The vikings are again a popular subject. I bumped yesterday into two other papers elswhere.
https://www.academia.edu/62070193/Rolf_the_Ganger_NOT_the_first_Count_of_Rouen
https://www.academia.edu/search?q=Vikings%20on%20the%20river%20Somme
On Saturday, December 4, 2021 at 7:06:07 AM UTC-6, hansvog...@gmail.com wrote:
The vikings are again a popular subject. I bumped yesterday into two other papers elswhere.
https://www.academia.edu/62070193/Rolf_the_Ganger_NOT_the_first_Count_of_RouenThis one stood out as garbage before the end of the first page.
https://www.academia.edu/search?q=Vikings%20on%20the%20river%20Somme
This one took a bit longer, but I still found nothing to recommend it.
Stewart Baldwin
Op zondag 5 december 2021 om 02:01:59 UTC+1 schreef Stewart Baldwin:
On Saturday, December 4, 2021 at 7:06:07 AM UTC-6, hansvog...@gmail.com wrote:
The vikings are again a popular subject. I bumped yesterday into two other papers elswhere.
Like I wrote (more viking fun) with a lot 'what ifs'.https://www.academia.edu/62070193/Rolf_the_Ganger_NOT_the_first_Count_of_RouenThis one stood out as garbage before the end of the first page.
Would you care to elaborate on the eye-catching misconceptions?
credible.Too many absurdities to list, but one pretty obvious one is the claim to have narrowed down the death of Harald Fairhair to between 20 and 25 March 851. For someone first mentioned in sources from a few centuries later, this is not even close to beingLike I wrote (more viking fun) with a lot 'what ifs'.https://www.academia.edu/62070193/Rolf_the_Ganger_NOT_the_first_Count_of_RouenThis one stood out as garbage before the end of the first page.
Would you care to elaborate on the eye-catching misconceptions?
I know you mean "birth of"; but that only makes it more hilarious.
I don't recommend this author's work in any way whatsoever.
On Sunday, December 5, 2021 at 4:17:55 AM UTC-6, hansvog...@gmail.com wrote:credible.
Op zondag 5 december 2021 om 02:01:59 UTC+1 schreef Stewart Baldwin:
On Saturday, December 4, 2021 at 7:06:07 AM UTC-6, hansvog...@gmail.com wrote:
The vikings are again a popular subject. I bumped yesterday into two other papers elswhere.
Too many absurdities to list, but one pretty obvious one is the claim to have narrowed down the death of Harald Fairhair to between 20 and 25 March 851. For someone first mentioned in sources from a few centuries later, this is not even close to beingLike I wrote (more viking fun) with a lot 'what ifs'.https://www.academia.edu/62070193/Rolf_the_Ganger_NOT_the_first_Count_of_RouenThis one stood out as garbage before the end of the first page.
Would you care to elaborate on the eye-catching misconceptions?
Stewart BaldwinDo you believe Harald Fairhair existed at all?
A domingo, 5 de dezembro de 2021 à(s) 22:58:15 UTC, Stewart Baldwin escreveu:being credible.
On Sunday, December 5, 2021 at 4:17:55 AM UTC-6, hansvog...@gmail.com wrote:
Op zondag 5 december 2021 om 02:01:59 UTC+1 schreef Stewart Baldwin:
On Saturday, December 4, 2021 at 7:06:07 AM UTC-6, hansvog...@gmail.com wrote:
The vikings are again a popular subject. I bumped yesterday into two other papers elswhere.
Too many absurdities to list, but one pretty obvious one is the claim to have narrowed down the death of Harald Fairhair to between 20 and 25 March 851. For someone first mentioned in sources from a few centuries later, this is not even close toLike I wrote (more viking fun) with a lot 'what ifs'.https://www.academia.edu/62070193/Rolf_the_Ganger_NOT_the_first_Count_of_RouenThis one stood out as garbage before the end of the first page.
Would you care to elaborate on the eye-catching misconceptions?
Stewart BaldwinDo you believe Harald Fairhair existed at all?
On Monday, December 6, 2021 at 4:23:30 AM UTC-6, Paulo Ricardo Canedo wrote:being credible.
A domingo, 5 de dezembro de 2021 à(s) 22:58:15 UTC, Stewart Baldwin escreveu:
On Sunday, December 5, 2021 at 4:17:55 AM UTC-6, hansvog...@gmail.com wrote:
Op zondag 5 december 2021 om 02:01:59 UTC+1 schreef Stewart Baldwin:
On Saturday, December 4, 2021 at 7:06:07 AM UTC-6, hansvog...@gmail.com wrote:
The vikings are again a popular subject. I bumped yesterday into two other papers elswhere.
Too many absurdities to list, but one pretty obvious one is the claim to have narrowed down the death of Harald Fairhair to between 20 and 25 March 851. For someone first mentioned in sources from a few centuries later, this is not even close toLike I wrote (more viking fun) with a lot 'what ifs'.https://www.academia.edu/62070193/Rolf_the_Ganger_NOT_the_first_Count_of_RouenThis one stood out as garbage before the end of the first page.
Would you care to elaborate on the eye-catching misconceptions?
He may have existed, but the evidence is not very good. The verifiable history of the Norwegian monarchy begins in the late tenth century with Olaf Tryggvason.Stewart BaldwinDo you believe Harald Fairhair existed at all?
Stewart Baldwin
Do you believe Harald Fairhair existed at all?He may have existed, but the evidence is not very good. The verifiable history of the Norwegian monarchy begins in the late tenth century with Olaf Tryggvason.
Stewart BaldwinAre you more inclined towards him having existed or not, though?
On Tuesday, December 7, 2021 at 4:45:25 AM UTC-5, Paulo Ricardo Canedo wrote:
Are you more inclined towards him having existed or not, though?This question implies there is a binary choice when there is not. Its a matter of how
much of what the sagas say about this person is true from 'there never was a guy
names harald' at all to 'there was an ancestor who did one of the things mentioned',
on up.
A terça-feira, 7 de dezembro de 2021 à(s) 07:27:12 UTC, Stewart Baldwin escreveu:
On Monday, December 6, 2021 at 4:23:30 AM UTC-6, Paulo Ricardo Canedo wrote:
Do you believe Harald Fairhair existed at all?He may have existed, but the evidence is not very good. The verifiable history of the Norwegian monarchy begins in the late tenth century with Olaf Tryggvason.
Stewart BaldwinAre you more inclined towards him having existed or not, though?
On Tuesday, December 7, 2021 at 3:45:25 AM UTC-6, Paulo Ricardo Canedo wrote:added, how much "truth" is needed to say that he really existed. If there is a 1 percent grain of truth surrounded by 99 percent fiction, is the 1 percent sufficient to qualify him as having "existed"? What kinds of errors are allowable before the story
A terça-feira, 7 de dezembro de 2021 à(s) 07:27:12 UTC, Stewart Baldwin escreveu:
On Monday, December 6, 2021 at 4:23:30 AM UTC-6, Paulo Ricardo Canedo wrote:
Do you believe Harald Fairhair existed at all?He may have existed, but the evidence is not very good. The verifiable history of the Norwegian monarchy begins in the late tenth century with Olaf Tryggvason.
When you are talking about a legendary figure around whom there have been a huge number of embellishments, what does that question even mean? For example, if there is a tiny grain of underlying truth around which a large amount of fiction has beenStewart BaldwinAre you more inclined towards him having existed or not, though?
Several English sources (John of Worcester, Orderic, etc.) state that in the eleventh century there was a famous Norwegian king named Harald Harfagar, who was killed in 1066 at the Battle of Stamford Bridge by king Harold II of England. Later Icelandicand Norwegian sources called this king Harald Hardrada, and instead applied the nickname Harfagar to an obscure legendary king from the early tenth century. So, to the question of whether or not Harald Fairhair existed, I could legitimately (if
Stewart Baldwin
On Tuesday, December 7, 2021 at 3:45:25 AM UTC-6, Paulo Ricardo Canedo wrote:added, how much "truth" is needed to say that he really existed. If there is a 1 percent grain of truth surrounded by 99 percent fiction, is the 1 percent sufficient to qualify him as having "existed"? What kinds of errors are allowable before the story
A terça-feira, 7 de dezembro de 2021 à(s) 07:27:12 UTC, Stewart Baldwin escreveu:
On Monday, December 6, 2021 at 4:23:30 AM UTC-6, Paulo Ricardo Canedo wrote:
Do you believe Harald Fairhair existed at all?He may have existed, but the evidence is not very good. The verifiable history of the Norwegian monarchy begins in the late tenth century with Olaf Tryggvason.
When you are talking about a legendary figure around whom there have been a huge number of embellishments, what does that question even mean? For example, if there is a tiny grain of underlying truth around which a large amount of fiction has beenStewart BaldwinAre you more inclined towards him having existed or not, though?
Several English sources (John of Worcester, Orderic, etc.) state that in the eleventh century there was a famous Norwegian king named Harald Harfagar, who was killed in 1066 at the Battle of Stamford Bridge by king Harold II of England. Later Icelandicand Norwegian sources called this king Harald Hardrada, and instead applied the nickname Harfagar to an obscure legendary king from the early tenth century. So, to the question of whether or not Harald Fairhair existed, I could legitimately (if
Stewart Baldwin
On Tuesday, December 7, 2021 at 4:07:18 AM UTC-8, joe...@gmail.com wrote:if such an individual could rightly be referred to with the name of the legendary king Harald Fairhair considering how little they would have in common, even if one was the remote basis for the other.
On Tuesday, December 7, 2021 at 4:45:25 AM UTC-5, Paulo Ricardo Canedo wrote:Along these lines, if a Harald existed who was elaborated upon to create the legend, it seems unlikely he was from Vestfold, related to the Inglingas, conquering king of 'all Norway' nor ancestor of the 11th century kings, at which point one has to ask
Are you more inclined towards him having existed or not, though?This question implies there is a binary choice when there is not. Its a matter of how
much of what the sagas say about this person is true from 'there never was a guy
names harald' at all to 'there was an ancestor who did one of the things mentioned',
on up.
taf
Could you, please, expand on why those things are unlikely? I am especially interested in
why it's unlikely he came from Vestfold and was ancestor of later kinga (I know all Norwegian
kings traced descent from him through very doubtful lines but i wonder why some could not,
in fact, have descended from him.
On Thursday, December 9, 2021 at 1:55:19 AM UTC-8, Paulo Ricardo Canedo wrote:slave in Kievan Rus' yet recognized as a royal prince, does not merit serious consideration as reflecting accurate history. We have here an adventurer of obscure origins with an invented pedigree. Turning to Olaf Haraldson, there is every reason to view
Could you, please, expand on why those things are unlikely? I am especially interested inAddressing the second first, the family of Harald Fairhair is clearly a construct, with more than a dozen children that tie into specific stories or specific lines, all with different mothers. The saga account of Olaf Trygvesson, discovered as a child
why it's unlikely he came from Vestfold and was ancestor of later kinga (I know all Norwegian
kings traced descent from him through very doubtful lines but i wonder why some could not,
in fact, have descended from him.
As to Vestfold, I should have said he was not originally from Vestfold. I am going a little from memory here, because it is not worth the effort of digging out sources I haven't looked at for decades. That said, this requires one to first accept thatthere was a historical Harald, son of Halfdan the Black. The latter had a dedicated saga that seems to predate the Heimskringla account. This saga makes no mention of Vestfold, while mentioning lands elsewhere. Coupling this with Heimskringla's clumsy
That said, it is all reading tea leaves and among scholars and genealogists with too much free time, and the more prudent conclusion is the null conclusion - there is so little sourcing, and that so poor of quality, that it is unwise to draw anyconclusions at all.
taf
Thanks. Did the Inglingas exist at all? They are even earlier than Harald Fairhair.
On Thursday, December 9, 2021 at 5:16:01 PM UTC-8, Paulo Ricardo Canedo wrote:was taken as demonstrating Ragnvald existed, and there certainly seems to have been royalty at Vestfold during the approximate period, if the burial mounds are any indication, but I suspect that a lot of the other argumetns made at the time are now
Thanks. Did the Inglingas exist at all? They are even earlier than Harald Fairhair.
I am hampered here in that most of the scholarly material I read on the subject back in the day was generations old even then, so I don't know what the modern thinking is. At least at that time, it was accepted that the skaldic poetry dedicated to him
On 10-Dec-21 12:42 PM, taf wrote:him was taken as demonstrating Ragnvald existed, and there certainly seems to have been royalty at Vestfold during the approximate period, if the burial mounds are any indication, but I suspect that a lot of the other argumetns made at the time are now
On Thursday, December 9, 2021 at 5:16:01 PM UTC-8, Paulo Ricardo Canedo wrote:
Thanks. Did the Inglingas exist at all? They are even earlier than Harald Fairhair.
I am hampered here in that most of the scholarly material I read on the subject back in the day was generations old even then, so I don't know what the modern thinking is. At least at that time, it was accepted that the skaldic poetry dedicated to
Treating Harald Fairhair as a real historical figure is still current in some academic work - for example, Björn Weiler in /Paths to Kingship in Medieval Latin Europe, c. 950–1200/ (Cambridge, 2021) writes (pp. 132-133): "The anonymous 'Historia Norwegie' from c. 1170–5 (though possibly conceived as early as 1152–3) recorded the history of Norwegian kings from their mythical origins in Sweden to the reign of Olaf
Haraldson (d. 1030). The 'Historia' ordered time via the sequence of
rulers ... Writing about a past for which he had only fragmentary information, the anonymous author constructed a strict sequence of son succeeding father. There was no disruption in the line of kings. They
might drown in barrels of mead, disappear into stones in the pursuit of dwarves or be suffocated by goblins, but they were still succeeded by
their sons. The pattern was broken only when the author reached the
reign of Harald Fairhair in the late ninth century – when, in short, he entered historical time. While the sixteen sons attributed to Harald may have been a symbolic rather than an accurate number (other sources
counted twenty), the dynastic wars of the eleventh century were rooted partly in the sheer number of Harald's progeny."
Peter Stewart
Treating Harald Fairhair as a real historical figure is still current in some academic work - for example, Björn Weiler in /Paths to Kingship in Medieval Latin Europe, c. 950–1200/ (Cambridge, 2021) writes[snip]
"While the sixteen sons attributed to Harald may
have been a symbolic rather than an accurate number (other sources
counted twenty), the dynastic wars of the eleventh century were rooted partly in the sheer number of Harald's progeny."
On 10-Dec-21 12:42 PM, taf wrote:him was taken as demonstrating Ragnvald existed, and there certainly seems to have been royalty at Vestfold during the approximate period, if the burial mounds are any indication, but I suspect that a lot of the other argumetns made at the time are now
On Thursday, December 9, 2021 at 5:16:01 PM UTC-8, Paulo Ricardo Canedo wrote:
Thanks. Did the Inglingas exist at all? They are even earlier than Harald Fairhair.
I am hampered here in that most of the scholarly material I read on the subject back in the day was generations old even then, so I don't know what the modern thinking is. At least at that time, it was accepted that the skaldic poetry dedicated to
Treating Harald Fairhair as a real historical figure is still current in some academic work - for example, Björn Weiler in /Paths to Kingship in Medieval Latin Europe, c. 950–1200/ (Cambridge, 2021) writes (pp. 132-133): "The anonymous 'Historia Norwegie' from c. 1170–5 (though possibly conceived as early as 1152–3) recorded the history of Norwegian kings from their mythical origins in Sweden to the reign of Olaf
Haraldson (d. 1030). The 'Historia' ordered time via the sequence of
rulers ... Writing about a past for which he had only fragmentary information, the anonymous author constructed a strict sequence of son succeeding father. There was no disruption in the line of kings. They
might drown in barrels of mead, disappear into stones in the pursuit of dwarves or be suffocated by goblins, but they were still succeeded by
their sons. The pattern was broken only when the author reached the
reign of Harald Fairhair in the late ninth century – when, in short, he entered historical time. While the sixteen sons attributed to Harald may have been a symbolic rather than an accurate number (other sources
counted twenty), the dynastic wars of the eleventh century were rooted partly in the sheer number of Harald's progeny."
Peter Stewart
On Thursday, December 9, 2021 at 7:58:44 PM UTC-8, pss...@optusnet.com.au wrote:
Treating Harald Fairhair as a real historical figure is still current in[snip]
some academic work - for example, Björn Weiler in /Paths to Kingship in
Medieval Latin Europe, c. 950–1200/ (Cambridge, 2021) writes
"While the sixteen sons attributed to Harald may
have been a symbolic rather than an accurate number (other sources
counted twenty), the dynastic wars of the eleventh century were rooted
partly in the sheer number of Harald's progeny."
Of course, Weiler's view presupposes that they were 'dynastic wars' to begin with. The alternative scenario is that 'the sheer number of Harald's progeny' was rooted in a recasting of a non-dynastic free-for-all as if it was dynastic in nature.
Thanks. Did the Inglingas exist at all?
On Thursday, December 9, 2021 at 7:16:01 PM UTC-6, Paulo Ricardo Canedo wrote:century and later sources, and would therefore qualify as Ynglings themselves on that basis.
Thanks. Did the Inglingas exist at all?The answer to this would have to be almost certainly not, unless you wanted to make a convoluted argument that historical kings from the twelfth century and later believed themselves to be descended from kings who were called Ynglings in the twelfth
Stewart BaldwinIs Ragnvald no longer considered historic? Also, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yngling calls them semi-historic and says some of them may have been real.
A sábado, 11 de dezembro de 2021 à(s) 05:37:28 UTC, Stewart Baldwin escreveu:century and later sources, and would therefore qualify as Ynglings themselves on that basis.
On Thursday, December 9, 2021 at 7:16:01 PM UTC-6, Paulo Ricardo Canedo wrote:
Thanks. Did the Inglingas exist at all?The answer to this would have to be almost certainly not, unless you wanted to make a convoluted argument that historical kings from the twelfth century and later believed themselves to be descended from kings who were called Ynglings in the twelfth
Is Ragnvald no longer considered historic? Also, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yngling calls them semi-historic and says some of them may have been real.
Stewart Baldwin
Op vrijdag 10 december 2021 om 04:58:44 UTC+1 schreef pss...@optusnet.com.au:him was taken as demonstrating Ragnvald existed, and there certainly seems to have been royalty at Vestfold during the approximate period, if the burial mounds are any indication, but I suspect that a lot of the other argumetns made at the time are now
On 10-Dec-21 12:42 PM, taf wrote:
On Thursday, December 9, 2021 at 5:16:01 PM UTC-8, Paulo Ricardo Canedo wrote:
Thanks. Did the Inglingas exist at all? They are even earlier than Harald Fairhair.
I am hampered here in that most of the scholarly material I read on the subject back in the day was generations old even then, so I don't know what the modern thinking is. At least at that time, it was accepted that the skaldic poetry dedicated to
Treating Harald Fairhair as a real historical figure is still current in some academic work - for example, Björn Weiler in /Paths to Kingship in Medieval Latin Europe, c. 950–1200/ (Cambridge, 2021) writes (pp. 132-133): "The anonymous 'Historia Norwegie' from c. 1170–5 (though possibly conceived as early as 1152–3) recorded the history of Norwegian kings from their mythical origins in Sweden to the reign of Olaf
Haraldson (d. 1030). The 'Historia' ordered time via the sequence of rulers ... Writing about a past for which he had only fragmentary information, the anonymous author constructed a strict sequence of son succeeding father. There was no disruption in the line of kings. They might drown in barrels of mead, disappear into stones in the pursuit of dwarves or be suffocated by goblins, but they were still succeeded by their sons. The pattern was broken only when the author reached the
reign of Harald Fairhair in the late ninth century – when, in short, he entered historical time. While the sixteen sons attributed to Harald may have been a symbolic rather than an accurate number (other sources
counted twenty), the dynastic wars of the eleventh century were rooted partly in the sheer number of Harald's progeny."
Peter Stewarthttps://www.academia.edu/5676309/Historia_Norwegie
Hans Vogels
Op vrijdag 10 december 2021 om 08:14:08 UTC+1 schreef Hans Vogels:him was taken as demonstrating Ragnvald existed, and there certainly seems to have been royalty at Vestfold during the approximate period, if the burial mounds are any indication, but I suspect that a lot of the other argumetns made at the time are now
Op vrijdag 10 december 2021 om 04:58:44 UTC+1 schreef pss...@optusnet.com.au:
On 10-Dec-21 12:42 PM, taf wrote:
On Thursday, December 9, 2021 at 5:16:01 PM UTC-8, Paulo Ricardo Canedo wrote:
Thanks. Did the Inglingas exist at all? They are even earlier than Harald Fairhair.
I am hampered here in that most of the scholarly material I read on the subject back in the day was generations old even then, so I don't know what the modern thinking is. At least at that time, it was accepted that the skaldic poetry dedicated to
Treating Harald Fairhair as a real historical figure is still current in >>> some academic work - for example, Björn Weiler in /Paths to Kingship in >>> Medieval Latin Europe, c. 950–1200/ (Cambridge, 2021) writes (pp.https://www.academia.edu/5676309/Historia_Norwegie
132-133): "The anonymous 'Historia Norwegie' from c. 1170–5 (though
possibly conceived as early as 1152–3) recorded the history of Norwegian >>> kings from their mythical origins in Sweden to the reign of Olaf
Haraldson (d. 1030). The 'Historia' ordered time via the sequence of
rulers ... Writing about a past for which he had only fragmentary
information, the anonymous author constructed a strict sequence of son
succeeding father. There was no disruption in the line of kings. They
might drown in barrels of mead, disappear into stones in the pursuit of
dwarves or be suffocated by goblins, but they were still succeeded by
their sons. The pattern was broken only when the author reached the
reign of Harald Fairhair in the late ninth century – when, in short, he >>> entered historical time. While the sixteen sons attributed to Harald may >>> have been a symbolic rather than an accurate number (other sources
counted twenty), the dynastic wars of the eleventh century were rooted
partly in the sheer number of Harald's progeny."
Peter Stewart
Hans Vogels
https://www.academia.edu/7849058/Kings_sagas_and_Norwegian_history_problems_and_perspectives
On Saturday, December 4, 2021 at 7:06:07 AM UTC-6, hansvog...@gmail.com wrote:
The vikings are again a popular subject. I bumped yesterday into two other papers elswhere.
https://www.academia.edu/62070193/Rolf_the_Ganger_NOT_the_first_Count_of_RouenThis one stood out as garbage before the end of the first page.
https://www.academia.edu/search?q=Vikings%20on%20the%20river%20Somme
This one took a bit longer, but I still found nothing to recommend it.
Stewart Baldwin
On Sunday, December 5, 2021 at 4:17:55 AM UTC-6, hansvog...@gmail.com wrote:credible.
Op zondag 5 december 2021 om 02:01:59 UTC+1 schreef Stewart Baldwin:
On Saturday, December 4, 2021 at 7:06:07 AM UTC-6, hansvog...@gmail.com wrote:
The vikings are again a popular subject. I bumped yesterday into two other papers elswhere.
Too many absurdities to list, but one pretty obvious one is the claim to have narrowed down the death of Harald Fairhair to between 20 and 25 March 851. For someone first mentioned in sources from a few centuries later, this is not even close to beingLike I wrote (more viking fun) with a lot 'what ifs'.https://www.academia.edu/62070193/Rolf_the_Ganger_NOT_the_first_Count_of_RouenThis one stood out as garbage before the end of the first page.
Would you care to elaborate on the eye-catching misconceptions?
Stewart BaldwinOn what basis? Clearly you have not read my book - yet you feel able to pontificate?
On Sunday, December 5, 2021 at 5:58:15 PM UTC-5, Stewart Baldwin wrote:being credible.
Too many absurdities to list, but one pretty obvious one is the claim to have narrowed down the death of Harald Fairhair to between 20 and 25 March 851. For someone first mentioned in sources from a few centuries later, this is not even close toLike I wrote (more viking fun) with a lot 'what ifs'.https://www.academia.edu/62070193/Rolf_the_Ganger_NOT_the_first_Count_of_RouenThis one stood out as garbage before the end of the first page.
Would you care to elaborate on the eye-catching misconceptions?
I know you mean "birth of"; but that only makes it more hilarious. The idea that we can 'determine' the birthdate of someone who is far more legendary than historical, and whose parents were only 'named' in surviving sources nearly *350 years* afterthe fact..is...silly.
This author (a retired computers teacher?) has a very broad set of subjects that they post papers on, from this, to analyzing Jesus's pre-teen years; and shows an over-abundance of surety in his conclusions (like the exact locations and dates for KingArthur's battles) that no amateur, and no expert would ever claim merely by re-examining sources that have been available for hundreds of years.
I don't recommend this author's work in any way whatsoever.Clearly you have not read the book. Pretty well every book on Arthur claims to be able to locate the battles. Naturally I think I have got them right when everyone else has got them wrong - but obviously you need to read the rationale. Try arguing
--Joe C
Maybe you could explain why you start by saying that he was born 846 "traditionally" without citing any sources for that specific year.
when *I* look at what I consider "traditional" sources, they don't state any birth year at all, or even any way to determine a prospective birthyear
On Thursday, January 6, 2022 at 7:50:10 PM UTC, wjhons...@gmail.com wrote:don't know where these dates came from before that and I agree/accept that tracing it back would have been helpful.
Maybe you could explain why you start by saying that he was born 846 "traditionally" without citing any sources for that specific year.
when *I* look at what I consider "traditional" sources, they don't state any birth year at all, or even any way to determine a prospective birthyearFirst of all thank you for an intelligent question instead of the invective spewed out by some other members of this group who should know better.
My starting point both for Rolf and for Harald Tanglehair (the year not the month and day!!) was the Fordham translation of Snorri. I assumed that these dates were interpolated, but I am confident that the translator did not pull them out of the air. I
I treated these dates with some scepticism and there are others offered which I have rejected - so, for example, Haakon Ericsson was born c990 - NOT 998 and so too I have a different date for his father Eric Haakonsson. Had the numbers not worked out Iwould have argued for (a) different date(s) and frankly I was surprised when these dates slotted in to the rest of the timeframe so well. By the way it was Haakon Ericsson who martyred St Aelfege.
The one anomaly was that at that time (20 years ago now) "everyone" assumed that Rolf=Rollo and I cannot get my head round why anyone would have done this. This made for Rolf having three names and marrying at a silly age and bending the kneecompletely contrary to his nature. So there was a problem and this is why others have sought different ways to resolve it. However once I knew about Rolf's daughter Caitlin the pattern began to emerge. There is very little wiggle room for the date of
By the way there is a logic to the date for Harald's birth - but Stewart Baldwin was so insulting and unprofessional that I will invite anyone interested to read the argument in my book (Volume II).authority on anything. The scientific method is to advance a hypothesis and invite people to shoot it down. Insulting invective usually means "Oh dear my reputation is about to be trashed because my pet theories are about to be refuted" and this arises
I will take this opportunity to sound off further regarding the poo-pooers in this forum. They (not you, of course) are the reason that history, as a discipline is in such a shambles. No-one should be regarded as or attempt to claim to be "the"
On Thursday, January 6, 2022 at 7:50:10 PM UTC, wjhons...@gmail.com wrote:
Maybe you could explain why you start by saying that he was born 846 "traditionally" without citing any sources for that specific year.
when *I* look at what I consider "traditional" sources, they don't state any birth year at all, or even any way to determine a prospective birthyearFirst of all thank you for an intelligent question instead of the invective spewed out by some other members of this group who should know better.
My starting point both for Rolf and for Harald Tanglehair (the year not the month and day!!) was the Fordham translation of Snorri. I assumed that these dates were interpolated, but I am confident that the translator did not pull them out of the air. Idon't know where these dates came from before that and I agree/accept that tracing it back would have been helpful.
I treated these dates with some scepticism and there are others offered which I have rejected - so, for example, Haakon Ericsson was born c990 - NOT 998 and so too I have a different date for his father Eric Haakonsson. Had the numbers not worked out Iwould have argued for (a) different date(s) and frankly I was surprised when these dates slotted in to the rest of the timeframe so well. By the way it was Haakon Ericsson who martyred St Aelfege.
The one anomaly was that at that time (20 years ago now) "everyone" assumed that Rolf=Rollo and I cannot get my head round why anyone would have done this. This made for Rolf having three names and marrying at a silly age and bending the kneecompletely contrary to his nature. So there was a problem and this is why others have sought different ways to resolve it. However once I knew about Rolf's daughter Caitlin the pattern began to emerge. There is very little wiggle room for the date of
By the way there is a logic to the date for Harald's birth - but Stewart Baldwin was so insulting and unprofessional that I will invite anyone interested to read the argument in my book (Volume II).
I will take this opportunity to sound off further regarding the poo-pooers in this forum. They (not you, of course) are the reason that history, as a discipline is in such a shambles.
No-one should be regarded as or attempt to claim to be "the" authority on anything.
The scientific method is to advance a hypothesis and invite people to shoot it down. Insulting invective usually means "Oh dear my reputation is about to be trashed because my pet theories are about to be refuted" and this arises from an excessive urgeto pontificate in the past. All my papers are up for scrutiny and if someone has something intelligent to say which turns into a killer fact... great - this is how scholarship advances.
On Thursday, January 6, 2022 at 1:28:31 PM UTC-8, AC Grant wrote:I don't know where these dates came from before that and I agree/accept that tracing it back would have been helpful.
On Thursday, January 6, 2022 at 7:50:10 PM UTC, wjhons...@gmail.com wrote:
Maybe you could explain why you start by saying that he was born 846 "traditionally" without citing any sources for that specific year.
when *I* look at what I consider "traditional" sources, they don't state any birth year at all, or even any way to determine a prospective birthyearFirst of all thank you for an intelligent question instead of the invective spewed out by some other members of this group who should know better.
My starting point both for Rolf and for Harald Tanglehair (the year not the month and day!!) was the Fordham translation of Snorri. I assumed that these dates were interpolated, but I am confident that the translator did not pull them out of the air.
I would have argued for (a) different date(s) and frankly I was surprised when these dates slotted in to the rest of the timeframe so well. By the way it was Haakon Ericsson who martyred St Aelfege.I treated these dates with some scepticism and there are others offered which I have rejected - so, for example, Haakon Ericsson was born c990 - NOT 998 and so too I have a different date for his father Eric Haakonsson. Had the numbers not worked out
completely contrary to his nature. So there was a problem and this is why others have sought different ways to resolve it. However once I knew about Rolf's daughter Caitlin the pattern began to emerge. There is very little wiggle room for the date ofThe one anomaly was that at that time (20 years ago now) "everyone" assumed that Rolf=Rollo and I cannot get my head round why anyone would have done this. This made for Rolf having three names and marrying at a silly age and bending the knee
authority on anything. The scientific method is to advance a hypothesis and invite people to shoot it down. Insulting invective usually means "Oh dear my reputation is about to be trashed because my pet theories are about to be refuted" and this arisesBy the way there is a logic to the date for Harald's birth - but Stewart Baldwin was so insulting and unprofessional that I will invite anyone interested to read the argument in my book (Volume II).
I will take this opportunity to sound off further regarding the poo-pooers in this forum. They (not you, of course) are the reason that history, as a discipline is in such a shambles. No-one should be regarded as or attempt to claim to be "the"
Will you post the full bibliographic citation for this Fordham translationOK, my apologies, I had misremembered. What I thought I was referring to was the Sunsite at Berkeley, but for the "traditional" date try googling "Harald Fairhair 850" and you will see many sources. This is what I took to be "traditional". However that
On Thursday, January 6, 2022 at 3:28:31 PM UTC-6, AC Grant wrote:in more obscure language. I'm sorry that it works out that way, but I felt that the less experienced readers deserved to know my honest opinion.
On Thursday, January 6, 2022 at 7:50:10 PM UTC, wjhons...@gmail.com wrote:
Maybe you could explain why you start by saying that he was born 846 "traditionally" without citing any sources for that specific year.
I apologize for my previous use of the word "garbage" in reference to your work, which was insensitive on my part. However, any honest opinion which I could have given, however skillfully worded, would have essentially amounted to saying the same thingwhen *I* look at what I consider "traditional" sources, they don't state any birth year at all, or even any way to determine a prospective birthyearFirst of all thank you for an intelligent question instead of the invective spewed out by some other members of this group who should know better.
I don't know where these dates came from before that and I agree/accept that tracing it back would have been helpful.My starting point both for Rolf and for Harald Tanglehair (the year not the month and day!!) was the Fordham translation of Snorri. I assumed that these dates were interpolated, but I am confident that the translator did not pull them out of the air.
Not only helpful, but absolutely essential to the argument. So, what you are saying is that you took a ninth century year from an interpolation by a modern translator of a thirteenth century work, not knowing the ultimate source, because you wereconfident that the date was not pulled out of thin air! The fact that you readily confess to such carelessness suggests that, at the very least, you do not fully appreciate how inappropriate this is for a supposedly serious study.
I would have argued for (a) different date(s) and frankly I was surprised when these dates slotted in to the rest of the timeframe so well. By the way it was Haakon Ericsson who martyred St Aelfege.I treated these dates with some scepticism and there are others offered which I have rejected - so, for example, Haakon Ericsson was born c990 - NOT 998 and so too I have a different date for his father Eric Haakonsson. Had the numbers not worked out
completely contrary to his nature. So there was a problem and this is why others have sought different ways to resolve it. However once I knew about Rolf's daughter Caitlin the pattern began to emerge. There is very little wiggle room for the date ofThe one anomaly was that at that time (20 years ago now) "everyone" assumed that Rolf=Rollo and I cannot get my head round why anyone would have done this. This made for Rolf having three names and marrying at a silly age and bending the knee
suggestion to be taken seriously, you should have a better response than "read my book" (should I translate this as "buy my book"?).By the way there is a logic to the date for Harald's birth - but Stewart Baldwin was so insulting and unprofessional that I will invite anyone interested to read the argument in my book (Volume II).Huh? So, since you are upset by something written by me, others who wish to know the "logic to the date for Harald's birth" are invited to read it for themselves in your book, somewhere (no page citations?) in volume II? If you really want this
I don't think this is at all unfairI will take this opportunity to sound off further regarding the poo-pooers in this forum. They (not you, of course) are the reason that history, as a discipline is in such a shambles.
No-one should be regarded as or attempt to claim to be "the" authority on anything.True, but it is unfair for you to insinuate that anyone in this forum has made such a claim, and to use that to present yourself as an injured party.
urge to pontificate in the past. All my papers are up for scrutiny and if someone has something intelligent to say which turns into a killer fact... great - this is how scholarship advances.The scientific method is to advance a hypothesis and invite people to shoot it down. Insulting invective usually means "Oh dear my reputation is about to be trashed because my pet theories are about to be refuted" and this arises from an excessive
Such a "killer fact" was in fact advanced in this thread (although I erroneously said death date instead of birth date): Your claim to have narrowed down a birthdate (to within five days) of a legendary individual who is never mentioned in any knownsource written within a few centuries of that alleged birthdate, is a claim of extraordinary proportions, and extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.
In a different posting, you berated me for criticizing your work without reading your book. I have only so much time, and before I read a book, I like to believe that it will be worth my time to do so. For a much less extravagant claim on a subject ofinterest to me, I am willing to read a journal article. For an extraordinarily implausible claim in which I am being asked to read an entire book, simply in the hope of finding an explanation somewhere within it pages, I am generally not going to bother.
Stewart Baldwin
On Friday, January 7, 2022 at 6:55:43 AM UTC-5, AC Grant wrote:dates are indeed inserted. But no, I had misremembered. However if you google Rolf Ganger 846 you will find many such references. This is why I referred to it as "traditional". But the authenticity - like the ultimate source - does not actually matter
Again my apologies. First it was not Fordham (which I have been using recently for many sources - they are doing an excellent job). What I thought I was referring to was Sunsite at Berkeley - again doing a super job - where several (at least putative)
of his mother whose appeal was based on Rolf's youth. So on the one hand we have someone old enough to be in charge of his own boat and on the other hand someone young enough to be given easy treatment because of his youth. That narrows the age to c14-16.Rolf was exiled because he had sought to take revenge on Harald (well really on his maternal uncle Guthrum) for the death of his father Ragnvald of the Uplands - probably by blood eagling. He would have suffered the same fate but for the intervention
by 827/830 he would have been over 80. Errr.... no. Added grist to the mill that he died in 911 and this is what allowed Rollo, now acting in his own right, to bend the knee convert to Christianity, become a count - a liege man to the king of France -So assuming, as I do, the trial c862 that makes his birth 846. On the other end, because he was "too stout" for any horse to carry him it is unreasonable to expect a long life for him - and by 911 he would have been 65 (getting married again????) and
pre-dates the conflation with Catherine (see my paper on this name on academia).][By the way there is an implicit error in my book (but only I spotted it and only this year): I assumed that because Rolf's daughter was called Caitlin and hence also his wife then it was likely she was Christian. She may well have been, but the name
trust he knew what he was talking about"; even though the things of which I write were 250 years before my time so I could not possibly have any useful direct insight to provide? Does my claim become more likely with age? The Sagas were written in theHmmm.... why am I rewriting my book?..... Please get your own copy....You are missing a big (important) point. If I wrote a book today that George Washington had a secret girlfriend named "Frannie".... do you think a scholar a thousand years from now should pick up my book and say "well, this book is ancient; I should
Anyway, I had a real question; you say that his dad was most likely to die on March 25th because that's when New Year's started back then? 1) why is someone more likely to die on New Year's Day, (late night partying??) 2) What is the source that theIcelandic Sagas would consider March 25th the 9th century Icelandic new year? I thought it was Sumardagurinn fyrsti in April... (Norway had the same 9th century new year of April...)
--Joe CHa ha ha ha .... Clearly you have no idea how Halfdan the Black died. Why not read the Saga? It is freely available online. I do explain this in the book - so why not buy a copy? I would not expect readers of my book to have much if any background
Again my apologies. First it was not Fordham (which I have been using recently for many sources - they are doing an excellent job). What I thought I was referring to was Sunsite at Berkeley - again doing a super job - where several (at least putative)dates are indeed inserted. But no, I had misremembered. However if you google Rolf Ganger 846 you will find many such references. This is why I referred to it as "traditional". But the authenticity - like the ultimate source - does not actually matter at
Rolf was exiled because he had sought to take revenge on Harald (well really on his maternal uncle Guthrum) for the death of his father Ragnvald of the Uplands - probably by blood eagling. He would have suffered the same fate but for the interventionof his mother whose appeal was based on Rolf's youth. So on the one hand we have someone old enough to be in charge of his own boat and on the other hand someone young enough to be given easy treatment because of his youth. That narrows the age to c14-16.
So assuming, as I do, the trial c862 that makes his birth 846. On the other end, because he was "too stout" for any horse to carry him it is unreasonable to expect a long life for him - and by 911 he would have been 65 (getting married again????) andby 827/830 he would have been over 80. Errr.... no. Added grist to the mill that he died in 911 and this is what allowed Rollo, now acting in his own right, to bend the knee convert to Christianity, become a count - a liege man to the king of France -
[By the way there is an implicit error in my book (but only I spotted it and only this year): I assumed that because Rolf's daughter was called Caitlin and hence also his wife then it was likely she was Christian. She may well have been, but the namepre-dates the conflation with Catherine (see my paper on this name on academia).]
Hmmm.... why am I rewriting my book?..... Please get your own copy....
Between April 1 850 and January 1 2022 there were 427,970 days, an error of 10 days either way is therefore 99.9766% accurate - so a 0.0234% error... [PS for all I know you may be right about April 9th vs March 25th - there was a date adjustment which may account for this - but it makes not a scrap of material difference beyond extending the date range I offer from about 5 days to nearly 20.]In mathematics, we call this a 400% error.
I agree; I'll stay quiet now until I read your entire work. But it isn't high on my to-do list and may be a while.
--Joe C
Ha ha ha ha .... Clearly you have no idea how Halfdan the Black died. Why not read the Saga? It is freely available online. I do explain this in the book - so why not buy a copy? I would not expect readers of my book to have much if any backgroundknowledge but surely in a dedicated forum such as this I should not expect people actually revelling in ignorance and being unwilling to make even elementary enquiries before scoffing (which only serves to parade this ignorance). [PS for all I know you
Halfdan the Black died because the ice cracked beneath him as he was crossing a lake. So at what time of year would he take a chance on such a thing and it costs him his life? Not in midwinter and unlikely in autumn when the ice is not yet reliablythick. The only sensible time would be early March (conceivably late February). [I appreciate there is an element of wiggle room here as I don't know exactly what the climate conditions were at that place in that era and there have been climate
On Friday, January 7, 2022 at 4:28:00 PM UTC, joe...@gmail.com wrote:
Between April 1 850 and January 1 2022 there were 427,970 days, an error of 10 days either way is therefore 99.9766% accurate - so a 0.0234% error... [PS for all I know you may be right about April 9th vs March 25th - there was a date adjustment which may account for this - but it makes not a scrap of material difference beyond extending the date range I offer from about 5 days to nearly 20.]In mathematics, we call this a 400% error.
Please provide a full bibliographic citation to where you got the birth year of 846If you cannot even keep up with the thread then really what is the point?
On Friday, January 7, 2022 at 9:03:23 PM UTC, wjhons...@gmail.com wrote:
Please provide a full bibliographic citation to where you got the birth year of 846If you cannot even keep up with the thread then really what is the point? I'll give you a clue: it was one of my answers/contributions...
On Friday, January 7, 2022 at 1:09:35 PM UTC-8, AC Grant wrote:
On Friday, January 7, 2022 at 9:03:23 PM UTC, wjhons...@gmail.com wrote:Yes you said "Google it".
Please provide a full bibliographic citation to where you got the birth year of 846If you cannot even keep up with the thread then really what is the point? I'll give you a clue: it was one of my answers/contributions...
That's not a bibliographic citation
On Friday, January 7, 2022 at 10:03:11 PM UTC, wjhons...@gmail.com wrote:is why I referred to it as "traditional" because it is the one that people use. What you seem to be deliberately avoiding is that I came to exactly the same date by logic using both Snorri and the Landnamabok. The confusion of the past is that everyone
On Friday, January 7, 2022 at 1:50:30 PM UTC-8, Will Johnson wrote:
On Friday, January 7, 2022 at 1:09:35 PM UTC-8, AC Grant wrote:It is a tragedy when people purporting to be credible authors, have to resort to feigning ignorance of the source material, almost entirely.
On Friday, January 7, 2022 at 9:03:23 PM UTC, wjhons...@gmail.com wrote:Yes you said "Google it".
Please provide a full bibliographic citation to where you got the birth year of 846If you cannot even keep up with the thread then really what is the point?
I'll give you a clue: it was one of my answers/contributions...
That's not a bibliographic citation
https://books.google.com/books?id=sV7OjiabkcUC&newbks=1&newbks_redir=0&dq=heimskringla&pg=PA38#v=onepage&q=ganger&f=falseWell I checked the link you posted and nothing of relevance emerged. The copy of Snorri which I used was the one on Berkeley's Sunsite. I am not aware of any "bibliographical citation" for 846 - but it is the date that comes up if you google it. That
On Friday, January 7, 2022 at 10:03:11 PM UTC, wjhons...@gmail.com wrote:is why I referred to it as "traditional" because it is the one that people use. What you seem to be deliberately avoiding is that I came to exactly the same date by logic using both Snorri and the Landnamabok. The confusion of the past is that everyone
On Friday, January 7, 2022 at 1:50:30 PM UTC-8, Will Johnson wrote:
On Friday, January 7, 2022 at 1:09:35 PM UTC-8, AC Grant wrote:It is a tragedy when people purporting to be credible authors, have to resort to feigning ignorance of the source material, almost entirely.
On Friday, January 7, 2022 at 9:03:23 PM UTC, wjhons...@gmail.com wrote:Yes you said "Google it".
Please provide a full bibliographic citation to where you got the birth year of 846If you cannot even keep up with the thread then really what is the point?
I'll give you a clue: it was one of my answers/contributions...
That's not a bibliographic citation
https://books.google.com/books?id=sV7OjiabkcUC&newbks=1&newbks_redir=0&dq=heimskringla&pg=PA38#v=onepage&q=ganger&f=falseWell I checked the link you posted and nothing of relevance emerged. The copy of Snorri which I used was the one on Berkeley's Sunsite. I am not aware of any "bibliographical citation" for 846 - but it is the date that comes up if you google it. That
On Friday, January 7, 2022 at 2:20:55 PM UTC-8, AC Grant wrote:is why I referred to it as "traditional" because it is the one that people use. What you seem to be deliberately avoiding is that I came to exactly the same date by logic using both Snorri and the Landnamabok. The confusion of the past is that everyone
On Friday, January 7, 2022 at 10:03:11 PM UTC, wjhons...@gmail.com wrote:
On Friday, January 7, 2022 at 1:50:30 PM UTC-8, Will Johnson wrote:
On Friday, January 7, 2022 at 1:09:35 PM UTC-8, AC Grant wrote:It is a tragedy when people purporting to be credible authors, have to resort to feigning ignorance of the source material, almost entirely.
On Friday, January 7, 2022 at 9:03:23 PM UTC, wjhons...@gmail.com wrote:Yes you said "Google it".
Please provide a full bibliographic citation to where you got the birth year of 846If you cannot even keep up with the thread then really what is the point?
I'll give you a clue: it was one of my answers/contributions...
That's not a bibliographic citation
https://books.google.com/books?id=sV7OjiabkcUC&newbks=1&newbks_redir=0&dq=heimskringla&pg=PA38#v=onepage&q=ganger&f=falseWell I checked the link you posted and nothing of relevance emerged. The copy of Snorri which I used was the one on Berkeley's Sunsite. I am not aware of any "bibliographical citation" for 846 - but it is the date that comes up if you google it. That
Here is a thought.
When you are writing a paper that you people to take *seriously* as a Serious Reseacher
Stop. Using. Google.
Google is not your friend as a serious researcher. Google BOOKS is another story.
As you should be able to see clearly there is NO source whatsoever in this entire universe, that can credibly support 846 as a specific birthyear.
We have a *few* a VERY few datapoints for his *entire life*. Beginning to end.You really don't get it do you? And you have not read my post. It is of no consequence that there is a "source" claiming 846. What I said, which is correct, is that this is what is the urban myth; this is the "traditional" date (which is used mainly by
Nothing allows us to say, even within a *decade* what year he might be born.
The link I posted, is relevant as you can see, because it says nothing about his age, birth, or any other thing that allows us to pinpoint this data.
I'm in the process of deleting all the utter nonsense people have spewed all over Wikipedia. That might help.
On Friday, January 7, 2022 at 1:50:30 PM UTC-8, Will Johnson wrote:Well I checked the link you posted and nothing of relevance emerged. The copy of Snorri which I used was the one on Berkeley's Sunsite. I am not aware of any "bibliographical citation" for 846 - but it is the date that comes up if you google it. That is
On Friday, January 7, 2022 at 1:09:35 PM UTC-8, AC Grant wrote:It is a tragedy when people purporting to be credible authors, have to resort to feigning ignorance of the source material, almost entirely.
On Friday, January 7, 2022 at 9:03:23 PM UTC, wjhons...@gmail.com wrote:Yes you said "Google it".
Please provide a full bibliographic citation to where you got the birth year of 846If you cannot even keep up with the thread then really what is the point?
I'll give you a clue: it was one of my answers/contributions...
That's not a bibliographic citation
https://books.google.com/books?id=sV7OjiabkcUC&newbks=1&newbks_redir=0&dq=heimskringla&pg=PA38#v=onepage&q=ganger&f=false
On Friday, January 7, 2022 at 2:20:55 PM UTC-8, AC Grant wrote:is why I referred to it as "traditional" because it is the one that people use. What you seem to be deliberately avoiding is that I came to exactly the same date by logic using both Snorri and the Landnamabok. The confusion of the past is that everyone
On Friday, January 7, 2022 at 10:03:11 PM UTC, wjhons...@gmail.com wrote:
On Friday, January 7, 2022 at 1:50:30 PM UTC-8, Will Johnson wrote:
On Friday, January 7, 2022 at 1:09:35 PM UTC-8, AC Grant wrote:It is a tragedy when people purporting to be credible authors, have to resort to feigning ignorance of the source material, almost entirely.
On Friday, January 7, 2022 at 9:03:23 PM UTC, wjhons...@gmail.com wrote:Yes you said "Google it".
Please provide a full bibliographic citation to where you got the birth year of 846If you cannot even keep up with the thread then really what is the point?
I'll give you a clue: it was one of my answers/contributions...
That's not a bibliographic citation
https://books.google.com/books?id=sV7OjiabkcUC&newbks=1&newbks_redir=0&dq=heimskringla&pg=PA38#v=onepage&q=ganger&f=falseWell I checked the link you posted and nothing of relevance emerged. The copy of Snorri which I used was the one on Berkeley's Sunsite. I am not aware of any "bibliographical citation" for 846 - but it is the date that comes up if you google it. That
By the way you absolutely did *not* come to this same date by "logic" using Snorri and the Landnamabok.Well you are simply wrong here
NEITHER sources say *anything remotely* of relevance to the establishment of a specific year.
That you continue to argue when the sources are presented blank-face in front of youYou mean you wish you had thought of it first..... Sorry.....
Shows that you are not a serious researcher at all
You should take down your paper, and exile yourself to the most remote island of the Hebrides in shame.
On Friday, January 7, 2022 at 2:20:55 PM UTC-8, AC Grant wrote:is why I referred to it as "traditional" because it is the one that people use. What you seem to be deliberately avoiding is that I came to exactly the same date by logic using both Snorri and the Landnamabok. The confusion of the past is that everyone
On Friday, January 7, 2022 at 10:03:11 PM UTC, wjhons...@gmail.com wrote:
On Friday, January 7, 2022 at 1:50:30 PM UTC-8, Will Johnson wrote:
On Friday, January 7, 2022 at 1:09:35 PM UTC-8, AC Grant wrote:It is a tragedy when people purporting to be credible authors, have to resort to feigning ignorance of the source material, almost entirely.
On Friday, January 7, 2022 at 9:03:23 PM UTC, wjhons...@gmail.com wrote:Yes you said "Google it".
Please provide a full bibliographic citation to where you got the birth year of 846If you cannot even keep up with the thread then really what is the point?
I'll give you a clue: it was one of my answers/contributions...
That's not a bibliographic citation
https://books.google.com/books?id=sV7OjiabkcUC&newbks=1&newbks_redir=0&dq=heimskringla&pg=PA38#v=onepage&q=ganger&f=falseWell I checked the link you posted and nothing of relevance emerged. The copy of Snorri which I used was the one on Berkeley's Sunsite. I am not aware of any "bibliographical citation" for 846 - but it is the date that comes up if you google it. That
Here is a thought.
When you are writing a paper that you people to take *seriously* as a Serious Reseacher
Stop. Using. Google.
Google is not your friend as a serious researcher. Google BOOKS is another story.
As you should be able to see clearly there is NO source whatsoever in this entire universe, that can credibly support 846 as a specific birthyear.
We have a *few* a VERY few datapoints for his *entire life*. Beginning to end.
Nothing allows us to say, even within a *decade* what year he might be born.
The link I posted, is relevant as you can see, because it says nothing about his age, birth, or any other thing that allows us to pinpoint this data.
I'm in the process of deleting all the utter nonsense people have spewed all over Wikipedia. That might help.
On Friday, January 7, 2022 at 10:59:34 PM UTC, wjhons...@gmail.com wrote:That is why I referred to it as "traditional" because it is the one that people use. What you seem to be deliberately avoiding is that I came to exactly the same date by logic using both Snorri and the Landnamabok. The confusion of the past is that
On Friday, January 7, 2022 at 2:20:55 PM UTC-8, AC Grant wrote:
On Friday, January 7, 2022 at 10:03:11 PM UTC, wjhons...@gmail.com wrote:
On Friday, January 7, 2022 at 1:50:30 PM UTC-8, Will Johnson wrote:
On Friday, January 7, 2022 at 1:09:35 PM UTC-8, AC Grant wrote:It is a tragedy when people purporting to be credible authors, have to resort to feigning ignorance of the source material, almost entirely.
On Friday, January 7, 2022 at 9:03:23 PM UTC, wjhons...@gmail.com wrote:Yes you said "Google it".
Please provide a full bibliographic citation to where you got the birth year of 846If you cannot even keep up with the thread then really what is the point?
I'll give you a clue: it was one of my answers/contributions...
That's not a bibliographic citation
https://books.google.com/books?id=sV7OjiabkcUC&newbks=1&newbks_redir=0&dq=heimskringla&pg=PA38#v=onepage&q=ganger&f=falseWell I checked the link you posted and nothing of relevance emerged. The copy of Snorri which I used was the one on Berkeley's Sunsite. I am not aware of any "bibliographical citation" for 846 - but it is the date that comes up if you google it.
Here is a thought.
When you are writing a paper that you people to take *seriously* as a Serious Reseacher
Stop. Using. Google.
Google is not your friend as a serious researcher. Google BOOKS is another story.
As you should be able to see clearly there is NO source whatsoever in this entire universe, that can credibly support 846 as a specific birthyear.
people trying to construct a fabulous and erroneous pedigree for themselves). Because the red mist has descended you are failing to notice that I was surprised that my calculations supported the date! We have the categoric date of 974 in the LandnamabokWe have a *few* a VERY few datapoints for his *entire life*. Beginning to end.
Nothing allows us to say, even within a *decade* what year he might be born.
The link I posted, is relevant as you can see, because it says nothing about his age, birth, or any other thing that allows us to pinpoint this data.
I'm in the process of deleting all the utter nonsense people have spewed all over Wikipedia. That might help.You really don't get it do you? And you have not read my post. It is of no consequence that there is a "source" claiming 846. What I said, which is correct, is that this is what is the urban myth; this is the "traditional" date (which is used mainly by
The fact remains that the stories which many of you dismiss as myth and hence lie can be construed in such a way as to make sense - and so far you cannot challenge it.Your criticism is merely that no-one has said it before.... Hmmm that reminds me of the Inquisition when someone said that the earth was not flat.....
Your approach is what stultifies History. The fact is that there are things which are unknown, so if we are to have a go at understanding what went on we need to theorise and then test the theory. NOTHING in what you write contradicts what I have said.
On Friday, January 7, 2022 at 11:01:24 PM UTC, wjhons...@gmail.com wrote:That is why I referred to it as "traditional" because it is the one that people use. What you seem to be deliberately avoiding is that I came to exactly the same date by logic using both Snorri and the Landnamabok. The confusion of the past is that
On Friday, January 7, 2022 at 2:20:55 PM UTC-8, AC Grant wrote:
On Friday, January 7, 2022 at 10:03:11 PM UTC, wjhons...@gmail.com wrote:
On Friday, January 7, 2022 at 1:50:30 PM UTC-8, Will Johnson wrote:
On Friday, January 7, 2022 at 1:09:35 PM UTC-8, AC Grant wrote:It is a tragedy when people purporting to be credible authors, have to resort to feigning ignorance of the source material, almost entirely.
On Friday, January 7, 2022 at 9:03:23 PM UTC, wjhons...@gmail.com wrote:Yes you said "Google it".
Please provide a full bibliographic citation to where you got the birth year of 846If you cannot even keep up with the thread then really what is the point?
I'll give you a clue: it was one of my answers/contributions...
That's not a bibliographic citation
https://books.google.com/books?id=sV7OjiabkcUC&newbks=1&newbks_redir=0&dq=heimskringla&pg=PA38#v=onepage&q=ganger&f=falseWell I checked the link you posted and nothing of relevance emerged. The copy of Snorri which I used was the one on Berkeley's Sunsite. I am not aware of any "bibliographical citation" for 846 - but it is the date that comes up if you google it.
By the way you absolutely did *not* come to this same date by "logic" using Snorri and the Landnamabok.Well you are simply wrong here
NEITHER sources say *anything remotely* of relevance to the establishment of a specific year.
That you continue to argue when the sources are presented blank-face in front of youYou mean you wish you had thought of it first..... Sorry.....
Shows that you are not a serious researcher at all
You should take down your paper, and exile yourself to the most remote island of the Hebrides in shame.
On Friday, January 7, 2022 at 3:19:18 PM UTC-8, AC Grant wrote:That is why I referred to it as "traditional" because it is the one that people use. What you seem to be deliberately avoiding is that I came to exactly the same date by logic using both Snorri and the Landnamabok. The confusion of the past is that
On Friday, January 7, 2022 at 11:01:24 PM UTC, wjhons...@gmail.com wrote:
On Friday, January 7, 2022 at 2:20:55 PM UTC-8, AC Grant wrote:
On Friday, January 7, 2022 at 10:03:11 PM UTC, wjhons...@gmail.com wrote:
On Friday, January 7, 2022 at 1:50:30 PM UTC-8, Will Johnson wrote:
On Friday, January 7, 2022 at 1:09:35 PM UTC-8, AC Grant wrote:It is a tragedy when people purporting to be credible authors, have to resort to feigning ignorance of the source material, almost entirely.
On Friday, January 7, 2022 at 9:03:23 PM UTC, wjhons...@gmail.com wrote:Yes you said "Google it".
Please provide a full bibliographic citation to where you got the birth year of 846If you cannot even keep up with the thread then really what is the point?
I'll give you a clue: it was one of my answers/contributions...
That's not a bibliographic citation
https://books.google.com/books?id=sV7OjiabkcUC&newbks=1&newbks_redir=0&dq=heimskringla&pg=PA38#v=onepage&q=ganger&f=falseWell I checked the link you posted and nothing of relevance emerged. The copy of Snorri which I used was the one on Berkeley's Sunsite. I am not aware of any "bibliographical citation" for 846 - but it is the date that comes up if you google it.
No what I mean is, you are here over your head.By the way you absolutely did *not* come to this same date by "logic" using Snorri and the Landnamabok.Well you are simply wrong here
NEITHER sources say *anything remotely* of relevance to the establishment of a specific year.
That you continue to argue when the sources are presented blank-face in front of youYou mean you wish you had thought of it first..... Sorry.....
Shows that you are not a serious researcher at all
You should take down your paper, and exile yourself to the most remote island of the Hebrides in shame.
You have not consulted the relevant sources.
You have created a pig out of taffee and it's easy to smash it.
Next caller
Hmmmm.... Invective is an inadequate alternative to reasoned argument. Because you have not read the 3000+ word bibliography in my book you are not well placed to judge my use of sources. Clearly you don't LIKE what I propose - but if you had an argumentYou mean you wish you had thought of it first..... Sorry.....No what I mean is, you are here over your head.
You have not consulted the relevant sources.
You have created a pig out of taffee and it's easy to smash it.
Next caller
I'm part Scandinavian from my great grandmother, who was half Swedish and half Norwegian, and my great great grandfather, who was born of Norwegian parents. It still amazes me how much of our history is taken over by mythology and I prefer to have an "out of sight, out of mind" approach towards it and focus on what I can prove. It's far, far more satisfying to me to find records of people that I knew were real instead of people that "may" have been real or imaginary through whatever sagas that are out
There was a reason why I ignored this thread and now after reading through it I now know why... nothing good ever comes from trying to go back this far in Scandinavian history in discussions.Well there is a good deal of sense in what you say, Darrell, and if everyone took your view who can say whether the world would be a better place. However there is in very many people a deep desire for ‘rootedness’ and then to glorify their ancestors.
Darrell E. Larocque
Op zaterdag 8 januari 2022 om 03:50:37 UTC+1 schreef wjhons...@gmail.com:That is why I referred to it as "traditional" because it is the one that people use. What you seem to be deliberately avoiding is that I came to exactly the same date by logic using both Snorri and the Landnamabok. The confusion of the past is that
On Friday, January 7, 2022 at 3:19:18 PM UTC-8, AC Grant wrote:
On Friday, January 7, 2022 at 11:01:24 PM UTC, wjhons...@gmail.com wrote:
On Friday, January 7, 2022 at 2:20:55 PM UTC-8, AC Grant wrote:
On Friday, January 7, 2022 at 10:03:11 PM UTC, wjhons...@gmail.com wrote:
On Friday, January 7, 2022 at 1:50:30 PM UTC-8, Will Johnson wrote:
On Friday, January 7, 2022 at 1:09:35 PM UTC-8, AC Grant wrote:It is a tragedy when people purporting to be credible authors, have to resort to feigning ignorance of the source material, almost entirely.
On Friday, January 7, 2022 at 9:03:23 PM UTC, wjhons...@gmail.com wrote:Yes you said "Google it".
Please provide a full bibliographic citation to where you got the birth year of 846If you cannot even keep up with the thread then really what is the point?
I'll give you a clue: it was one of my answers/contributions...
That's not a bibliographic citation
https://books.google.com/books?id=sV7OjiabkcUC&newbks=1&newbks_redir=0&dq=heimskringla&pg=PA38#v=onepage&q=ganger&f=falseWell I checked the link you posted and nothing of relevance emerged. The copy of Snorri which I used was the one on Berkeley's Sunsite. I am not aware of any "bibliographical citation" for 846 - but it is the date that comes up if you google it.
now and have seen quite a few outburst and they do not help. They only reflect on yourselve. Please keep it civil and logical.No what I mean is, you are here over your head.By the way you absolutely did *not* come to this same date by "logic" using Snorri and the Landnamabok.Well you are simply wrong here
NEITHER sources say *anything remotely* of relevance to the establishment of a specific year.
That you continue to argue when the sources are presented blank-face in front of youYou mean you wish you had thought of it first..... Sorry.....
Shows that you are not a serious researcher at all
You should take down your paper, and exile yourself to the most remote island of the Hebrides in shame.
You have not consulted the relevant sources.
You have created a pig out of taffee and it's easy to smash it.
Next callerWill,
Are you well? You seem to become emotional instead of approaching things logically. Furthermore you are not in a position to judge someone on his qualifications. Just look at your own record here on the Newsgroup. I have been around allmost 20 years
Alan takes the time to explain here how he comes to some of the conclusions he presented in his book. One can differ on opinion on what in the saga's is true or (probably) made up. One can even be so strict in throwing the child along with thebathwater away. That would be sorry. One never knows for sure - even you don't - if there are kernels in the story that hold up if you look deeper.
Details are just ordinary pieces of information that become relevant if you happen to trip over them or if you bump your toe agains them. If you step over them you don't notice it until somebody else does.family pops up and became castellan of a stronghold for the Bishop of Utrecht. 150 years later in the 15th century a descending castellan became imprisoned by his son and killing the time he told a story about his ancestor who came from Sint-Oedenrode in
A month ago I came on something similar. Certain things were know for sometime but in the setting (area) presented nobody noticed. I reseached a noble family from the 13th century in North Brabant. In another province Utrecht a younger scion of that
Long story short. Oral history has its shortcomings but you may never now what can be true. Or better said, what can be explained better by someone who happens to trip over a detail. These trippings can set you on an inspirational journey. Knowledgeincreases by thinking outside the known paths. Usually a discussion starts until in the end a new equilibrium sets in. Academia is full with new thought provoking papers on all kind of subjects and who knows were the cross pollination of ideas lead to.
With regards,
Hans Vogels
On Saturday, January 8, 2022 at 4:08:15 AM UTC-5, hansvog...@gmail.com wrote:it. That is why I referred to it as "traditional" because it is the one that people use. What you seem to be deliberately avoiding is that I came to exactly the same date by logic using both Snorri and the Landnamabok. The confusion of the past is that
Op zaterdag 8 januari 2022 om 03:50:37 UTC+1 schreef wjhons...@gmail.com:
On Friday, January 7, 2022 at 3:19:18 PM UTC-8, AC Grant wrote:
On Friday, January 7, 2022 at 11:01:24 PM UTC, wjhons...@gmail.com wrote:
On Friday, January 7, 2022 at 2:20:55 PM UTC-8, AC Grant wrote:
On Friday, January 7, 2022 at 10:03:11 PM UTC, wjhons...@gmail.com wrote:
On Friday, January 7, 2022 at 1:50:30 PM UTC-8, Will Johnson wrote:
On Friday, January 7, 2022 at 1:09:35 PM UTC-8, AC Grant wrote:It is a tragedy when people purporting to be credible authors, have to resort to feigning ignorance of the source material, almost entirely.
On Friday, January 7, 2022 at 9:03:23 PM UTC, wjhons...@gmail.com wrote:Yes you said "Google it".
Please provide a full bibliographic citation to where you got the birth year of 846If you cannot even keep up with the thread then really what is the point?
I'll give you a clue: it was one of my answers/contributions...
That's not a bibliographic citation
https://books.google.com/books?id=sV7OjiabkcUC&newbks=1&newbks_redir=0&dq=heimskringla&pg=PA38#v=onepage&q=ganger&f=falseWell I checked the link you posted and nothing of relevance emerged. The copy of Snorri which I used was the one on Berkeley's Sunsite. I am not aware of any "bibliographical citation" for 846 - but it is the date that comes up if you google
now and have seen quite a few outburst and they do not help. They only reflect on yourselve. Please keep it civil and logical.No what I mean is, you are here over your head.By the way you absolutely did *not* come to this same date by "logic" using Snorri and the Landnamabok.Well you are simply wrong here
NEITHER sources say *anything remotely* of relevance to the establishment of a specific year.
That you continue to argue when the sources are presented blank-face in front of youYou mean you wish you had thought of it first..... Sorry.....
Shows that you are not a serious researcher at all
You should take down your paper, and exile yourself to the most remote island of the Hebrides in shame.
You have not consulted the relevant sources.
You have created a pig out of taffee and it's easy to smash it.
Next callerWill,
Are you well? You seem to become emotional instead of approaching things logically. Furthermore you are not in a position to judge someone on his qualifications. Just look at your own record here on the Newsgroup. I have been around allmost 20 years
bathwater away. That would be sorry. One never knows for sure - even you don't - if there are kernels in the story that hold up if you look deeper.Alan takes the time to explain here how he comes to some of the conclusions he presented in his book. One can differ on opinion on what in the saga's is true or (probably) made up. One can even be so strict in throwing the child along with the
family pops up and became castellan of a stronghold for the Bishop of Utrecht. 150 years later in the 15th century a descending castellan became imprisoned by his son and killing the time he told a story about his ancestor who came from Sint-Oedenrode inDetails are just ordinary pieces of information that become relevant if you happen to trip over them or if you bump your toe agains them. If you step over them you don't notice it until somebody else does.
A month ago I came on something similar. Certain things were know for sometime but in the setting (area) presented nobody noticed. I reseached a noble family from the 13th century in North Brabant. In another province Utrecht a younger scion of that
increases by thinking outside the known paths. Usually a discussion starts until in the end a new equilibrium sets in. Academia is full with new thought provoking papers on all kind of subjects and who knows were the cross pollination of ideas lead to.Long story short. Oral history has its shortcomings but you may never now what can be true. Or better said, what can be explained better by someone who happens to trip over a detail. These trippings can set you on an inspirational journey. Knowledge
etc. all because someone told them stories orally.With regards,Oral history is problematic and shouldn't be trusted as gospel, only as a guide by which to conduct further research. It has resulted in many people claiming to be a descendant of royalty, nobles, famous or infamous notable people, Native Americans,
Hans Vogels
In my case, our Larocque ancestry was pretty much obscured by an author, Robert Roquebrune, who decided to write a long tale about how we were descendants of some fanciful noble line in southwestern France. It was pretty much something that we couldnot challenge because there was no trail of records anywhere proving it or disproving it. Thankfully DNA came along and finally rid ourselves of this nonsense oral history he tried to pass off as legitimate genealogical research, and it wasn't even close,
Another instance that is problematic for me is the de Joyeuse oral account given in a document by a supposed descendant of Robert de Joyeuse who claimed he was a product of a disinherited son. How are we to prove that what he says is true? I am veryskeptical and too many are willing to accept the document's contents because they are thrilled to be connected to royalty through it, but as a genealogical researcher, I am NOT thrilled because it's unsubstantiated at this point, based on oral history.
So you see I have no trust whatsoever in oral history and to continue to use it as a trusted source without question is reckless and irresponsible. I'm not saying it shouldn't be used, but extreme caution should be used and perspective given.You are pretty much spot on, Darrell - and I can tell you that this extends to various histories MS and otherwise regarding many Scottish clans. The pervading task of my book - extended into several of my papers on the academia site had been to expose
Darrell E. Larocque
On Sunday, December 5, 2021 at 5:58:15 PM UTC-5, Stewart Baldwin wrote:This is the way a new hypothesis is put together - of course something only becomes feasible provided that a number of conditions are met. This sneering attitude is why history is stultified.
Like I wrote (more viking fun) with a lot 'what ifs'.https://www.academia.edu/62070193/Rolf_the_Ganger_NOT_the_first_Count_of_RouenThis one stood out as garbage before the end of the first page.
being credible.Would you care to elaborate on the eye-catching misconceptions?Too many absurdities to list, but one pretty obvious one is the claim to have narrowed down the death of Harald Fairhair to between 20 and 25 March 851. For someone first mentioned in sources from a few centuries later, this is not even close to
I know you mean "birth of"; but that only makes it more hilarious. The idea that we can 'determine' the birthdate of someone who is far more legendary than historical, and whose parents were only 'named' in surviving sources nearly *350 years* afterthe fact..is...silly.
This author (a retired computers teacher?) has a very broad set of subjects that they post papers on, from this, to analyzing Jesus's pre-teen years; and shows an over-abundance of surety in his conclusions (like the exact locations and dates for KingArthur's battles) that no amateur, and no expert would ever claim merely by re-examining sources that have been available for hundreds of years.
I don't recommend this author's work in any way whatsoever.You are entitled to recommend or otherwise at will. However you are not in any position to make an intelligent recommendation and due humility SHOULD have dictated that you not opine at all.
--Joe C
My point was that a birth year of 846, gleaned by a Google search is the most base type of research possible.I was already of this very view long - decades - before your restated it so gracelessly.
*That* you did not realize that this particular birth year is based on.....*nothing at all*, speaks quite well to the rest of your article.Ah..... well here we have insult based on the limitations of your imagination. It is true that I was not able to track down where the use of this date came from - and this, combined with its widespread use (which, I had already long recognised, may well
*That* is your article you call this a legendary birth year or "traditional" birth year again, based on nothing, and then say something to the point of "I don't see any reason to dispute it*.Again you miss the point. I would like to think that you did this deliberately, but no, I have no basis for assuming that.
Here is a reasonBecause my thesis is not based on the use of this date by anyone else, you are going round in circles, shortly to disappear up.......
It's based on *nothing*
On Tuesday, January 11, 2022 at 2:38:00 AM UTC, wjhons...@gmail.com wrote:well be one person copying another - there is ample evidence of this happening all over the interweb) is why I described it as "traditional". But just because neither you nor I can say where the date came from does NOT necessarily imply that it was
My point was that a birth year of 846, gleaned by a Google search is the most base type of research possible.I was already of this very view long - decades - before your restated it so gracelessly.
*That* you did not realize that this particular birth year is based on.....*nothing at all*, speaks quite well to the rest of your article.Ah..... well here we have insult based on the limitations of your imagination. It is true that I was not able to track down where the use of this date came from - and this, combined with its widespread use (which, I had already long recognised, may
done in so many other instances (already exemplified). However because my own calculations happen to tally so closely with this date then, as I wrote, I am not in any position to dispute it.*That* is your article you call this a legendary birth year or "traditional" birth year again, based on nothing, and then say something to the point of "I don't see any reason to dispute it*.Again you miss the point. I would like to think that you did this deliberately, but no, I have no basis for assuming that.
The point is that I happened to come to that very date (or extremely close) based on separate evidence and my own calculations. Had my conclusion varied significantly from 846 then I would have preferred and adhered to my own calculations as I have
Here is a reasonBecause my thesis is not based on the use of this date by anyone else, you are going round in circles, shortly to disappear up.......
It's based on *nothing*
Actually your paper presents exactly Zero evidence that you used any kind of logic or deduction to "come to this date"
So more circular argument that you found this date from a google search, and it is merely one person copying another with zero evidence.
In fact your paper explicitly states that you found *no* evidence for any other date or even this date.
You are making yourself look incompetent, not competent.
What you should have said is "You're right, I'm wrong" and moved on.
Your head in the ground approach shows that you used your sources in an non-novel yet ridiculously plucked way to come to a ridiculous conclusion based on waving your hands in the air.
As you're doing here.
Actually your paper presents exactly Zero evidence that you used any kind of logic or deduction to "come to this date"The purpose of this paper was to argue the case for Rollo being Rolf's son and for the two not to be elided, which has happened in the past and which has been the basis of Rolf being thought of as a mythical character. So you are correct that the
In fact your paper explicitly states that you found *no* evidence for any other date or even this date.Well so you say. There is no accounting for your view (apart from the red mist) and the fact that you have not read the book..
You are making yourself look incompetent, not competent.
What you should have said is "You're right, I'm wrong" and moved on.Hmmm I would have been untrue to myself. TBH I have no idea what you think you are "right" about.
On Tuesday, January 11, 2022 at 6:29:34 AM UTC-8, Will Johnson wrote:
*All* of the sources for this man (or two men if you think Rollo is not Hrolf) have been well known for quite a long time. What they say, and more importantly what they do *not* say are common knowledge in academic circles.
*That* you believe you have *suddenly* found something new does not smack of intensive study of the actual sources, but of a person cherry picking to arrive at a conclusion they already believed.
On Tuesday, January 11, 2022 at 2:34:53 PM UTC, wjhons...@gmail.com wrote:So there was nothing in it for me beyond showing that Rolf's seeking leave from a siege in France to pay Guthrum back when he was beset by Grig serves to show that the claim made by John of Fordun about the person he called "Gregory the Great" was
On Tuesday, January 11, 2022 at 6:29:34 AM UTC-8, Will Johnson wrote: *All* of the sources for this man (or two men if you think Rollo is not Hrolf) have been well known for quite a long time. What they say, and more importantly what they do *not* say are common knowledge in academic circles.I hope you are not here suggesting that the names Hrolfr and Hrollaug have the same meaning and/or are interchangeable. That would be preposterous, particularly given that Hrolf had a half-brother Hrollaug.
For you to suggest that you know all the sources for Rolf is some claim. I don't believe it.
*That* you believe you have *suddenly* found something new does not smack of intensive study of the actual sources, but of a person cherry picking to arrive at a conclusion they already believed.I think that it is possible for you to put that construction on it, if taken out of context - but I will refrain from discussing possible reasons for your problem.
What you forget (well I mean never took on board) is that my book is about Scottish Clans and Scottish History. My discussion of Norse History was entirely ancillary to that and Rolf and his son have no implications whatsoever to the thrust of my work.
On Tuesday, January 11, 2022 at 8:42:02 AM UTC-8, AC Grant wrote:]
On Tuesday, January 11, 2022 at 2:34:53 PM UTC, wjhons...@gmail.com wrote:
On Tuesday, January 11, 2022 at 6:29:34 AM UTC-8, Will Johnson wrote:
So you now acknowledge that your spurious claim of "846" and your papers claim that you have *proved* this, to be false. That your actual claim is something more like... he was born by 872....Can you read English? So you have Rolf leading an army into France at the age of 4???????????
On Tuesday, January 11, 2022 at 11:42:02 AM UTC-5, AC Grant wrote:work. So there was nothing in it for me beyond showing that Rolf's seeking leave from a siege in France to pay Guthrum back when he was beset by Grig serves to show that the claim made by John of Fordun about the person he called "Gregory the Great" was
What you forget (well I mean never took on board) is that my book is about Scottish Clans and Scottish History. My discussion of Norse History was entirely ancillary to that and Rolf and his son have no implications whatsoever to the thrust of my
To be fair, academics must provide proof of their conclusions through proper sourcing, and your use of "revisionists" is something I have seen far to many times. The study of history if a FLUID enterprise, and it doesn't just sit still and say "X inset in stone, this is what happened and that's that!" So your use of the term "revisionists" is utterly unnecessary and if you haven't noticed, there are a lot of those so-called "naysayer revisionists" and "academics" here that you hold so much contempt
What you forget (well I mean never took on board) is that my book is about Scottish Clans and Scottish History. My discussion of Norse History was entirely ancillary to that and Rolf and his son have no implications whatsoever to the thrust of my work.So there was nothing in it for me beyond showing that Rolf's seeking leave from a siege in France to pay Guthrum back when he was beset by Grig serves to show that the claim made by John of Fordun about the person he called "Gregory the Great" was
Also this entire odd bent of "academia is wrong I'm right"
Sounds suspiciously like neo-Teslaism
We already have enough crackpots who post *certainty* and then can't back it up whatsoever.
On Tuesday, January 11, 2022 at 12:41:59 PM UTC-8, Will Johnson wrote:I don't normally do "-isms"
Also this entire odd bent of "academia is wrong I'm right"
Sounds suspiciously like neo-Teslaism
Not true. I might be able to cope with a year or two either way - but no more. The general date is secure because it fits into two separate patterns, In Venn terms it is A and B and C.We already have enough crackpots who post *certainty* and then can't back it up whatsoever.So your paper states that "his birth IN 846 is *secure*" (emphasis mine.
You now acknowledge that this is as far from the truth as it can possibly get.
This kind of statement serves to support your other claims, but it falls on its face when examined.Well I don't agree. And you are not qualified to be so assertive.
No credible contemporary, or near contemporary source gives us any indication of what year he might have been born, or even any way to determine that within say a decade either side.
You asked me to "Google it" when I questioned your analysis.Weasel word: if you define "credible" as that which agrees with you then fair enough. But the treaty of St Clair sur Epte was 911.
Actually if you care to try, "Googling" actual credible sources most only say something like "ca 960"
A chronicle written three hundred years after his life is not a credible source in any way.Ergo anything you write has no credibility regarding anything before 1720 (oh... wait a moment.... you may have a point - at least this demolishes your 960 claim)
Your paper puts aside Dudo with a wave, although he himself claims to have been in the actual court of Richard (and his sons) and so should probably be considered the *most* authoritative person on the subject (that we have extant).Not true. I do not put aside Dudo - but he was a pied piper.....
On Tuesday, January 11, 2022 at 8:44:35 PM UTC, wjhons...@gmail.com wrote:
On Tuesday, January 11, 2022 at 12:41:59 PM UTC-8, Will Johnson wrote:I don't normally do "-isms"
Also this entire odd bent of "academia is wrong I'm right"
Sounds suspiciously like neo-Teslaism
Not true. I might be able to cope with a year or two either way - but no more. The general date is secure because it fits into two separate patterns, In Venn terms it is A and B and C.We already have enough crackpots who post *certainty* and then can't back it up whatsoever.So your paper states that "his birth IN 846 is *secure*" (emphasis mine. You now acknowledge that this is as far from the truth as it can possibly get.
This kind of statement serves to support your other claims, but it falls on its face when examined.Well I don't agree. And you are not qualified to be so assertive.
No credible contemporary, or near contemporary source gives us any indication of what year he might have been born, or even any way to determine that within say a decade either side.
You asked me to "Google it" when I questioned your analysis.Weasel word: if you define "credible" as that which agrees with you then fair enough. But the treaty of St Clair sur Epte was 911.
Actually if you care to try, "Googling" actual credible sources most only say something like "ca 960"
A chronicle written three hundred years after his life is not a credible source in any way.Ergo anything you write has no credibility regarding anything before 1720 (oh... wait a moment.... you may have a point - at least this demolishes your 960 claim)
Your paper puts aside Dudo with a wave, although he himself claims to have been in the actual court of Richard (and his sons) and so should probably be considered the *most* authoritative person on the subject (that we have extant).Not true. I do not put aside Dudo - but he was a pied piper.....
You're getting exasperated now.... better call a halt before a blood vessel bursts. When you find yourself in a hole the usual advice is to stop digging.
I meant of course ca 860
"pied piper" a person leading rats into the water? or children into a mountain?
I have no idea what you're stating.
However should we address your claim that Harald Fairhair was born *in* 950 (or 951) at all?
Since the majority of academics do not think that Harald "fairhair" ever existed in the first place
On Tuesday, January 11, 2022 at 12:55:23 PM UTC-8, AC Grant wrote:
On Tuesday, January 11, 2022 at 8:44:35 PM UTC, wjhons...@gmail.com wrote:
On Tuesday, January 11, 2022 at 12:41:59 PM UTC-8, Will Johnson wrote:I don't normally do "-isms"
Also this entire odd bent of "academia is wrong I'm right"
Sounds suspiciously like neo-Teslaism
Not true. I might be able to cope with a year or two either way - but no more. The general date is secure because it fits into two separate patterns, In Venn terms it is A and B and C.We already have enough crackpots who post *certainty* and then can't back it up whatsoever.So your paper states that "his birth IN 846 is *secure*" (emphasis mine. You now acknowledge that this is as far from the truth as it can possibly get.
This kind of statement serves to support your other claims, but it falls on its face when examined.Well I don't agree. And you are not qualified to be so assertive.
No credible contemporary, or near contemporary source gives us any indication of what year he might have been born, or even any way to determine that within say a decade either side.
You asked me to "Google it" when I questioned your analysis.Weasel word: if you define "credible" as that which agrees with you then fair enough. But the treaty of St Clair sur Epte was 911.
Actually if you care to try, "Googling" actual credible sources most only say something like "ca 960"
I meant of course ca 860A chronicle written three hundred years after his life is not a credible source in any way.Ergo anything you write has no credibility regarding anything before 1720 (oh... wait a moment.... you may have a point - at least this demolishes your 960 claim)
Your paper puts aside Dudo with a wave, although he himself claims to have been in the actual court of Richard (and his sons) and so should probably be considered the *most* authoritative person on the subject (that we have extant).Not true. I do not put aside Dudo - but he was a pied piper.....
You're getting exasperated now.... better call a halt before a blood vessel bursts. When you find yourself in a hole the usual advice is to stop digging.
"pied piper" a person leading rats into the water? or children into a mountain?
I have no idea what you're stating.
However should we address your claim that Harald Fairhair was born *in* 950 (or 951) at all?
Since the majority of academics do not think that Harald "fairhair" ever existed in the first place
On Tuesday, January 11, 2022 at 1:05:24 PM UTC-8, Will Johnson wrote:Yes indeed, you are getting confused - both here and above.
On Tuesday, January 11, 2022 at 12:55:23 PM UTC-8, AC Grant wrote:
On Tuesday, January 11, 2022 at 8:44:35 PM UTC, wjhons...@gmail.com wrote:
On Tuesday, January 11, 2022 at 12:41:59 PM UTC-8, Will Johnson wrote:I don't normally do "-isms"
Also this entire odd bent of "academia is wrong I'm right"
Sounds suspiciously like neo-Teslaism
Not true. I might be able to cope with a year or two either way - but no more. The general date is secure because it fits into two separate patterns, In Venn terms it is A and B and C.We already have enough crackpots who post *certainty* and then can't back it up whatsoever.So your paper states that "his birth IN 846 is *secure*" (emphasis mine.
You now acknowledge that this is as far from the truth as it can possibly get.
This kind of statement serves to support your other claims, but it falls on its face when examined.Well I don't agree. And you are not qualified to be so assertive.
No credible contemporary, or near contemporary source gives us any indication of what year he might have been born, or even any way to determine that within say a decade either side.
You asked me to "Google it" when I questioned your analysis.Weasel word: if you define "credible" as that which agrees with you then fair enough. But the treaty of St Clair sur Epte was 911.
Actually if you care to try, "Googling" actual credible sources most only say something like "ca 960"
I meant of course ca 860A chronicle written three hundred years after his life is not a credible source in any way.Ergo anything you write has no credibility regarding anything before 1720 (oh... wait a moment.... you may have a point - at least this demolishes your 960 claim)
Your paper puts aside Dudo with a wave, although he himself claims to have been in the actual court of Richard (and his sons) and so should probably be considered the *most* authoritative person on the subject (that we have extant).Not true. I do not put aside Dudo - but he was a pied piper.....
You're getting exasperated now.... better call a halt before a blood vessel bursts. When you find yourself in a hole the usual advice is to stop digging.
"pied piper" a person leading rats into the water? or children into a mountain?
I have no idea what you're stating.
However should we address your claim that Harald Fairhair was born *in* 950 (or 951) at all?I keep getting my centuries mixed. Of course I mean 850 (or 851)
Since the majority of academics do not think that Harald "fairhair" ever existed in the first place
Yes indeed, you are getting confused - both here and above.
As a final piece of therapy: the pied piper reference is to the adage that he who pays the piper calls the tune. So too with historians who have sponsors and/or who write at others' behest in some other way....
The referee has now stepped in to prevent further injury...... I wish you well in recovery.
Yes indeed, you are getting confused - both here and above.
As a final piece of therapy: the pied piper reference is to the adage that he who pays the piper calls the tune. So too with historians who have sponsors and/or who write at others' behest in some other way....
The referee has now stepped in to prevent further injury...... I wish you well in recovery.
Josephus, whom you quote, also stated that Herod himself was a Hasmonean, at least he implies it, if you put together various statements he makes in various parts of his work. So he wasn't just killing off the last ruling family, but his own kin. Agreat deal of ink has been spilled detailing the entire family and we don't find anyone who could be Joseph or Mary in those trees.
However should we address your claim that Harald Fairhair was born *in* 950 (or 951) at all?
Since the majority of academics do not think that Harald "fairhair" ever existed in the first place
On Tuesday, January 11, 2022 at 3:58:35 PM UTC-8, Will Johnson wrote:great deal of ink has been spilled detailing the entire family and we don't find anyone who could be Joseph or Mary in those trees.
Josephus, whom you quote, also stated that Herod himself was a Hasmonean, at least he implies it, if you put together various statements he makes in various parts of his work. So he wasn't just killing off the last ruling family, but his own kin. A
I have to backtrack a bits father was an Idumaean and even the priest of a temple to Apollo. So clearly not a member of the Hasmonean family tree.
It now seems clear that *someone* has done original research into synthesizing several statements of Josephus into a line extending from the Maccabees to Herod. This line appears to be spurious however, as many other writers state explicitly that Herod'
Oral history is problematic and shouldn't be trusted as gospel, only as a guide by which to conduct further research.<[knip]
So you see I have no trust whatsoever in oral history and to continue to use it as a trusted source without question is reckless and irresponsible. I'm not saying it shouldn't be used, but extreme caution should be used and perspective given. <
Darrell E. Larocque
On Wednesday, January 12, 2022 at 2:34:54 AM UTC, wjhons...@gmail.com wrote:great deal of ink has been spilled detailing the entire family and we don't find anyone who could be Joseph or Mary in those trees.
On Tuesday, January 11, 2022 at 3:58:35 PM UTC-8, Will Johnson wrote:
Josephus, whom you quote, also stated that Herod himself was a Hasmonean, at least he implies it, if you put together various statements he makes in various parts of his work. So he wasn't just killing off the last ruling family, but his own kin. A
Herod's father was an Idumaean and even the priest of a temple to Apollo. So clearly not a member of the Hasmonean family tree.I have to backtrack a bit
It now seems clear that *someone* has done original research into synthesizing several statements of Josephus into a line extending from the Maccabees to Herod. This line appears to be spurious however, as many other writers state explicitly that
Err.... no.... you need to backtrack a LOT. Someone tried to use my papers about Jesus as a slur against me, so I felt the need to respond, but there is no way the time of Jesus could be labelled "mediaeval" so I will refrain from pursuing this hereFrankly you should have joined the academia discussion at the time. Also I think, Will, that posting here exacerbates your tendency to hyperbola (as pointed out passim) because you are declaiming to an audience.
I meant of course ca 860I wonder, Will, whether you ever stopped for a moment to consider where this 860 date came from?
On Tuesday, January 11, 2022 at 9:05:24 PM UTC, wjhons...@gmail.com wrote:.70 years: kinda obvious (to any sophomore). So this date entirely depends on the conflation.
I meant of course ca 860I wonder, Will, whether you ever stopped for a moment to consider where this 860 date came from?
The answer is easy and is "obvious" to any sophomore who thinks that Hrolfr and Hrollaug are interchangeable (not that I am laying that at you door). The 860 date is arrived at by starting with the death of Rollo (now called Robert) c930 and going back
As I have shown my date not only fits the rest of the family tree, but it also conforms with the analysis of the Landnamabok. But my analysis would fail completely if Rolf=Rollo. I also show WHY Rolf called his son Rollo (and his other one Guthrum) andhis daughter Caitlin. Not only that but Rollo was of the right age to marry Poppa and was still young enough to be marrying Giselle in 911 (given that this one at least was a Christian marriage we have to assume that Poppa had died in the interim, but
Given that Rolf was so "stout" that no horse could carry him (whence "Gangu") it is not feasible to consider a long life for him (imagine the wear and tear on his hips and knees alone!). Actually 65 is doing well, considering.
On Wednesday, January 12, 2022 at 2:34:54 AM UTC, wjhons...@gmail.com wrote:great deal of ink has been spilled detailing the entire family and we don't find anyone who could be Joseph or Mary in those trees.
On Tuesday, January 11, 2022 at 3:58:35 PM UTC-8, Will Johnson wrote:
Josephus, whom you quote, also stated that Herod himself was a Hasmonean, at least he implies it, if you put together various statements he makes in various parts of his work. So he wasn't just killing off the last ruling family, but his own kin. A
Herod's father was an Idumaean and even the priest of a temple to Apollo. So clearly not a member of the Hasmonean family tree.I have to backtrack a bit
It now seems clear that *someone* has done original research into synthesizing several statements of Josephus into a line extending from the Maccabees to Herod. This line appears to be spurious however, as many other writers state explicitly that
Err.... no.... you need to backtrack a LOT. Someone tried to use my papers about Jesus as a slur against me, so I felt the need to respond, but there is no way the time of Jesus could be labelled "mediaeval" so I will refrain from pursuing this hereFrankly you should have joined the academia discussion at the time. Also I think, Will, that posting here exacerbates your tendency to hyperbola (as pointed out passim) because you are declaiming to an audience.
On Wednesday, January 12, 2022 at 7:20:54 AM UTC-8, AC Grant wrote:back 70 years: kinda obvious (to any sophomore). So this date entirely depends on the conflation.
On Tuesday, January 11, 2022 at 9:05:24 PM UTC, wjhons...@gmail.com wrote:.
I meant of course ca 860I wonder, Will, whether you ever stopped for a moment to consider where this 860 date came from?
The answer is easy and is "obvious" to any sophomore who thinks that Hrolfr and Hrollaug are interchangeable (not that I am laying that at you door). The 860 date is arrived at by starting with the death of Rollo (now called Robert) c930 and going
and his daughter Caitlin. Not only that but Rollo was of the right age to marry Poppa and was still young enough to be marrying Giselle in 911 (given that this one at least was a Christian marriage we have to assume that Poppa had died in the interim,As I have shown my date not only fits the rest of the family tree, but it also conforms with the analysis of the Landnamabok. But my analysis would fail completely if Rolf=Rollo. I also show WHY Rolf called his son Rollo (and his other one Guthrum)
None... that's the point.... whoever offered this date was plucking a number out of air (yet you claim whoever it may be as an authority)..Given that Rolf was so "stout" that no horse could carry him (whence "Gangu") it is not feasible to consider a long life for him (imagine the wear and tear on his hips and knees alone!). Actually 65 is doing well, considering.OK and what is your basis for 'going back 70 years'
What is the source that states that he died aged 70 ?
He "was of the right age" to marry a woman who we hae no idea when she was born ?It does not matter beyond that (as in the case of Rolf) he would have been 65 when marrying Giselle and I think that would be a bit steep even for a king of France.
So for neither of them, do we know within perhaps five or ten years either side when they were born, but they were of the right age to marry each other?Broadly yes. These marriages were political.
On Wednesday, January 12, 2022 at 8:48:17 PM UTC, wjhons...@gmail.com wrote:back 70 years: kinda obvious (to any sophomore). So this date entirely depends on the conflation.
On Wednesday, January 12, 2022 at 7:20:54 AM UTC-8, AC Grant wrote:
On Tuesday, January 11, 2022 at 9:05:24 PM UTC, wjhons...@gmail.com wrote:.
I meant of course ca 860I wonder, Will, whether you ever stopped for a moment to consider where this 860 date came from?
The answer is easy and is "obvious" to any sophomore who thinks that Hrolfr and Hrollaug are interchangeable (not that I am laying that at you door). The 860 date is arrived at by starting with the death of Rollo (now called Robert) c930 and going
and his daughter Caitlin. Not only that but Rollo was of the right age to marry Poppa and was still young enough to be marrying Giselle in 911 (given that this one at least was a Christian marriage we have to assume that Poppa had died in the interim,As I have shown my date not only fits the rest of the family tree, but it also conforms with the analysis of the Landnamabok. But my analysis would fail completely if Rolf=Rollo. I also show WHY Rolf called his son Rollo (and his other one Guthrum)
None... that's the point.... whoever offered this date was plucking a number out of air (yet you claim whoever it may be as an authority)..Given that Rolf was so "stout" that no horse could carry him (whence "Gangu") it is not feasible to consider a long life for him (imagine the wear and tear on his hips and knees alone!). Actually 65 is doing well, considering.OK and what is your basis for 'going back 70 years'
What is the source that states that he died aged 70 ?
Nothing to do with me.... Don't ask me to justify the stupidity of sophomores.
By the way fmg clearly supposes that Rolf and Rollo are one person. They say "he" died c930. I accept the time window for the death of Rollo.
YOU claim people say "he" was born 960. I have explained why they say that. They are wrong (for which see my book).
It is clear to me that it was his father's death which allowed Rollo to bend the knee to the French king - a thing Rolf would never have done.
Rolf could have died before 911 - even 900 (but I think he didn't).
He "was of the right age" to marry a woman who we hae no idea when she was born ?It does not matter beyond that (as in the case of Rolf) he would have been 65 when marrying Giselle and I think that would be a bit steep even for a king of France.
So for neither of them, do we know within perhaps five or ten years either side when they were born, but they were of the right age to marry each other?Broadly yes. These marriages were political.
On Wednesday, January 12, 2022 at 8:48:17 PM UTC, wjhons...@gmail.com wrote:back 70 years: kinda obvious (to any sophomore). So this date entirely depends on the conflation.
On Wednesday, January 12, 2022 at 7:20:54 AM UTC-8, AC Grant wrote:
On Tuesday, January 11, 2022 at 9:05:24 PM UTC, wjhons...@gmail.com wrote:.
I meant of course ca 860I wonder, Will, whether you ever stopped for a moment to consider where this 860 date came from?
The answer is easy and is "obvious" to any sophomore who thinks that Hrolfr and Hrollaug are interchangeable (not that I am laying that at you door). The 860 date is arrived at by starting with the death of Rollo (now called Robert) c930 and going
and his daughter Caitlin. Not only that but Rollo was of the right age to marry Poppa and was still young enough to be marrying Giselle in 911 (given that this one at least was a Christian marriage we have to assume that Poppa had died in the interim,As I have shown my date not only fits the rest of the family tree, but it also conforms with the analysis of the Landnamabok. But my analysis would fail completely if Rolf=Rollo. I also show WHY Rolf called his son Rollo (and his other one Guthrum)
Err... for "paper" read "book".None... that's the point.... whoever offered this date was plucking a number out of air (yet you claim whoever it may be as an authority)..Given that Rolf was so "stout" that no horse could carry him (whence "Gangu") it is not feasible to consider a long life for him (imagine the wear and tear on his hips and knees alone!). Actually 65 is doing well, considering.OK and what is your basis for 'going back 70 years'
What is the source that states that he died aged 70 ?
Nothing to do with me.... Don't ask me to justify the stupidity of sophomores.
By the way fmg clearly supposes that Rolf and Rollo are one person. They say "he" died c930. I accept the time window for the death of Rollo.
YOU claim people say "he" was born 960. I have explained why they say that. They are wrong (for which see my paper).
It is clear to me that it was his father's death which allowed Rollo to bend the knee to the French king - a thing Rolf would never have done.
Rolf could have died before 911 - even 900 (but I think he didn't).
He "was of the right age" to marry a woman who we hae no idea when she was born ?It does not matter beyond that (as in the case of Rolf) he would have been 65 when marrying Giselle and I think that would be a bit steep even for a king of France.
So for neither of them, do we know within perhaps five or ten years either side when they were born, but they were of the right age to marry each other?Broadly yes. These marriages were political.
Will
On Wednesday, January 12, 2022 at 8:48:17 PM UTC, wjhons...@gmail.com wrote:back 70 years: kinda obvious (to any sophomore). So this date entirely depends on the conflation.
On Wednesday, January 12, 2022 at 7:20:54 AM UTC-8, AC Grant wrote:
On Tuesday, January 11, 2022 at 9:05:24 PM UTC, wjhons...@gmail.com wrote:.
I meant of course ca 860I wonder, Will, whether you ever stopped for a moment to consider where this 860 date came from?
The answer is easy and is "obvious" to any sophomore who thinks that Hrolfr and Hrollaug are interchangeable (not that I am laying that at you door). The 860 date is arrived at by starting with the death of Rollo (now called Robert) c930 and going
and his daughter Caitlin. Not only that but Rollo was of the right age to marry Poppa and was still young enough to be marrying Giselle in 911 (given that this one at least was a Christian marriage we have to assume that Poppa had died in the interim,As I have shown my date not only fits the rest of the family tree, but it also conforms with the analysis of the Landnamabok. But my analysis would fail completely if Rolf=Rollo. I also show WHY Rolf called his son Rollo (and his other one Guthrum)
None... that's the point.... whoever offered this date was plucking a number out of air (yet you claim whoever it may be as an authority)..Given that Rolf was so "stout" that no horse could carry him (whence "Gangu") it is not feasible to consider a long life for him (imagine the wear and tear on his hips and knees alone!). Actually 65 is doing well, considering.OK and what is your basis for 'going back 70 years'
What is the source that states that he died aged 70 ?
Nothing to do with me.... Don't ask me to justify the stupidity of sophomores.
By the way fmg clearly supposes that Rolf and Rollo are one person. They say "he" died c930. I accept the time window for the death of Rollo.
YOU claim people say "he" was born 960. I have explained why they say that. They are wrong (for which see my paper).
It is clear to me that it was his father's death which allowed Rollo to bend the knee to the French king - a thing Rolf would never have done.
Rolf could have died before 911 - even 900 (but I think he didn't).
He "was of the right age" to marry a woman who we hae no idea when she was born ?It does not matter beyond that (as in the case of Rolf) he would have been 65 when marrying Giselle and I think that would be a bit steep even for a king of France.
So for neither of them, do we know within perhaps five or ten years either side when they were born, but they were of the right age to marry each other?Broadly yes. These marriages were political.
Will
On Wednesday, January 12, 2022 at 1:05:58 PM UTC-8, AC Grant wrote:going back 70 years: kinda obvious (to any sophomore). So this date entirely depends on the conflation.
On Wednesday, January 12, 2022 at 8:48:17 PM UTC, wjhons...@gmail.com wrote:
On Wednesday, January 12, 2022 at 7:20:54 AM UTC-8, AC Grant wrote:
On Tuesday, January 11, 2022 at 9:05:24 PM UTC, wjhons...@gmail.com wrote:.
I meant of course ca 860I wonder, Will, whether you ever stopped for a moment to consider where this 860 date came from?
The answer is easy and is "obvious" to any sophomore who thinks that Hrolfr and Hrollaug are interchangeable (not that I am laying that at you door). The 860 date is arrived at by starting with the death of Rollo (now called Robert) c930 and
Guthrum) and his daughter Caitlin. Not only that but Rollo was of the right age to marry Poppa and was still young enough to be marrying Giselle in 911 (given that this one at least was a Christian marriage we have to assume that Poppa had died in theAs I have shown my date not only fits the rest of the family tree, but it also conforms with the analysis of the Landnamabok. But my analysis would fail completely if Rolf=Rollo. I also show WHY Rolf called his son Rollo (and his other one
you think they are separate people.None... that's the point.... whoever offered this date was plucking a number out of air (yet you claim whoever it may be as an authority)..Given that Rolf was so "stout" that no horse could carry him (whence "Gangu") it is not feasible to consider a long life for him (imagine the wear and tear on his hips and knees alone!). Actually 65 is doing well, considering.OK and what is your basis for 'going back 70 years'
What is the source that states that he died aged 70 ?
Nothing to do with me.... Don't ask me to justify the stupidity of sophomores.
By the way fmg clearly supposes that Rolf and Rollo are one person. They say "he" died c930. I accept the time window for the death of Rollo.
YOU claim people say "he" was born 960. I have explained why they say that. They are wrong (for which see my paper).
It is clear to me that it was his father's death which allowed Rollo to bend the knee to the French king - a thing Rolf would never have done.
Rolf could have died before 911 - even 900 (but I think he didn't).
They can't be "broadly" of the right age to marry each other, without any evidence of their age.He "was of the right age" to marry a woman who we hae no idea when she was born ?It does not matter beyond that (as in the case of Rolf) he would have been 65 when marrying Giselle and I think that would be a bit steep even for a king of France.
So for neither of them, do we know within perhaps five or ten years either side when they were born, but they were of the right age to marry each other?Broadly yes. These marriages were political.
Will
You could say a man of 70 is broadly the right age to marry a girl of 12 It's a meaningless statement
I did not claim that people saying c860 were "authorities""
I said if you were using credible sources, this is most commonly cited birth information for Rollo
I believe personally, this sort of artifice to be a crutch used by the feeble minded
We can say well he was living in 928 and no one mentioned how incredibly aged he was, so perhaps he was only say 80 at that time. We can say well he appears to have been active as a leader in battle in 900 so he was probably at least 30
We can make statements like that based on the extant sources
What we cannot say is that he was born *in* 846 or even 860 or any other particular year, without a source stating that, or a source from which an approximation that closely, can be made. We don't have that in the case of Rollo or even Ganger-Hrolf if
We might say, he was *living* in 910.....
The only acceptable sources are actual *credible* sources
**You are now trying to make a faux distinction between "authorities" and "credible sources" - and "acceptable" is in the eye of the beholder - adding rotational velocity. Men have not yet made a pin sharp enough to account for this attempt at dancing.extrapolation is required and the way that progress is made is by subjecting any such to vigorous examination (ironically your 860 date is precisely that sort of extrapolation and I have examined it and found it wanting) - but that is NOT what you are
**You keep on referring to "him" when "he" is really "they" (Why do you disrespect Old Norse so much? Errr.... don't answer this; the question is rhetorical.)
**Clearly you assert that you belong to the pedant school of history which is why the discipline has stultified. A huge amount of history has no "source" of the sort you claim to require - and so if any progress is to be made, interpolation and
You already have all the answers you could possibly need and anyone else who may, for some bizarre reason, be continuing to follow this "thread" knows this perfectly well. The silence from elsewhere demonstrates that for any rational person thisexchange had already exceeded common sense and I will indulge you no further. So far as I can see what you want is the last word. If so go ahead and reply to this....
Op zaterdag 8 januari 2022 om 15:36:24 UTC+1 schreef Darrell E. Larocque:being a younger daughter of a former castellan, the elder married daughter being dead without children. In 1448 a later castellan was imprisoned by his son and before he died he told what he knew about his ancestors to a servant or confidant. This person
Oral history is problematic and shouldn't be trusted as gospel, only as a guide by which to conduct further research.<[knip]
So you see I have no trust whatsoever in oral history and to continue to use it as a trusted source without question is reckless and irresponsible. I'm not saying it shouldn't be used, but extreme caution should be used and perspective given. <
Darrell E. LarocqueDarrell,
True, we are on the same line of thought. Looking back I should have better stated:
Long story short. Oral history has its shortcomings but you may never now what can be true in what not can be proven or disproven. Or better said, what can be explained better by someone who happens to trip over a detail.
In my case the story about the origins of the castellans of Montfoort goes as follows.
Something happened around 1260 and a younger son of the Lords of Rode had to flee the Dutchy of Brabant and came to the court of the count of Holland and the bishop of Utrecht. In due time he was installed as the Castellan of Montfoort, his mother
In 1957 it was critically reviewed in a thesis on the castellans of Montfoort.donated ecclesiastical institutions, canonical murder and mayhem) are not known in Brabant some aspects in the story ring true. Before that time there were indeed Lords of Rode and according the local custom and the right of succession the younger son
Yes, the orally handed down story and the written down version had shortcomings: mixed-up persons and chronological events. As the castellans were prominent in the history of Utrecht and Holland these items could easily be checked.
About the ancestor (the first castellan) it became likely that his story had integrated a remarkeble event from his own father, who probably was the person who had to flee. Although these events (elder brother dying leaving two daughters who lavishly
That's what I mean with the remark, one never knows for sure if there are kernels in a oral story that hold up if you look deeper. One should be critical but also aware that something indeed could have happened. In the above example we have an eventaround 1260 (in Brabant) told and written down in 1448 (in Utrecht) and published in 1719 that is indeed possible and likely if we view it in a bigger historical and genealogical picture. It gave me an inside in reviewing the Brabantse family of the
With regards,
Hans Vogels
Sysop: | Keyop |
---|---|
Location: | Huddersfield, West Yorkshire, UK |
Users: | 286 |
Nodes: | 16 (2 / 14) |
Uptime: | 84:26:41 |
Calls: | 6,495 |
Calls today: | 6 |
Files: | 12,097 |
Messages: | 5,276,895 |