn puts forward new information that completely disproves his false thesis that the battle did not happen. According to my opinion, that decreases his credibility when it comes to early Swedish history. Especially not a proffesor... But hey I'm not an expert. https://www.svd.se/segersalls-seger-agde-troligen-inte-rum https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_F%C3%BDrisvellir https://www.academia.edu/41558914/En_nyfunnen_kr%C3%B6nika_om_Danmarks_%C3%A4ldsta_historia_2020_