Talk:Rollo/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Family

Someone (maybe me when I can find time) needs to do a section on his wife and kiddies. William is mentioned, but not Gerloc/Adele, who married William III of Aquitaine. --Michael K. Smith 01:52, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

Burial

I remember seeing in a tour guide some years ago that Hrolf was supposed to have been interred at Notre-Dame in Rouen. Anybody know? --Michael K. Smith 01:32, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

References

Does it strike anyone that the list of refs is a hodge-podge? It looks like the original author (or someone) just threw in every book they could find that had "viking" in the title. I would not feel comfortable deleting any of these -- since they're not "wrong," just pointless -- but this method dilutes the untility of the list. --Michael K. Smith 01:40, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

Descent

re the last bit on the house of windsor & descent from rollo - thought the windsorites were formally of hanover & prior to that a distinct break w/ the house of orange from holland & prior to that other distinct houses ie tudors, plantangents and finally william I's family? how could eliza ii be directly related? royal lines die out etc etc etc

(comment moved to new section) See Direct descent from William I to Elizabeth II. Man vyi 08:57, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

You're confused by the term 'die out', I think. None of the families you listed died out, they simply married into other families (and other members went on with the same name). William the Conquerer (and Rollo here) ARE direct ancestors of Elizabeth II. William is the great great great great (and so on) grandfather of Elizabeth, in other words. I don't see why you think that just because the family/house name changes, the family dies out. If I have say, one and only one child, a daughter, and she marries some guy named Bob Smith, her children (and thus, all of my descendants) will be named Smith. They won't share my family name but I will still be their direct ancestor. --24.131.9.50 22:09, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

I am a direct descendant of Rollo (20 generations back father to son all the way down, but the surname has changed a few times during that time - mainly due to titles or inheritances). With daughters its even more so.

Hi! Can you please tell your surname and haplotype? СЛУЖБА (talk) 21:28, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

Chewings72 seems to think that it isn't interesting that Danny Dyer of all people can prove his descent from Rollo. I disagree, it is very interesting. --82.13.113.45 (talk) 10:06, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

Still kicking to Rollo

A small research about Rollo of Normandy.

1. A Danish Prince: The statement of the Norman Dudo of Saint-Quentin ("De Moribus et Actis Primorum Normanniae Ducum") that Rollo was a Danish prince. (Dudo a much more recent and living alot nearer the regions concerned).

2. Wrote on Request of Rollo´s grandson: Dudo wrote Rollo´s story some 60 years after Rollo's death (d.931) at the request of his grandson Richard I.

Snorre (The Icelandic saga) wrote his saga tree centuries later. And he lived on Iceland!)

Iceland is a island very far away from Normandy. Settled by peaceful settlers who were seeking green fields.

3. Yet another proof that the Icelandic saga is mostly fiction: Snorre's inconsistency in describing "Hrolf" father as a dear friend of King Harold Fairhair, yet relating Hrolf's assault on Viken as if an enemy.

4. Another Hrolf!: The existence of another Jarl Hrolf in Normandy, whom Orkneyinga Saga aka the Icelandic Snorre may have mistaken for Rollo. Or maybe he just wanted Rollo of Normandy to be Icelandic.

5. Reference to other Danes: Dudo's reference to Rollo's brother Gorm(Gurim), who arrived in France in the company of his "uncle Sigfred” (Sigfred III). (Ragnar's son, and of Godfrid, the son of Harold Klak," who played a prominent role in the Battle of Saulcourt in 881. Harald Klak was the one who arrived with 60 ships in Normandy).

6. Born in Denmark: Benoit de St. More; Chronique des Ducs de Normandie (Writed about 1190): States that Rollo was born in Fakse in his native country. This is presumably Fakse in Stevns in eastern Zealand of Denmark, which agrees very well with Dudo's account that Rollo fled to Scania (Skåne) (near Fakse), just on the other side of the Sound, and the place name examples in Skåne and Normandy.

7. Same place names. A study of the place names of Normandy has shown that several names appear to be direct translations of the Danish province until 1650´s Scania/Skåne in the south of Sweden) places, e.g. Yvetot (from Ivetofta) and Bourgebue (from Borgeby). Witch also agrees with Dudo, that they fled to Skåne.

8. Language influence: Here clearly tells the “Old Norse language” article, that the old language of Denmark and most of Sweden also were spoken in some places in the Normandy in its earlier days. It should be noties that the Danes and Norwegians not spoken that same language. Danish and Norwegian/Icelandic was NOT the same language.

9. Saxo: Saxo Grammaticus. Also claim in his Gesta Danorum -wrote about 1185, that Rollo was Danish. (But he properly used some sources from Dudo).

10. Could be a son of Ivar Boneless: "Origin and History of the Montgomerys...", B. G. de Montgomery, (William Blackwood and Sons Ltd, Edinburgh and London, 1948)...pp. 30-32:

The author cites as proof of his contention that Rollo was the son of Ivar. The Dane Ivar the Boneless, who died. 872),” (But i think that is very doubtful.)

11. Invited the major of Fakse: That Rollo had orgin in Fakse, was remembered in Normandy in 1911, when major Haxthausen of Fakse was invited to the to the big Millenium Festivals in Rouen, as a representative of Rollo´s native soil.

Source from the turist/history site of Fakse: http://www.fixfaxe.dk/sevaerd/rollostenen.htm

---

Here is some qoutes from Dudo of Saint-Quentin´s “De moribus et actis primorum Normannie Ducum”

This one i think many Danish scholar are familiar with:

Just send ambassadors to them to find out what they themselves say." Then Ragnold: "Go swiftly, we pray, to find out their purpose." Anstign replied: "I will not go alone." On the contrary, they sent with him two warriors skillful in the Dacian language. Coming upon the riverbank, they stood still, saying: "Counts of royal power command you to say who you are, and whence you have come, and what you are planning to do." Truly they replied: "We are Danes. Carried here from Dacia (Denmark), we have come to take Francia by assault." Yet they: "What authority does your lord discharge?" They replied: "None, for we men are of equal power."

Here he say that was from Dacia himself, and NOT Iceland.

Read it here. http://www.the-orb.net/orb_done/dudo/11-conquest

more Dudo:

The Franks is at its knees and is forced to make peace with the Danes (Dacians) Rollo will make peace on the condition that he get Carls daughter and the duchy of Normandy. 932 he is baptised and gets the Christian name Robert. Now he rebuild the land and build churches. Five years before his death he gives the throne to his son Wilhelm I. Rollo properly dies in 932.

---

Vilhelm of Jumièges is a monk from Normandy writed it about 1070. (also before Orkneyinga Saga FROM ICELAND! were writed).

From Vilhelm of Jumièges: Guillaume de Jumièges Gesta Normannorum.

Quote: The father sends him (the son) to the city Bayeux, and gave him to his “commander” to learn Danish (Danica) language. Under the protection of Boso. So he could give his –from the outcountrys, the right answars. [ut ibi lingua eruditus Danica, suis exterisque hominibus sciret apte dare responsa]”

from the same text.

Rollos reputation was so great that king Harald of Denmark (Harald Klak) (Danorum rex) flied to Normandy with 60 ships after his brother Sven had taken the power in Denmark. The mighty and noble duke (Rollo) Received Harald with glory and gave him the province of Coutances until he was strong enough to return and retake the lost realm.

That is also drawed on the The Bayeux Tapestry.

That tells about those who arrived in Normandy were Danes. Harald Klak was also in front in 815, in a big sea battle. When the Franks for the first and only time tryed to invade Jutland, Denmark. There isn´t made a Harald Klak page yet.

1. http://www.um.dk/Publikationer/UM/English/Denmark/kap6/6-2.asp
2. http://www.gedevasen.dk/summary.html

---

>>>>Conclusion: Rollo is from Denmark. -most likely Fakse, Zealand.<<<<

Ofcouse no one can proof anything like we can´t proof that Neil Armstrong was the first man on the Moon. But there is surely alot more proof and give alot more sence that Rollo was from Denmark , and not from a island far away. There is also evidens for that the Danes had conflics with the Francians in that time, and centuries before. Look at Danevirke etc.

In the old town Fakse (Today known as Faxe, after the Faxe brawery) in Zealand, Denmark, ca. 35 km. South-west from Copenhagen. Is there a monument for Rollo. Called Rollostenen (The Rollo stone). Also a School called Rolloskolen (The Rollo school).

The National-museum in Denmark have a temporary exhibition about The Bayeux Tapestry. The exhibition also shows those old founds in Denmark from Normandy. And alot of Anglo-saxon coins (over 30.000 i think). And also cites as proof of it, that Denmark was a big trading partner with Normandy, witch also agrees with Dudo.

http://www.nationalmuseet.dk/sw20385.asp

Read Dudo of St. Quentin's Gesta Normannorum here: http://www.the-orb.net/orb_done/dudo/dudindex.html

--Comanche cph 02:04, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

---

Your conclusion is hardly ok. It is based upon certain assumptions that in my opinion are a bit dubious to say the least. It seems as though you use the sources to back up an already made conclusion.

1. You seem to claim that Snorre is an unreliable source compared to Dudo.

Snorre was an Icelandic chief. He did not depend on writing to make a living. As such he was not requiered to "adjust" the facts in order to recieve his salary. Nor did he have a need to portray a false version of history in order to prevent scolding and reprisals. In other words, he could more easily be regarded as an independent narrator.

The fact that he "lived on Iceland" is irrelevant. You don't get much from saying that Iceland was "Settled by peaceful settlers who were seeking green fields." Even if this were correct, I cannot see how it could be important. It does not indicate that Rollo was Danish.

Dudo (and others), however, wrote chronicles for clients. These clients weren't interested in getting all the facts straight; rather, they wanted the chronicles to make them (and their kin) look good. That makes Dudo less reliable. As far as I know, Dudo and other authors on wich you base your conclusion, are generally known for their fantastic tales.

I'd say your claim is totally backwards - Snorre is the more reliable one.

2. You try hard to find evidence for your conclusion.

First of all, you claim that Dane=person from Denmark and Dacia=Denmark.

First question: What did "Dane" mean? "Dane" meant Scandinavian.

Next question: Where was Dacia? Dudo writes that Dacia - Rollo's place of birth - was "protected by very high alps." Norway is full of mountains. Denmark has none.

According to the chronicles, Rollo was born in "Fasge," not Faxe, Denmark. You assume that Fasge=Faxe. However, "Fasge" could just as well mean Fauske, Norway.

(I don't know for sure, but the comment left by "ingorant Norwegian" makes me a bit suspicious. Funny that he uses "writed" and claim that Rollo was -Icelandic-. Comanche makes the exact same mistakes. Has he really posted a false comment in order to make an easy target to fire at? Is this a joke? Am I missing something?) 129.177.156.92 16:15, 1 May 2007 (UTC) Random Norwegian

No! All this all this is wrong. Rollo of Normandy is a guy named Gange Hrolf from Iceland and he was so big that he couldnt sit on his own horse. ~~ writed by a ingorant Norwegian.

Answar:

The Icelandic Orkneyinga saga is not a strictly historical work. The saga is as much a piece of medieval literature as historical documentation and, written some three centuries after some of the events it records. There is found examples of obviously fictional elements - such as Earl Sigurd's raven banner, the poisoned shirt of Earl Harald, elements of the Hrolf Ganger saga and the foundation of Oslo etc.

You can also see on the Oslo article under history how wrong the Snorre Saga is.

According to the Norse sagas (The Snorre saga), Oslo was founded around 1048 by king Harald Hardråde. Recent archaeological research has uncovered Christian burials from before 1000, evidence of a preceding urban settlement. This called for the celebration of Oslo's millennium in 2000.

This is actually a funny statement as the article contradict it self, and show how ignorant some Norwegians are over for Norwegian History. On the Jelling stones from the late 900´s it say clearly that Harald Bluetooth invaded South Norway (Viken).

And dont forget Harald Bluetooth of Denmark were the one who Christinized the Danes, and proberly also the Norwegians as the founds of Christian burials says. Harald Bluetooth founded Christania (later renamed to Oslo in the 1600´s) in about 950. Viken and more of Norway was properly a Danish Colonial until the Kalmar Union.

--Comanche cph 02:04, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

If you want to be taken seriously, you're not doing yourself any favours here. Your theory about the founding of Oslo seems to be taken out of thin air. Anyway, Oslo was founded with the name Oslo, renamed Christiania in 1624 after king Christian IV of Denmark, then renamed back to Oslo in 1924. You may believe Viken and more of Norway was a "Danish colony" until the Kalmar Union in the late 14th century if you chose to disregard all written sources, including royal letters and sagas of the 13th century describing contemporary events, (Sverris saga, the bagler sagas, Haakon Haakonssons saga) - in short, what you write here is obviously, clearly, factually wrong, so why should anyone put any faith in what you have to say about other matters of Norwegian medieval history? (Barend 15:24, 23 June 2006 (UTC))

I have answered you here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Oslo#Answar_to_Barend --Comanche cph 16:36, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Some comments: I have to say some of your arguments seem very far fetched. Like the Rollo-stone and the mayor visit. Nobody is contesting that a theory regarding Rollos possible danish origin exists. But along your own rationale you must then recognise the theory of Rollos Norwegian origins on the basis that the city of Rouen gave Ålesund a 2,65 metres tall bronze statue of Rollo in 1911 in order to mark his origins. Inge 21:34, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

I don´t write the Rollo stone as a proof. But why arent you coment all the other proofs???? What source do you have for the Rollo statue in ålesund was a gift from Rouen? You know that many place names a Rouen match Danish place Names.

But anyway, What´s happen 1000 years later, can´t we use as a proof for anything. --Comanche cph 21:57, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

Nice to see you agree that the Rollo stone is not "proof". It has however been one of your more frequently used arguments. If the place names in Rouen match Danish place names many of them will most likely also match Norwegian and Swedish place names. Well since you have used local tourist pages as references before I hope these web-pages will be acceptable: a Norwegian christian pilgrimage page A tourist information page What happened in 1911 is not proof of what happened in 911, but it is proof that in 1911 the city officials of Rouen believed Rollo was from Møre in Norway.

Many of your other arguments are circumstantial as well, but the basic argument that a theory excists stating that Rollo might be from Denmark is not under dispute. What is under dispute is that you want to remove the theory that Rollo was Rolf the Ganger. If you want to get that view through you would have to come up with notable references stating that. A published book or a paper from an historian stating that the Norwegian-origin theory is total rubbish. References simply stating the Danish-origin theory is not enough. Inge 14:09, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Inge wrote: "A published book or a paper from an historian stating that the Norwegian-origin theory is total rubbish."

Ok.

"Göngu-Hrolfs Saga, translated by Hermann Pálsson and Paul Edwards (Edinburgh: Canongate, 1980). Studied at length in Jacob Wittmer Hartmann, The Gongu-Hrólfssaga: A Study in Old Norse Philology (New York: Columbia University Press, 1912). I do not buy the conflation of Rollo and Göngu-Hrolfr."

"Halvdan Koht, “L’oliphant de Rollon,” Normannia 2 (1929): 361-69. Concludes that the oliphant was not, in fact, Rollo’s. D’oh."

I support to original theory to, that Rollo is Danish. That also makes most sense if you look at the hole image of the history between Danes and Franks --Arigato1 00:23, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Im not moving any theory, where do you get that from? But Rollo was not known by any tekst as Hrolf. Only the icelandic saga. So his name on other wiki-pages should either be Rollo or Robert. okay?

Ok, forget the Rollostone, is was not used as a proof, i may delete it! Instend Comment the atleast 10 other sources!

The statue in ålesund was also send to Fargo in USA as a copy. So why and when does the Americans come into this, was he also from America now? I think this make the questian about that gift very distrustful. But anyway. That dosent proof anything, like said before.

The place names was used from Scania, with was they Rollo fleed from with his men. -according to Dudo. And remember that Norway first adopted the Danish language during the Kalmar union in 1300´s to 1800´s, when scholar in Norway learned Danish, instead of the old Norwegian.

All writers from Normandy state that he is Denmark and not the Hrolt Ganger from Iceland. So why should we trust a saga who has been proven with alot of fault and fiction, writed 300 years later?

So in you eyes Dudo of Saint-Quentin, Benoit de St. More and Vilhelm of Jumièges all lived before Snorre, and closer the the events, must be faking??

--Comanche cph 21:28, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Comanche, Not faking but concerning Dudo of Saint-Quentin he was clearly biased, glorifying Rollo, his family and the Normans. Why ? Because he was paid for that as you said it yourself "Dudo wrote Rollo´s story some 60 years after Rollo's death (d.931) at the request of his grandson Richard I." Enough said, That's a panegyric full of legends, fictions and myths. Saint-More and Jumièges just took the work of Dudo and considered it as reliable.

Example, What's better to claim that Rollo was a Danish prince or to claim he was a bloodthirsty invader and bandit from an unknown family ?

"All writers from Normandy state that he is Denmark and not the Hrolt Ganger from Iceland. So why should we trust a saga who has been proven with alot of fault and fiction, writed 300 years later?" I was waiting for that one, this is certainly why Lucien Musset, François Neveux and Pierre Baudiun, all from Normandy and historian wrote in their respective books that the origin of Rollo are still unclear... He could have been Danish or Norwegian if of course we can seriously talk of nationality at this time...90.9.27.67 (talk) 22:57, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

There is not much evidence that supports the theory that the majority of Normans were Norwegian, they seem to have been Danish (especially from what is now Sweden) and the Normans themselves claim that Rollo was from Denmark, not Norway. Snorre was not a Norman, but an Icelandic, and thus it is more likely that the Norman sources were more correct about the founder of their country than the Icelandic source. Danish or Norwegian nationalism shouldn't come into play here, the fact is that Rollo was Danish, as confirmed by Norman sources, and not Norwegian. - ExplorainCaptain — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.154.189.209 (talk) 20:53, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

It is not confermed by norman sources he was danish, not at all. The norman sources say he was from Dacia, witch also could mean Scandinavia. We know from english sources that the anglo saxons rearly distinguished danes from norwegians, calling them all danes. This is because we spoke in "danish tongue". Why should the french be different? Further on, Fakse, or Fasge - could just as well be Fauske, witch is a place in Møre - Norway. This place is, unlike Faxe in Denmark, surrounded by high mountains, as Dudo describes. And acording to the saga litterature Rollo was from Møre. Rollo is the latin name for Hrolf. There is no mentioning of Rollo in any danish sources, but several in the icelandic sagas and the Orkneyingar saga...strange that such a prominant "dane" wouldnt be mentioned in Saxo Grammaticus. No norwegian would remove the danish theory, however allot of danes seems to want to remove the norwegian claim. That is nationalism my friend. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mattamatikk (talk • contribs) 19:48, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

Let's try a vote

As a vote is one of the steps on Wikipedias policy on resolving disputes I would like to suggest one. Add your four~ under the solution you support.

Include both the theory that Rollo was Rolf the Ganger and the theory that he was a Danish person.

1. Inge 13:24, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

1. Rollo was NOT a Hrolf Ganger, who was so fat that he not could ride on a horse. That theory is based on a saga from Iceland , writed 300 years later. The same saga has been proven, with alot of faults and fictional elements in it. So i will take that source for very doubtful.

But why a vote? What is wrong this, it´s tells about both theorys!

--Comanche cph 14:18, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Comments

Comanche: If you agree that Rollo could have been Rolf the Ganger then why are you still contesting it in other articles? Inge 15:35, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

I do NOT agree with the pro-Icelandic fairytale. But that´s not the issue here. We have a article tells about both theories of the Duke of Normandy. But it seems like many Norwegians in here, like you, don´t wanna accept that. --Comanche cph 16:13, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Mattamatikk: I havent yet figured out how to replay on talk, so ill write here. You cant say all other theories are rubbish. Dacia was also a name used to describe all of Scandinavia, not only Denmark. Besides, Dudo says Rollos birthplace was surrounded by high mountains...there are no mountains in Denmark. The french sources say he was from Fakse, however this could easily be Fauske witch is in Møre & Romsdal, the place the Icelandic sagas claim Rollo was from. Fauske is surrounded by high mountains. In most ways, the description Dudo gives fits Norway better. Besides, it is common among historians both in France, Norway and England to believe he was from Norway, judging from the sources of both Dudo and the Icelandic sagas. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mattamatikk (talk • contribs) 19:10, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

Dacia

In the article it says Dacia was also used as another name for Denmark. Seems a bit fishy to me. Can anyone confirm or refute this? The Land 20:10, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

I agree, this is suspicious. As a student, I learned that Dacia was part of the Roman Empire, at its height, in an area roughly corresponding to Romania. It was part of Trajan's empire, but, north of the Danube, it was one of the two earliest large territories (the other being Mesopotamia) which Rome lost before the end of the 2nd century. Without a supporting cite, I propose eliminating this comment. Unschool 03:31, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Look it up in any Latin dictionary. Dacia was a medieval latin term for Denmark. See also Dacia (disambiguation) --Barend 16:36, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Geme, plange, moesto more, dolorosa Dania. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 04:37, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Priori Provinciali ordinis fratrum Predicatorum in Dacia per Dacie, Svetie et Norwegie regna constituti.[1]

Christofferus dei gracia Dacie Swecie Norwegie Sclauorum Gothorumque rex comespalatinus Reni et dux Bauarie.[2]

There's nothing strange about there being different names for places, and different ways of writing them, in the middle ages. As I said, look it up in any dictionary.--Barend (talk) 14:27, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Thank you, I have. No support for this Renaissance jest; is it based on the natural palaeographic error of c for script n, or is it more of Snorri's euhemerism? What Latin Dictionary are you using? Septentrionalis PMAnderson 23:46, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Nothing to do with renaissance or with Snorri (Snorri didn't write in Latin). The examples I gave you above are from the Pope in the Vatican in 1256, and from the King in Copenhagen in 1445. I could give many more examples, but for sure, it's sometimes written with an n as well.--Barend (talk) 11:19, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

this confused me for years, to the point that i was entertaining the idea that dudo might have been constructing a franco-cimmerian sister myth for the newcomers, but it's an ethnic term. dacia was a place that many goths settled at a time when the greeks and romans did not know much about scandinavia (it was a distant, unknown island to them). when further contact was developed, they identified the north germanic people that they found with the north germanic people they knew. scandinavia became thought of as the homeland of the dacians, and hence dacia. it should be noted that there were another people named dacians that were related to thracians, but they had long since assimilated. so, "dacia", here, means "homeland of the goths", goths being how the southerners interpreted the northerners. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.48.181.93 (talk) 00:56, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

• Oxford Latin Dictionary

  Dacia, the province north of the Danube; (app.) one of the divisions of the province.

• Cassell's;

  Daci, the people of Dacia

• Jo. Matt. Gesneri : Novvs lingvae et ervditionis romanae thesavrvs

  Daci, Dacus, and so on, also for the Roman Dacia, per quotations

• Du Cange: Glossarium mediæ et infimæ latinitatis:
• Maigne d'Arnis: Lexicon manuale ad scriptores mediæ et infimæ latinitatis:

  Dacia as a variant of Data, defined as Tributum; Du Cange has a supporting quotation from Pietro della Vigna, 5, 118, "...collectiones, dacias, sive Steuras."

• Lexicon Mediae Latinitatis Danicae

  Dacia and its cognates not found; Danus and Danicus duly listed and defined as dansk. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 23:46, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

As for dictionaries, I should of course say, look it up in a medieval latin dictionary - which is surprisingly difficult to find. The Oxford Latin Dictionary, for instance, states clearly that it doesn't include medieval latin. Dacia will obviously only mean the area north of the Danube in classical latin, as Denmark did not exist in classical times. Anyway, I've found Revised medieval latin word-list (Oxford University Press, 1999): Dacus, Dane, Danish 1086, 1461; Daca 1276, 15.c., hachia dacensis 1200, Danish axe. cf. Danus. My latinsk-norsk ordbok (Latin-Norwegian dictionary) (Oslo, 1999), lists both classical and medieval forms, and lists roughly present day Romania as the classic latin translation, and Denmark as the medieval latin one. It doesn't list Dania at all.

Anyway, the discussion is of purely academic interest on this page, as the word Dacia has been deleted from the article at some point anyway. But as you see from the sources, in medieval Latin, Denmark could be written both Dacia and Dania. In addition to the examples I've given before, see for instance Petrus de Dacia (Swedish monk) and Petrus de Dacia (mathematician).--Barend (talk) 11:55, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Maigne d'Arnis is a dictionary of Medieval Latin; Du Cagne, of which I consulted the ten-volume 1981 edition, is the standard dictionary of Medieval Latin, and Lexicon Mediae Latinitatis Danicae is, as its title states, a dictionary of Danish Medieval Latin. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 00:29, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Interesting! Well, I must admit I was mistaken then, it's not sufficient to look it up in any dictionary. I checked Du Cagne as well, and it doesn't seem to include all geographical names, I couldn't find Dania, Suecia, or Norvegia/Norvagia/Norwagia either. But as you see from the references I've given, Dacia was indeed a medieval latin name for Denmark, and it seems to have been more commonly used than Dania as well. The search engine in Diplomatarium Norvegicum, here], which searches a database of some 16000 medieval documents, gives 48 hits for Dacia and 608 for the genitive Dacie, 20 for Datia and 142 for the genitiveDatie, and 6 hits for Dania and 38 hits for the genitive Danie. A dictionary I found of Swedish Medieval Latin also listed Dacia. Interestingly, there are several examples where one and the same document talks of the "dani" who live in "Dacia" or "Datia", e.g. De rege Datie et duce Holsasie ista hic dicuntur quare habeo bonam spem quod erunt omnia vera et recte satis se habebunt qualiter omnes Danj per totum Regnum unanimiter clamant pro Cristierno.--Barend (talk) 14:45, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Actually, I come across Scocia almost as much as Scotia for Scotland; this is a little different of course as c has a different relationship to t than it does to n, and Dacia is a different concept. Having said that, Scotland appears to have obtained its patron saint by classicising conflation of Scythia with the similar sounding Scotia. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 17:25, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Has anyone looked into the possibility that Denmark could have been a Dacian colony? It seems that in the wake of Rome's collapse a lot of tribes and peoples were displaced during the 3rd-5th Centuries. We may need to step back a few feet and take a look at the larger picture. Perhaps there are some eastern sources (Byzantine, Slavic, Romanian) that could help with this investigation.Anthroproffs (talk) 16:21, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

Confused

Article says: "Danelaw inhabitants were in no way, shape or form, partial to the Normans". What does it mean? Friends, or enemies?

The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the proposal was move Rollo of Normandy -> Rollo. Andrewa (talk) 06:30, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Requested move

All the dukes from William II (the Conqueror) on do not use a standard ducal title. Only the dukes from William I (Longsword) to Richard III use the standard form. Robert II (the Magnificient) is being reconsidered. Rollo should not be moved to Rollo, Duke of Normandy, the consistent title, because he was not really "Duke of Normandy". Rollo is clear enough and simplest. Srnec (talk) 23:49, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

• Support. No need for pre-emptive disambiguation here. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 17:26, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
• Support Agree with PMAnderson for once. Besides the fact he wasn't even from Normandy and that didn't exist as a concept at the time, the name should be at Rollo anyways as there is no need for dabbing. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 17:20, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
• Support being as he's the only Rollo I've heard of. GoodDay (talk) 17:38, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
• Support. Not duke of Normandy, not anything of Normandy, and Rollo is not ambiguous. Angus McLellan (Talk) 18:36, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Discussion

I'm not clear on the nominaton. What does Srnec want the article moved to? GoodDay (talk) 17:30, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

There's a clue at the top of the page. ;)Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 17:32, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Thank you. GoodDay (talk) 17:38, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Kvenland

I removed this edit because the claim of the Kvenland origin it is based entirely on this website which is not a WP:RS. The rest of the cited sources are WP:Primary sources, most of which doesn't even mention Rollo. There is also a question of undue weight, since this theory doesn't seem generally accepted. --Saddhiyama (talk) 07:14, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

The information given is not based on any one single source or website alone. The information is from the sources offered, and multiple additional sources for the info can be included. The family lineage in question is widely discussed in literature by historians.

The sources given are not for "Kvenland". They are for the newly added information about Rollo's origins. The sources have tackled the Viking lineages - including the ones leading to Rollo and/or the Dukes of Normandy - and other related matters based on medieval accounts and other material available to historians and researchers.

For clarification, it appears to be helpful to also present more information relating to the alleged Rollo's family lineage directly from the sagas themselves, including some quotes, and of course the sources where the info can be verified.

I shall do that - including more sources too -, as this will make it easier for anyone to verify the info through both the sagas as well as the sources given, which discuss the family lineage in question. Johansdotter (talk) 01:09, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

Please do not add more sources. There are already too many as it is. Furthermore, the website which you are basing this "new information" is not a reliable source, backing it up by adding primary sources doesn't help one bit since that constitutes original research and synthesis. No scholars support the claim you are adding, it is simply fringe theory and does not have any place in Wikipedia. --Saddhiyama (talk) 09:43, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

More saga-based info pertaining to Rollo's origins is included, with sources

Up till now, the information pertaining to Rollo's origins, based on medieval accounts, have lacked sources. No sources have been included for that at all - zero.

Thus, the medieval accounts in question and the info relating to Rollo's family lineage will now be presented in slightly more detail, with links and some quotes included. Appropriate sources are provided, and more can be added.

The information added is widely discussed in literature and among historians, and the sources given are reliable, verifiable and fitting for Wikipedia standards. The same sources are also used for other closely related information elsewhere in Wikipedia.

The validity of the statement according to which "most would now agree that a certain conclusion can never be reached" cannot be verified. Thus, that claim can be replaced by simply noting that the topic continues to be debated (or continues to be under disagreement). Johansdotter (talk) 01:09, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

If you want to provide information about the various theories scholars have put forth regarding his origins that would be fine. Then you find the scholarly sources and present them as being the theories proposed by named individuals. What you are doing here is presenting your own theories, largely using non-relialbe, primary or out of date sources, and as per WP:OR that is not encyclopedic. Please stick to reliable secondary sources containing the pertinent information and present them in a neutral way. --Saddhiyama (talk) 09:47, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

Please do not simply present links to Wikipedia "rules"/policies. Instead, point out in detail - precisely - how you see any given source not meeting the standard you refer to.

I believe there is just one source that you really wish not to be used. However, taking away that one source would not change anything in the information presented. Besides, why would questioning of that source justify your removing of all sources, and the related information presented as well.

Until now, there has been information based on the medieval sagas in this segment of the article. No sources have been provided, however. Now a little more info from the sagas has been added - not even contradicting the old info - and appropriate sources have been included.

The source which you want not used lists related historical accounts and historian and quotes and views from them. Just because findings of some historians or texts in some historical accounts do not support your view of ancient history does not justify you to remove the works in question from Wikipedia.

Take for instance Professor Emeritus Kyösti Julku. He is one of the utmost respected experts on the European ancient history and details relating to the Viking Age as well. Please explain precisely why he or any other source used should not be used.

Please understand that Wikipedia cannot be used for pushing a one-sided and POV, by using historical accounts and historians selectively for support. All Wikipedia articles and other encyclopedic content must be written from a neutral point of view - NPOV. It means representing fairly and proportionately - as far as possible without bias - all significant views that have been published by reliable sources.

E.g.: Why in your view the Orkneyinga Saga can be used in the article to support one piece of information (your personal view ?) - even without sited sources or direct quotes given -, while according to you the saga must not be quoted to show what it really says ? Johansdotter (talk) 16:49, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

The formidable array of primary sources does not mention Rollo even once. You have listed them to support the fringe theory about his heritage proposed at the kvenland.org non-reliable website. That is WP:OR and WP:SYNTH. Please refrain from making claims about any alleged personal agendas of mine. I have repeated my objection to the sources several times, and except for WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS you have yet to come up with a reason how a self-published website, with no visible author information or editing policy should meet the standards required by WP:RS. That is without even going into the notability of the theory proposed. --Saddhiyama (talk) 15:09, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

Please refrain from making claims that I would have proposed theories or interpretations. I have only posted appropriate and highly relevant saga information with the related quotes for the column Historical evidence. The portal which you refer to sites its sources and clearly shows which media corporation publishes it. Furthermore, whether or not that particular source is included in the article, makes no difference. The posted saga information is sources by the other sources. You have yet to provide an acceptable reason for your removing of the info as well as all the sources used. If you wish to discuss the validity of one single source, do not simultaneously delete a lot of information which other sources have been provided for.

Each source used is appropriate exactly for what it is used for. For instance, if a source is used for a quote taken from a saga, that source does not necessarily have to say anything about Rollo. If a source is for something related to the Dukes of Normandy or Harald Fairhair, then it is a source for that particular piece of information, not for everything relating to Rollo. Please, quit deleting appropriately placed and sourced information. Johansdotter (talk) 05:01, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

My objection to your allegations of me having a personal bias is based on this policy, as you accuse the editor of ulterior motives instead of discussing the subject at hand. Your proposed theories and interpretations using synthesis of primary sources is exactly what this discussion is about, so there is no way I will refrain from mentioning that. The theory proposed in kvenland.org that "The Kven-Norse dynasty spread into France also through the Viking King Rollo, founder and first ruler of the Viking principality in what soon became known as Normandy. Rollo's descendants were the Dukes of Normandy." is WP:FRINGE since his origin is disputed and is generally accepted by scholars to be unsettled. The claim of Rollos Kven background is also, despite your claims to the contrary, completely unsourced in that website, and the elaborate family tree that you construct using primary sources is as such flawed from the foundation and therefore unacceptable and unencyclopedic. --Saddhiyama (talk) 09:57, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

The source was subtracted and the text was cropped and modified. Presenting the highly relevant and important saga info and quotes under Historical evidence does not mount to presenting "theories". The info is presented in neutral manner, without interpretations or theories attached. Johansdotter (talk) 06:42, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

You are still presenting a theory of Ynglinge-heritage by juxtapositing various primary sources. The Hversu Noregr byggðist doesn't "show a line of Rollo going back to Fornjót" at all, since the information in that book presented about mythical lineages is not taken literally by scholars at all (it traces the lineage of Harald Fairhair to Priam of Troy as well as the god Saturn and the Biblical character Noah for example). The information that there is such a claim in some of those works can be notable enough, but not in the way it is synthesised in your edit, and it doesn't warrant a longer excourse on the possible descendants and relatives of Rollo according to what is generally accepted to be a spurious theory. --Saddhiyama (talk) 20:32, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

An explanatory headline and the terms "claimed", "suggests" and "possibly" were added in the text. In addition to secondary sources, primary sources were left for validation of the quotes and translations presented, not for support of "theories" (Note: old sources too can be viewed as "secondary" sources if they tackle and analyze occurrences which happened earlier in the past and if those occurrences had already been reported in primary sources before). The various heroic figures presented in the medieval accounts are interpreted in various ways by historians, some as mythological and others as figures who possibly may have existed, despite of some figures in some cases having been likened to "gods" (compare to Russian tsars, Stalin and Kim Jong Il being likened to gods by many of their followers in more recent history). The following was added to the paragraph:

"In the center of controversy about Rollo's origins are the heroic figures who based on various medieval accounts could be claimed to have shared a bloodline with Rollo. Some of these figures are interpreted to have been mythological or semi-mythological by many historians, while others interpret at least some key figures to have been real. Professor Emeritus Kyösti Julku for instance points out that no errors have been found in the geographical information presented in the Orkneyinga saga. Why should we then suspect that the people discussed in the saga were not real, Julku asks. [source]" Johansdotter (talk) 08:09, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

That section is still WP:SYNTH. You have yet to provide just one reliable secondary source that supports your claim of this heritage. I have left the claim intact with a citation needed template, to give you some time to find a scholarly source that directly claims what the text in article claims. The section with quotations about the Ynglinge line not related to Rollo is irrelevant for this article. Stick to the article subject, please. This is not an article about the lineage of the Ynglinge dynasty, nor an essay about the origin of mythological figures. And please just stick to adding citations that has direct relation to the sentence. Citation overkill clutters up the article and makes it very difficult for the reader to find the source that actually supports the claims made there. --Saddhiyama (talk) 08:57, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

I will back up a bit and go through my objections step by step. You write "The Yngling "Fairhair dynasty" lineage introduced in Hversu Noregr byggðist ("How Norway was settled") and the Orkneyinga and Heimskringla sagas suggests a line of Rollo going back to Fornjót, the primeval "king" who "reigned over" Finland and Kvenland". Fine, that information may or may not be notable for inclusion in the article. Problem is that with the array of sources (the abovementioned citation overkill) you cited I could not find a single one of them mentioning anything about Rollo. So the first step for you is to provide a source that states exactly this. At that point it may be primary or secondary, but of course the wording in the article will vary based on the nature of the source.

Now, the rest of the problem with your additions is that you take this claim (A) of Rollos Ynglinge heritage, and from this you add a bunch of stuff about the Ynglinge dynasty and the supposed relations to that dynasty with older mythological or real individuals (B). None of the stuff in B mentions Rollo or his supposed connection to that dynasty, that connection is something you as an editor has made for us. That is the definition of synthesis, and since you are using mostly primary sources it is probably closer to original research. I suggest you actually take your time to read the Wikipedia:Synthesis and Wikipedia:Original research policies regarding this.

If no scholar has made this connection in reliable secondary sources but you still insist on mentioning it in this article, the only option you have is to propose the theory yourself in a peer reviewed journal or other reliable source, see to it that is generally approved and then we can talk about adding it to Wikipedia. I hope that this has made the nature of my objections clearer to you, and that it may be of help to you in finding acceptable sources for this. --Saddhiyama (talk) 10:43, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

Danish town of Faxe, fakse, fasge or fauske

--Mattamatikk (talk) 02:08, 5 September 2013 (UTC) Question:

1. Did Dudo and Benoist de Sainte-Maure claim that Rollo was from "Fasge", "Faxe" or "Fakse"? And i see the author of the article identifies Fakse with Faxe in Denmark. Well, he should also include the fact that it could be Fauske in Norway. Fauske is, unlike Faxe in Denmark, surrounded by "high alps". Fauske is a place in Møre, witch the Icelandic sagas claim Rollo hailed from.

2. The author specifies that Icelandic and Norwegian historians identified Rollo with "Gange Hrolf" - insinuating that they somewhat stands alone in this theory, witch is higly uncorrect.

The whole section of Rollos origin seems biased.

the reality is that nobody knows where the guy came from. personally, i don't think the arguments against snorri are conclusive (dudo's account is just as easily readily read as corroboration of snorri's than a contradiction of it) and think deriving him in some way out of the great heathen army is entirely rational, but, even if i had some letters beside my name, it would be a guess like anybody else's. barring the discovery of some early source, there's no resolution to this. so, wiki has a choice: provide no information or provide all theories. i'd really vote for a collection of sections that runs through all of the major theories, throwing all the information out there. as a reference tool, that would be the most useful thing to have here - given that there aren't relevant facts. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.48.181.93 (talk) 01:17, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

added malaterra reference

i've added the malaterra reference to rollo as a norwegian because it is interesting, but i'm a little unclear as to why it's been ignored. malaterra's history is wonky, no doubt. however, he was writing from italy at roughly the same time as the norman invasion of england, which makes him a relatively early source. he would have lacked any of the political motivations that dudo or jumierges may have had to connect the norman dukes to denmark. dudo is certainly known to have fabricated a few things here and there. further, 'dane' is an ambiguous term, in context. with malaterra, there's no reason to think he would have been expressing anything other than the understood knowledge of the time. as far as i can see, he's the best source we've got.

certainly, the malaterra reference is older than the sagas (as they exist in written form).

what i'm a little iffy about is if the translation is accurate. i suppose it could have merely been overlooked, it is after all an italo-norman history rather than a franco-norman history. but i'd have to collectively slap all historians of the period for missing this, if that's the case. so, could we get an expert check the translation? if the translation is accurate, i think this answers the question.

it doesn't, however, corroborate the sagas. not exactly, anyways. it simply fixes rollo's background as norwegian. i'll let the experts take it from there and get back to me on it.

actually, i checked the latin and it says "sea norvegia". that was translated as norwegian in the translation i've provided, but it seems to reference the orkneys and rolf ganger. can we get an expert here? is malaterra providing a latin corroboration of the saga narrative from far away italy c. 1099?

I reworded the addition to a more neutral statement about Geoffreys claims. As it is a primary source we can only use it to give a neutrally worded summary of the claims of Geoffrey of Malaterra, interpretations of the text needs to come from reliable secondary sources, that is the interpretations of scholars on the subject. --Saddhiyama (talk) 13:41, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

Highly biased

I think this section is biased towards danish origin:

"Rollo was a powerful Viking leader of contested origin. Dudo of Saint-Quentin, in his De moribus et actis primorum Normannorum ducum,[3] tells of a powerful Danish nobleman at loggerheads with the king of Denmark, who had two sons, Gurim and Rollo; upon his death, Rollo was expelled and Gurim killed. William of Jumièges also mentions Rollo's prehistory in his Gesta Normannorum Ducum, but states that he was from the Danish town of Fakse. Wace, writing some 300 years after the event in his Roman de Rou, also mentions the two brothers (as Rou and Garin), as does the Orkneyinga Saga.

Norwegian and Icelandic historians identified Rollo instead with Ganger Hrolf (Hrolf, the Walker), a son of Rognvald Eysteinsson, Earl of Møre, in Western Norway, based on medieval Norwegian and Icelandic sagas. The oldest source of this version is the Latin Historia Norvegiae, written in Norway at the end of the 12th century. This Hrolf fell foul of the Norwegian king Harald Fairhair, and became a Jarl in Normandy. The nickname "the Walker", "Ganger" in Norse, came from being so big that no horse could carry him.

Geoffrey of Malaterra, in his The Deeds of Count Roger of Calabria & Sicily & of Duke Robert Guiscard his brother claims Rollo "sailed boldly from Norway".[4]

The question of Rollo's origins was a matter of heated dispute between Norwegian and Danish historians of the 19th and early 20th centuries, particularly in the run-up to Normandy's millennium anniversary in 1911. Today, the debate continues."

The author make it seem like the general consensus amongst historians is that of Rollos Danish origin, while only Icelandic and Norwegian historians tend to dispute this. Acording to http://snl.no/Gange-Rolv (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Store_norske_leksikon) Swedish, Danish and German historians tend to favour the Danish origin, while English, French and Norwegian historians tend to favour the norwegian origin.

I wote for a rewrite. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mattamatikk (talk • contribs) 03:12, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

This part "(as Rou and Garin), as does the Orkneyinga Saga" is also incorrect. The Saga actually says Rollo is Hrolf, son of Rognvald Eysteinsson & Rgnhilda Hrolfsdatter, with brothers Ivar and Thorir. "Heiti, Gorr’s son, was father of Sveiði the sea-king, the father of Halfdan the old, the father of Ivar the Uplanders’ earl, the father of Eystein the noisy, the father of earl Rognvald the mighty and the wise in council. Earl Rognvald joined Harold fair-hair when he seized the land, but he (Harold) gave him lordship over both the Mæren and Romsdale; (7) he had to wife Ragnhilda the daughter of Hrolf nosy; their son was Hrolf who won Normandy, he was so tall that horses could not carry him; for that he was called Ganging-Hrolf; from him are come the Rouen Jarls and the English Kings; their son was also Ivar, and Thorir the silent." [3] Nothinheavy (talk) 19:27, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

Wace's Roman de Rou also doesn't seem to tell the tale of Rolo, or Rou, or Garin. All he says, in his prologue, is that he's already told Rolo's tale, and William "Longspear"'s tale. So, if it is in writing, it's in some other work.[4] Nothinheavy (talk) 21:43, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

In fiction (History Channel series)

I removed the 2013 in reference to the television series. Since it is on-going as of 2015, I thought referencing the History Channel would be more appropriate and wear better as time goes on. Hamaxides (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 19:37, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

Robert 1 confusion

The intro to this article says that Rollo/Robert was sometimes known as Robert I, but later the article refers to a clearly separate person Robert I assuming the throne of France. It would be helpful if this potential confusion could be clarified? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.174.62.30 (talk) 08:45, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

Rognvald Eysteinsson/Poppa of Bayeux and earl/jarl dichotomy

• city councils commissioning monuments about historical figures reflect most commonly accepted interpretation of primary sources among scholars. Rognvald Eysteinsson as father figure = similar status to Poppa of Bayeux as spouse: most commonly accepted interpretation despite impossibility to verify. article will reflect mainstream view among historians.

• disambiguation to jarl being easter egg = red herring. article is about nordic nobility which is correctly referred to under title of jarl. earl strictly refers to brittish nobility - not relevant.

both edits undue and reverted. Esnertofidel (talk) 11:35, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

I have reverted again, since you have failed to establish that the Rognvald Eysteinsson is the "mainstream view among historians". Btw the process is Bold, revert, discuss, for that reason alone you should refrain from reintroducing your controversial edit to the article until consensus has been established. --Saddhiyama (talk) 10:15, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

also a non-issue. three primary sources reference parentage: "The Life of Gruffud ap Cynan", "Heimskringla saga" & "Orkneyinga saga". no monument anywhere was commissioned by city councils to commemorate the account of the first primary source. the statue in Ålesund, Møre og Romsdal was commissioned to commemorate rollo's origin in west norway as offspring to Rognvald Eysteinsson. public sector commissions for the construction of monuments to historic figures reflect mainstream views among scholars, as history departments are consulted beforehand. previous revision is therefore rooted in mainstream views of historians - to be kept per WP:PSTS.

also, please refrain from making blankening edits. some of your previous reverts removed content not under dispute, without rationale being provided. remember to revert only when necessary, and that repeated needless reverts tend to drive editors away. Esnertofidel (talk) 11:20, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

request for people who speak latin

can one with working knowledge of latin provide a translation of the dais of rollo's grave? google translator only gives partial translation, and is not useful. Esnertofidel (talk) 18:29, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

Deleted

So I deleted some statement in the Origin section that claimed Western Norway to be under danish hegemony during Rollos time. This is not historical correct, and was not backed up by sources. Viken however was a disputed erea between Danes and Norwegians during Rollos time. Viken is located in Eastern Norway, not western. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mattamatikk (talk • contribs) 00:51, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

Origin

There's no conclusive origin of Rollo, so I see no reason to put one there until historians and archaeologists have found one. We only know he was either Danish or Norwegian, or even both. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.185.210.96 (talk) 21:16, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

Could be soon :)

http://norwaytoday.info/culture/dna-hunters-unopened-viking-grave-in-normandie/

T 88.89.219.147 (talk) 16:58, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

I agree entirely that we should not merge the identities of Rollo and Ganger Rolf in the early section of the article, as though this was accepted by all historians. Discussion of his origins (with sources) should be balanced and confined to the Origins section. I have overhauled the article in line with this. In the process I have removed the repeated references to a secondary source from 1942 that seems to have been heavily biased in favour of the Ganger Rolf identification and added references to Robert Ferguson's Hammer and the Cross (2009) which incorporates the most recent scholarship and does not seem biased either way. Genie (talk) 16:49, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

The original poster does not reference the Ganger-Rolf name, but merely speaks of Rollo's inconclusive origins. You are "agreeing" to a position the OP did not take. References to Ganger-Rolf have been included because there exist numerous secondary sources which explicitly refer to this historical figure under that byname. Your argument that only the historian Douglas referred to Rollo using this byname is demonstrably incorrect. Thirdly, you have repeatedly attempted to remove large swaths of other content from the article without providing a rationale. Malik047 (talk) 16:59, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

I find the current article takes the opinion of Douglas to an extreme, there are many opinions about these events and there should be a balance as the "experts" cannot, as normal, agree amongst themselves. I am reading the original 1839 book by Jonathan Duncan, The Dukes of Normandy, From the Times of Rollo to the Expulsion of King John, which gives an interesting detailed explanation of the life of Rollo, but is not referred to in this article at all. Ânes-pur-sàng - À la perchoine 17:26, 24 August 2016 (UTC) User talk:Ânes-pur-sàng

A proper recourse is to include other historians beyond Douglas, while referencing reliable secondary sources. If an active dispute exists between professional historians about this byname of Ganger-Rolf, then a new section probably also ought to be added to the article which makes due mention of this. As it is, there exists no reason to arbitrarily remove the citations of Douglas, let alone those of Encyclopedia Britannica and other secondary sources, all of which Genie deleted without providing a rationale. Malik047 (talk) 17:48, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

A: Origins: The origins of Rollo have been endlessly disputed. Norway and Denmark both claim him. The claim by Norway is based on an identification of Rollo with a character in the 13th-century Icelandic saga, Ganger-Hrólf. No early source from the Normans themselves refers to Rollo as Ganger-Hrólf, or even as plain Hrólf. It is an assumption that Rollo was a Latinisation of Hrólf. Nor is there any suggestion in Dudo of Rollo being too tall to ride, which is the characteristic which apparently gave Ganger-Hrólf his nick-name. So the identification of Rollo with Ganger-Hrólf is scarcely straightforward. It is certainly true that modern historians have tended to favour the identification, despite the fact that historians normally give greatest weight to sources closest in time and place to the event in question. Wikipedia could make that point, and I did indeed do so in my attempted clean-up. But that does not mean that Wikipedia should treat it as fact - not even if another encyclopedia does so. :) Genie (talk) 18:15, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

B: Sources: The article at present relies heavily for interpretion on a single secondary source, Douglas 1942. It also cites another secondary source, Crouch 2002, where a primary source should in preference be used. It is normal practice for professional historians to cite primary sources as far as possible e.g. if a charter is mentioned, the citation should be to a work in which the charter is published in full. For interpretation of primary sources, a professional historian will use his or her own judgement, but will be expected to be aware of the most recent scholarship on the matter from other academics, and will often credit these authors. In Wikipedia we do not indulge in original thinking. So the correct procedure is to follow the most recent scholarship on the matter in question, citing sources and beng careful to avoid bias. There is therefore no reason to cite Douglas 1942 at all. I have to disagree with Ânes-pur-sàng in his desire to see a book from 1839 cited either. There are plenty of more recent works on the Vikings. :) Genie (talk) 18:15, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

C: Speculation: The article at present states as fact in its opening sentence that Rollo was christened Robert. We don't know that. This seems to have been a speculation by Crouch 2002. The suggestion might be mentioned later on in the article, making the argument for the suggestion clear and citing its source, but speculation should be clearly distinguished from fact. Genie (talk) 19:15, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

Add an explanation for Göngu / Ganger / Walker in the Name section?

I noticed inside the Name section. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rollo#Name

His first name Hrólfr -> Rollo -> Robert has been explained. His nickname Göngu -> Ganger -> Walker has not been explained. So maybe we should add it?

FYI, Icelandic to English translation for Göngu https://translate.google.com/?#auto/en/g%C3%B6ngu

Additional Source: https://books.google.com/books?id=5xHntaYOYncC&pg=PA106&lpg=PA106&dq=carolingian+king+too+big+to+ride+a+horse&source=bl&ots=sSi9Qv83zC&sig=MjuONsy-WAEYNoC98-kW9kithiM&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwix6JD8-v3NAhXFVh4KHSnWBYsQ6AEIKzAC#v=onepage&q=carolingian%20king%20too%20big%20to%20ride%20a%20horse&f=false — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tigerleapgorge (talk • contribs) 21:49, 18 July 2016 (UTC)

Dispute

@Malik047 and Genie: You are both close to breaching WP:3RR, so please hash out a consensus here on the talk page. Saying "see talk page" in an edit summary is unproductive if neither of you have participated on the talk page (though I see Genie at least commented today). clpo13_(talk) 16:58, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

The onus is on the editor of disputed content to make their case on the talk page. I have just responded to Genie's edit. Malik047 (talk) 17:04, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

I'm glad that someone has noticed the problem here. A review of the talk page will make clear that the origins of Rollo have been endlessly disputed. Norway and Denmark both claim him. It is therefore crucial that the Wikipedia page should navigate carefully through these choppy waters. It should not tacitly accept the Norwegian position from the start by accepting the disputed identification with Ganger Rolf in the opening sentence. Nor should the article in general rely heavily on references to a single secondary source, dating to 1942 and heavily biased in favour of the identification with Ganger Rolf. It should refer directly to primary sources as far as possible, and for interpretation of them to recent scholarship, as unbiased as can be found. I have therefore overhauled the article along these lines. I am not sure which other Wikipedia editors have published on the Vikings (as I have), and should therefore be consulted on the matter. But if you know of some, by all means draw them here for discussion. Genie (talk) 17:17, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

The content of Wikipedia articles should be based on reliable, published secondary sources. There are three secondary sources cited that explicitly refer to the figure of Rollo under the byname "Ganger-Rolf". Your contention that but one secondary source is being cited in support of the byname's inclusion (that of an historian by the name of Douglas) is puzzling, as this clearly isn't the case. Also, you have yet to provide any rationale for your attempted removal of other content from the article, which made no mention of the Ganger-Rolf byname. Malik047 (talk) 17:41, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

I feel sure that you could find more than three modern sources which conflate Rollo, the first Duke of Normandy, with "Ganger-Rolf", a character in Snorri Sturluson's Saga of Harald Fairhair. That is not at all surprising, because Snorri made that identification himself. Later historians were by and large delighted to find a detailed account of Rollo by Snorri, which one cannot find in the Norman history of the dukes of Normandy. They lapped it up. The discrepancies between the two were argued away by the most enthusiastic of them, such as Douglas 1942. It was the repeated citing of Douglas and Douglas alone on these discrepancies that was disturbing. I don't think that Wikipedia should be using a biased source right the way through the article, with no balance provided. Genie (talk) 19:16, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

Style of article

I had read the article last month and found little of substance about the subject "Rollo", there was a lot about opinions of different historians and many comments about items that could not be confirmed, which is hardly surprising considering how long ago he lived. I added a number of items from an 1839 book about the life of Rollo (Duncan, Jonathan (1839). The Dukes of Normandy from the time of King Rollo to the expulsion of King John. Joseph Rickerby and Harvey & Darton.). User:Genie has since deleted all but one reference to the book I had posted and the article has again reverted to little of substance about the subject. No explanation has been given for the deletion of cited information.

The Biography section has almost nothing about his time before France and almost nothing about his time in France. There is almost more about Rollo in the article Charles the Simple. 20% of current "Biography" section says - "Modern analyses of the region's place names reveal Scandinavian settlements stretching from the Seine valley to the coast, and from Rouen to Dieppe. However, compared to settlements along eastern England (especially East Anglia and Yorkshire), the appearance of Norse elements in place names was far from widespread or entrenched. The occurrence of the Gallo-Roman suffix "-ville" after Norse names is evidence for this." - what has this got to do with the biography of Rollo ?

Can we please have something about Rollo and his life in the article, with suitable short comments by various historians if the disagree and with just a covering brief statement that almost nothing can be verified. Ânes-pur-sàng (talk) 14:24, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

I would be very happy to delete the section on place-names, which really does not tell us anything about Rollo personally. In fact I was thinking about doing that. As for giving no explanation, I have in fact given a detailed explanation earlier on this page of the changes that I felt were required in this article. As I said earlier in the discussion of this page, it really would not help to add speculation from an historian published in 1839. If we cite secondary sources, we should use recent ones, reflecting modern scholarship. Next to nothing can be verified about Rollo's life, as you say. So let's stick to facts that can be confirmed, or at least are acknowledged by modern scholars to be reasonable deductions. Genie (talk) 14:34, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

Added - I have deleted the paragraph on place-names. Genie (talk) 14:41, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

I am quite happy with using more modern scholars works, provided there is actually something in the article about Rollo, rather than about the scholars and their disputes/speculation, because at the moment it is very uninformative and boring to read. Ânes-pur-sàng (talk) 15:22, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

I understand that readers would prefer a detailed and colourful biography to the few reliable facts we actually have. But where are we to get a detailed and colourful story? Make it up? Use the delightfully colourful story written in Iceland 300 years after the death of Rollo? The most reliable sources will be those closest in time and place to the life of Rollo. They are few. Genie (talk) 22:34, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

Are you saying that every writer makes up the stories, if so, I would agree with you, the victor normally writes the history, the same applies to last weeks events, however even if two people agree, it does not mean it is the truth. Something about Rollo has to be written and I think it is better to say something with comments from historians that agree, suggest an alternative, or disagree, than nothing at all, so please add what modern historians believe is his biography if you do not like the 1839 suggestion. Ânes-pur-sàng (talk) 23:10, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

I have written what modern historians believe is his biography. You may not like the way that I write history, but it is the way that historians like myself write i.e. giving sources. And it is the the way that Wikipedia wants us to write i.e. giving sources. I have to explain that different sources give different origins for Rollo, because that is the truth. I cite the new history of the Vikings by Ferguson for the fact that many modern historians have preferred the later sources.Genie (talk) 09:39, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

Irrelevant information

Someone keeps adding irrelevant, unsourced information about a Swiss castle. 219.77.82.21 (talk) 12:36, 25 January 2017 (UTC)

Old Norse & names, Gaange Rolf

Mainly a comment. The quote "Old Norse: Hrólfr;" isn't really correct, the Vikings used a different alphabet, known as Runes. Hence is "Rolf" just as good as "Hrólfr". "Rolf" is also a name carried by quite a few men in Sweden, Denmark and Norway still today. I also can see that someone else have stated that "Rollo" wasn't "Gaange Rolf", but according to Scandinavian sources are these two names referring to one and the same person. "Gå" or "Gaa" means "walk" and the reason he didn't ride , appears to be that he was too heavy. Boeing720 (talk) 00:47, 7 September 2017 (UTC)

I agree on all of this, but I should add that while "gaa" (or "gå") means walk, but "gange" still (if old-fashioned) means "[a] stride" (still used when talking about horses). It is believed, as with Olaf II of Norway, that he was too tall, rather than to fat, to ride. Horses during the Viking age were said to have been smaller than those we are used to now. Famously, Olaf II approved of the Olaf the large nickname - and he was not known to be lenient or approve of things for a joke.Andreas Kolle (talk) 07:30, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

Same difference, the runes that would have been used (ᚼᚱᚢᛚᚠᚱ in the younger Futhark) express the same phonemes as "Hrólfr" or "Hrolfʀ", depending on if you prefer West or East Norse. "Rolf" is the modern version that developed from East Norse over a period way past Rollo's death (first known occurrence on the undated Forshedastenen as the variant "Rhulf", some time past the late 11th century), and thus not equivalent. "Hrólfr"/"Hrolfʀ" are also the academically accepted spellings of the name in Old Norse, at least using the Latin alphabet. 134.76.63.198 (talk) 13:39, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

Is anyone suggesting that Snorre wrote Heimskringla in runes ...? I hope not. T 88.89.217.49 (talk) 02:59, 2 September 2018 (UTC)

In the Roman de Rou

Danish:

Andui furent Daneis, mais mult furent di[uers]
Rou fist alkes a dreit, Hasteins fist a envers (Andresen edition, page 36, available on Internet Archive)

I assume the 'di[uers]' is because of manuscript damage. Hasteins is Hastein. Rough translation is 'they were both Danish, but they were very different ... what Rollo did the right way up, Hasteins did upside down' (this is of course a metaphor, and I can't find a better way to express it). Renard Migrant (talk) 13:56, 9 February 2019 (UTC)

Britannica ...

Britannica is a tertiary source. The content that is being repeatedly restored is sourced to Britannica, is repetitious and somewhat off-topic, and has some overlinking and grammar issues. Nor is the History Channel a good source either. Also, as an aside, it isn't "Robert 1 of France" .... Please self-revert and actually discuss the concerns here on the talk page. --Ealdgyth (talk) 14:50, 28 February 2020 (UTC)

thanks for your reply. however, i must tell you that britannica encyclopaedia is a set of reference books recommended by most univerisities in the uk. even new york university recommends it. so it's a reliable source.Berserk Kerberos (talk) 18:48, 10 March 2020 (UTC))

Please read the links that have been shown to you - especially WP:TERTIARY, which explains why tertiary sources such as Britannica are not the best sources. And please learn how to indent properly. --Ealdgyth (talk) 19:00, 10 March 2020 (UTC)

Berserk Kerberos has been indefinitely blocked. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 22:33, 10 March 2020 (UTC)

Picture?

Oh?! Where is picture of the statue of Rollo? I think there had been the photo in this page , and we should get it back to this Wikipedia page!—TRAMPJP (talk) 07:57, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

Lead image

MOS:IMAGERELEVANCE says that "images must be significant and relevant in the topic's context, not primarily decorative". MOS:LEADIMAGE goes on to say that the lead image should be the "type of image used for similar purposes in high-quality reference works" and that "lead images are not required, and not having a lead image may be the best solution if there is no easy representation of the topic."

Now, a 13th-century illustration from a genealogy book in which all illustrated people look more or less the same, all dressed in 13th-century clothes too, is neither significant nor the type of image used in high-quality reference works. It conveys no information about Rollo, thus serving no purpose other than decorating the infobox. Surtsicna (talk) 17:00, 20 February 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for starting the discussion. Like I said the problem with images and this time period is that it is impossible to get completely accurate representations of the subjects, I think it's a bit harsh to call the image a ″worthless doodle″. I also think people understand that it's not a perfect recreation of Rollo, but rather an interpretation of what he may have looked like. --TylerBurden (talk) 17:06, 20 February 2022 (UTC)

An accurate representation is not required. No image is required. What is required of a lead image, if any is used, is that it be a significant, relevant image, the sort of image one can find in scholarly works on the subject. No scholarly work on Rollo includes this or any image similar to this one. If high-quality reference works do not depict Rollo, neither should Wikipedia. Images are not supposed to be merely decorative. Surtsicna (talk) 17:13, 20 February 2022 (UTC)

And the image is relevant, because it is a depiction of Rollo. How high quality, ″doodleish″ and useless you personally find it seems like a pretty subjective thing. --TylerBurden (talk) 17:17, 20 February 2022 (UTC)

Being a depiction of Rollo does not make it relevant for inclusion, otherwise I could draw one myself. There is nothing subjective in the fact that this is not the sort of image one can find in scholarly works dealing with Rollo, as required by MoS, otherwise you could cite one. You have made no attempt so far to prove the utility, quality or informativeness of the image in the face of arguments against it. All I am seeing is petty obstinacy. Surtsicna (talk) 19:25, 20 February 2022 (UTC)

It is a bit hypocritical to insinuate obstinacy when you were just edit warring over this to remove the image, despite being asked to discuss on the talk page. You don't think the image is the kind of image used in high quality reference works, I disagree with that. I have read quality work including very similar art to this. This whole ″required by MOS″ argument you keep bringing up is kind of moot given that the MOS is not mandatory in the first place, but more of a suggestion of how things should generally be done. I don't have an issue with the image, but at the same time I don't mind articles like this not having a lead image, I do mind the way you went about this. We can remove the image once the page is unprotected if it is this important to you, but perhaps a third opinion would like to weigh in first in case someone else would like to keep the image (or support the removal). --TylerBurden (talk) 20:02, 20 February 2022 (UTC)

It is important to me because I cannot imagine a high-quality reference work in which the subject would be illustrated with a genealogy drawing made 3 centuries after their death. On top of everything, the depiction is plainly misleading; we are doing no favor to the readers by choosing to depict this 10th century Viking as a 13th-century Englishman. It is not reasonable to expect readers to know that he and his people looked nothing like this. Nobody who is well-versed in the subject would expect to see this image in the lead; and those who are not know deserve not to be misinformed. I believe this image is much better suited for Rollo#Descendants than for the infobox. Surtsicna (talk) 20:32, 20 February 2022 (UTC)

"primarily decorative".

The use of the image is perfectly OK. I see no problems with significance and relevance, and it is not only "primarily decorative" which would rather apply to the picture of a flower.--Berig (talk) 20:05, 20 February 2022 (UTC)

I also fail to see how it is merely ″decorative″, it is a depiction of Rollo, not some random image added for fun such as your example of a flower. --TylerBurden (talk) 20:29, 20 February 2022 (UTC)

It is primarily decorative because it does not aid in understanding the subject. This 10th-century Viking did not look anything like a 13th-century Englishman, and historians specializing in the subject do not use this image. Information-wise there may as well be a sunflower there or, indeed, my own drawing of Rollo. Surtsicna (talk) 20:38, 20 February 2022 (UTC)

How about a small watercolour of Bishop Brennan on the skirting board, wouldn't that do?  ;) SN54129 20:47, 20 February 2022 (UTC)

I don't see why not. In all seriousness though I don't think the depiction is that ridiculous, obviously not perfect but nothing from this age is, you have to remember Rollo was essentially a nobleman in his later life so however you imagine a ″Viking″ looks like is probably quite different from what he actually looked like at that time. Like I said though, we can remove the image but might as well use these protection days to see what other people think. If the consensus is to keep it then we'll keep it. --TylerBurden (talk) 20:54, 20 February 2022 (UTC)

I'd rather prefer his image to a modern conception of a Viking war lord. They never seem to get much right.--Berig (talk) 21:01, 20 February 2022 (UTC)

Oh yea, I'm sure if some people got their way the image would be Rollo riding a oversized wolf with a horned Viking helmet. The current image at least is grounded if anything. IF the image is kept then perhaps a caption could be added to it clarifying to the reader that it is merely a 13th century English depiction. --TylerBurden (talk) 21:06, 20 February 2022 (UTC)

Removing the image altogether might be an overkill; it would do just fine in the Rollo#Descendants section. The infobox itself is supposed to contain something... representative. This one is not representative not because it does not match the popular image of a Viking but because nothing of the sort is found in reliable sources specializing in the subject. In the RfC concerning the use of similar drawings in papal biographies, some users quoted the WP:PORTRAIT essay, which might do a better job explaining my point. Surtsicna (talk) 21:08, 20 February 2022 (UTC)

I think your points are fair, I suppose there's a couple different camps in this topic and it's pretty clear you're in the more conservative camp when it comes to these images which is fair enough. I think it's fine because like I said before when it comes to this kind of art it should be pretty obvious that it's not something you can take for granted is an accurate depiction, but then again that is my POV and others might read it and think that's exactly what he looked like. That's why I think a caption making it clear what it is should be added if the consensus ends up being keep, if it is delete then I got no problem with that either, it can be moved elsewhere like you mentioned. --TylerBurden (talk) 06:11, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

Maybe I'm missing the point here, but for the life of me, why would the use of the representative image of Rollo be any different from the use of the representative image of Baldwin IV of Jerusalem that Surtsicna is currently putting through for Good Article status? In fact, all of the medieval art work images in that article are depictions.—Bill Reid | (talk) 18:29, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

If you are asking why I believe File:Baldwin_IV_in_battle.jpg is suitable for the Baldwin IV of Jerusalem infobox, it is because it is found in high-quality works specializing in Baldwin, including the cover of a scholarly biography. This makes it "significant and relevant" and "what our readers will expect to see". This is in contrast with File:RolloA.jpg, as not only is this depiction not used in works specializing in Rollo or 10th-century France but genealogical roll depictions in general seldom appear in such works. If someone switched this image of Rollo in the infobox with that of his son, grandson or another man depicted on that roll, nobody could tell the difference, nor would the article be worse off, because all of them have the same informational value. Surtsicna (talk) 02:34, 22 February 2022 (UTC)

The MoS doesn't define significance of an image by the number of times it has appeared in scholarly works but that it "must be significant and relevant in the topic's context". Rollo's representation is exactly that being a 13th century art work that actually states that it is a depiction of Rollo and therefore gives it significance and relevence to this article. If better images emerge (and I see nothing wrong with this one) then they could be used. As for the removal of images, as long as the image is relevant to the article, the MoS is quite clear that the image should be retained "instead of simply removing poor or inappropriate ones" --Bill Reid | (talk) 16:36, 22 February 2022 (UTC)

Just adding my voice that I largely agree with Surtsicna here. I don't see a ton of value of using an image in an infobox that is neither contemporary nor drawn from a contemporary source. Later in the article is fine, as part of the purpose would be to show what sort of impact on history and culture the subject had after they died. But I think the assumption of an infobox pic is that it's something like what the person really looked like. --Jfruh (talk) 17:50, 22 February 2022 (UTC)

And on the note of what "primarily decorative" means, I have always taken it to mean pictures that people add because they think "this page (or infobox) looks better with a picture" without thought for how accurate or useful the specific picture in question is in conveying information about the subject. I think this is a particular dilemma for historical figures, since in our minds we conflate broad swaths of history and think "well, this picture is from the middle ages, so it's basically OK to use for this historical figure, who's also from the middle ages." It would be obviously absurd, for instance, use a picture of Olivia Coleman in The Favourite in the infobox for Queen Anne of Great Britain, but the 13th century image here is as far removed from the real 10th century Rollo as Coleman is from the real Anne. --Jfruh (talk) 18:10, 22 February 2022 (UTC)

The MoS requires lead image to be "the type of image used for similar purposes in high-quality reference works". See MOS:LEADIMAGE. This roll depiction is not such an image. MOS:LEADIMAGE then goes on to say that a lead image is not required and that editors should not just cram in whatever they find. What is significant and relevant is, of course, determined by whether it's included in high-quality sources. Surtsicna (talk) 19:15, 22 February 2022 (UTC)

• The 13 C image of Rollo is an excellent example. Of what 13 C scribal illustrators thought 10 C Kings looked like. It is not a depiction of what he actually looked like. Which is of most use to the WP:READER. SN54129 18:20, 22 February 2022 (UTC)

Agree --Bill Reid | (talk) 11:43, 24 February 2022 (UTC)

Replying to Surtsicna. The MoS does not require that lead image to be "the type of image used for similar purposes in high-quality reference works", it advises--nothing is written in blocks of stone. The appropriateness of an image for an infobox is important and "what our readers will expect to see". That is what the image of Rollo does. It achieves this in two ways. Firstly, it is very evidently medieval, even though anachronistic and therefore tells the reader what to expect in the article itself and secondly, the image is a depiction of the subject himself. Despite what has been said, the MoS does not say that only images that have been used in high-quality sources can be used in Wikipedia but what it does say is that images used should be of the "type of image" (not the actual image used in quality publications). Again, the MoS does not say "that a lead image is not required and that editors should not just cram in whatever they find"; what it does say is "Lead images are not required, and not having a lead image may be the best solution if there is no easy representation of the topic." In this case, there obviously is a representation of the topic. Finally, the statement "What is significant and relevant is, of course, determined by whether it's included in high-quality sources". Incorrect. I repeat what the MoS does say and that is it "must be significant and relevant in the topic's context"; that is the sole criterion with absolutely no mention anywhere that it is determined by inclusion in high-quality sources. --Bill Reid | (talk) 11:43, 24 February 2022 (UTC)

This obviously is not an easy representation of the topic since we are discussing it. If this is the type of image used in quality publications, then please do cite some quality publications that use Late Middle Ages genealogical roll images to illustrate people who lived in the Early Middle Ages. The argument that the image does not contravene the MoS are weakened by the argument that the MoS is not obligatory. Surtsicna (talk) 10:44, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

Serial Number 54129, it seems that your comments are interpreted differently here. My interpretation may be influenced by your comments at the papal biographies RfC. Surtsicna (talk) 10:44, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

The MoS is strict in places and more of a guideline in others. The section on lead images is in the latter. Nowhere in this section is it said that images must be this or the other. Instead, it gives advice on choosing an image and, as I said above, I can see nothing in the advice that prevents the use of this image. Example sources for this:

• Alixe Bovey, The Chaworth Roll. A Fourteenth-Century Genealogy of the Kings of England (London, 2005).
• Nigel I. Morgan and Rodney M. Thomson (eds.), The Cambridge History of the Book, vol. ii: 1100-1400 (Cambridge, 2008)--Pamela Robinson contribution, ‘The Format of Books: Books, Booklets and Rolls’
• Raluca L. Radulescu and Edward Donald Kennedy (eds.), Broken Lines. Genealogical Literature in LateMedieval Britain and France (Turnhout, 2008)--O. de Laborderie's contribution, ‘A New Pattern for English History: The First Genealogical Rolls of the Kings of England’. --Bill Reid | (talk) 17:52, 25 February 2022 (UTC)