Talk:Petty kingdoms of Norway

Dubious

This whole article is very dubious. I would be curious to know what is the source. Many of the names of the "kingdoms" are rendered in an old-fashioned, Dano-Norwegian version. The claim about the title of the rulers being Konge is obviously wrong, as the word in old norse would be konungr, but I would also question which sources exist to tell us the titles of Norwegian chieftains of the 9th century. The number 29 seems entirely random, though I suspect it is taken from the number of administrative units at a much later stage in Norwegian history. The names of the "kings" are also entirely unsourced. (Barend 08:52, 11 July 2006 (UTC))

I am sorry for not providing sources, but the ovewhelming majority of the information is from english wikipedia and I don't usually provide separate links when the relevant articles are linked to in the text. I will try to find external sources when I get more time. The article is in dire need of improvement, I started it mainly because I found a lot of information on the subject spread around different articles here. It is just a base for expantion. The names are however not old fashioned dano-norwegian versions. The names of these areas are in use today (they have changed somewhat togeather with the rest of Norwegian language) and I have used the current Norwegian forms with the exception of Raumarike which is called Romerike today (For some reason it seems common to use the older form when the petty kingdom is in mind). You are right that they were probably called konungr, but that is the same word as konge (and king), just in a different form. That was what I unsuccessfully tried to explain anyway. Some of these might have been called herser and some jarls. But they were all petty kings (småkonger). As with all history of this age information might be duboius, and some of these might have been commonwealths, puppet kingdoms, and part of other kingdoms at points. Let's explore togeather :) Inge 17:41, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Whoops, my bad. I didn't remember those. I just looked at the ones in the list. :) Inge 13:29, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Yes, the intention is good, there is the potential for a good article here. What is taken from semi-mythological sources will have to be pointed out as such. On the other hand, I suspect there could much interesting material from archaeologists on this issue. Step by step, I'm sure the article will improve in time!--Barend 14:42, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

More doubts

I will repeat and strenghten the doubts about this list.

This list was started as an unsourced collection of names mentioned elsewhere, and there are still no general overview sources. When the first source were introduced in august 2006, it was a private, not-so-official source, arild-hauge.com, summing up every notion of any petty king, village chieftain or mighty earl mentioned in the earliest parts of Heimskringla.

Treating Ynglinga saga and Saga of Harald Fairhair as reliable sources in modern historical terms is not a good idea, to say the least. The Sagas obviously exaggerated the King's victories, and to do so, they also had to exaggerate his enemies. Not to mention that the sagas had other concepts of historical truth than we do.

The list seem to be based on the concept that if there once was a person mentioned as king – be it in a realiable source or not - there must have been a kingdom of some durability and substance. There are so many weak links in this postulate, that it must be rejected. Several of these alleged kingdoms have no known rulers, and some of them are connected to only one name. (Some of these names again – like Halfdan Hvitbeinn, are only known from legendary sagas). As for Dale-Gudbrand, he is described as a hersir. Yet, this list wants to list the Kingdom of Gudbrandsdalen. Disturbing, at the least! Bw Orland (talk) 08:43, 10 January 2020 (UTC)

Urgent action required

Maybe this horrible listing is significant about the status of the history of Norway among Norwegians? It is utterly disgraceful. I don't know where to start. It is very embarrasing. The thing is that the Saga litterature is to my notion good sources, as long as they are references as such. It is vast and absolutely possible to reconstruct a whole lot about Norway. But why not begin with like the five kings at Hringsakri that chooses Olaf the Saint as their high king, making Olaf II having a particular seat at Uppsala. And please relate to the international scene. It is clear that the concept of sea-king is a particular one. I suggest this article to be created from the beginning. It is strange that it has been complained about this article since AD2006 without consequence. The bad of this is mind-blowing. --Xact (talk) 13:05, 6 December 2021 (UTC)

The problem is in the title. Denmark and Sweden have similar lists, but these pages are named "Legendary kings of ...", and this page should be called the same. There is, in fact, very little material on Petty Kingdoms in Norway here, so the title is a misnomer anyhow. T 84.208.86.134 (talk) 21:13, 31 January 2022 (UTC)