Gift/Forhold til: Sigfred "Sigurd Ring Randversson" Randversson #7583, sønn av Randver og N.N.. Adoptivforeldre: Randver Radbardsson og Ingild (Åsa?)(Haraldsdottir?) Godfredsdatter Også kjent som: Sigurd, født 730, døde 812, 81 eller 82 år Konge av Sverige. Slo og felte Harald Hildetand i det sagnomsuste Bråvallaslaget, og rådde siden for Sveavelde og Danevelde. Sloss med Karl den Store om overherredømmet i området i sør (Holsten, Saksen, Frisland). Døde kanskje omkring år 790. I Danmark er han en slags oldtidshelt. Skal ha vært gift med Kråka, er. Aslaug, kanskje fra sør, "Frankerriket".{geni:comment} http://www.vulkaner.no/f/m7xfm5xfp.htm {geni:comment} http://freepages.genealogy.rootsweb.ancestry.com/~jamesdow/s012/f968113.htm {geni:comment} http://www.perbenny.dk/dan1.html --- Slaget på Bråvalle Hede - Harald Hildetand - Sigurd Ring - Ubbe Friser - Stærkod --- Stammerne i Sverige må være kommet ind via Store Svitjod, (Rusland). Stammens høvding i Norden kaldte sig vel allerede dengang konge. Det har vist sig, at der var rigtig mange småkonger, fylkekonger, herredskonger, landskabskonger, underkonger og småkonger i mindre landområder (næppe større end de kommuner vi kender i dag). Dertil kom også søkonger. Snorre Sturlasons Ynglingesaga siger, at Sveernes første hersker var Odin i skovriget: Svitjod, (svedjebrug)hvor folket måtte betale en penning pr. næse til Odin. Denne Ynglingeslægt skulle stamme i lige linie fra: Frej/Frøj, (frugtbarhedsgud) ham med den store fallos. (Det er også set på billeder i Pompeji i 63 f. Kr.) Yndlingen Ingjald Ildråde kom i krig med Kong Ivar Vidfavne af Danmark, og da Ingjald besøgte kongsgården i Räning i Uppland, kom Ivar og angreb dem med stor overmagt, hvorpå Ingjald satte ild til kongsgården og gennemførte et selvmord ved at indebrænde. Sandsynligvis var det frygten for at blive træl, der medførte denne handling. Vikingerne og for den sags skyld Islams folk, er kendt for at gå i døden i kamp. For vikingerne var det en skændsel at dø i sengen, selvom vi i dag ved, at de fleste jo netop dør i sengen. Disse småkonger slog sig sammen i et nyt stammefællesskab, og til sidst opstod Sveernes og Göternes riger, hvorom det sige at landområderne strakte sig over ti dage på hesteryg. På baggrund af fund, har man valgt at sige, at Sveerne første oprindelse må være sket på Helgö, hvor de grundlagde deres »by« i år 200 e. Kr. og som nåede den højeste udvikling i 500-tallet e Kr.. I 700- 800 tallet har Sveernes landskabsforbund besejret Göterne, og derefter opstod Svea's rige. Langt senere i byerne opstår oldermænd, der føres protokol over beslutningerne og bylag (arbejdsfællesskab - senere kaldet: gilder - senere: mestersammenslutninger) og nuopstår almue = al muge = almenheden = hele folket. Ivar Vidfadme var Skånsk konge i slutningen af 600-tallet, og udvidede sit kongerige betydeligt. Han lod sin svigersøn, den sjællandske Kong Rørek, myrde. Røreks far var kong Hød. Harald Hildetand var søn af den myrdede Rørek og er født år 690. Ved Ivar Vidfadmes død blev Harald Hildetand i begyndelsen af 700-tallet konge i Danmark og kom i løbet af sin lange regeringstid til at herske over Danmark med Skånelandene omfattede det norske Vestfold og Sverige (syd for Värmland og Upland). Riget strakte sig fra Skiringssal i Norge, Uppsala i Sverrig, Hedeby i syd, Grobin i Kurland i øst, og til Northumberland i England i vest. Den svenske kong Sigurd Ring siger, at de var tvunget til at kæmpe for deres frihed, idet Harald Hildetand var fræk og havde samlet nogle Saksiske og Vendiske styrker mod Sigurd Ring og de nordiske stammer. Der skal have stået et vældigt slag på grænsen mellem Danmark og Sverrig, hvor de to Folk ret prøvede Kræfter med hinanden. Alle Nordens Stammer var med, og alle Nordens Helte gav Møde på den ene eller den anden Side. Blandt dem, der vare med, må først nævnes Stærkod, Helten over alle Helte, lige hjemmevant i alle tre Lande. Han skal være født i Norge, men i sin Ungdom tjente han den danske Konge Frode Ejegod og værnede da Danmark med stor Tapperhed. Da Frode var død, og hans Søn: IngelVendemod var bleven Konge, blev Tilstanden her i Landet så slet, at Stærkod ikke gad være her. Ingel giftede sig nemlig med en tysk Prinsesse, og der blev så fint og fornemt og så tysk i Kongsgården, at den ikke var til at kende igen, og Stærkod, som var en Ven af det jævne, det tarvelige og det nordiske, drog da til Sverrig. Dog glemte han ikke Danmark; tre Gange drog han herned for at hjælpe på Tingene, og det lykkedes ham da også til sidst at få Tyskeriet fortrængt. Dette var ikke hans eneste Bedrift; thi alle Vegne, hvor noget stort blev øvet i hans Tid, var han med; hans Heltery var vide kendt, og hans Sange ikke mindre; thi han var lige så god Skjald som Kæmpe. På den Tid, hvorom her fortælles, opholdt han sig i Sverrig og var derfor med i Bråvalleslaget (the Battle of Brávellir) på Svenskernes Side. I Danmark regerede dengang den gamle Harald Hildetand, der i sin Ungdom havde været en stor Krigsmand, men nu var blind af Alderdom og frygtede for at skulle dø Strådød. Dog undte Odin ham en hæderlig Død: han skulle falde i Kampens Bulder og drage med stort Følge til Valhal. Da derfor Brune, som var Sendebud mellem Harald Hildetand og den svenske Konge Sigurd Ring, engang på sin Sendefærd druknede i en å, tog Odin sig hans Skikkelse på, rejste med Bud frem og tilbage mellem Kongerne, men forrettede sine Ærinder på den Måde, at Stridslysten blev vakt på begge Sider, og det blev bestemt, at Kongerne med al deres Styrke skulle mødes på Bråvalle Hede. Sigurd Ring kom først, men befalede sine Folk at forholde sig rolige, indtil Danskerne vare komne og ordentlig opstillede. Dette tog Tid; thi der var en myldrende Mængde. Skib lå ved Skib mellem Sjælland og Skåne, og man kunne gå fra Land til Land som over en Bro. Men endelig var de der. Kongerne talte til Hærene og opmuntrede dem til at gå frejdig på; Lurerne klang, og Kampråb fyldte Luften. Striden begyndte med, at Hærene sendte Skyer af Spyd og Pile mod hinanden, og allerede under den første Del af Kampen flød Blodet i Strømme. Da Pilene vare opbrugte, drog man Sværdene og kæmpede Mand mod Mand. Stærkod, der, som sagt, var på Sigurd Rings Side, gik først mod Ubbe Friser og fik af ham seks Sår. Derefter kæmpede han med Skjoldmøen Veborg, som hug ham således i Ansigtet, at Hagen dinglede, men han bed i Skægget og holdt den således fast. Så mødte han Skjoldmøen Visne. »Du raser mod Enden«, råbte hun ham i møde, »nu skal du dø !« - »Nej«, svarede han, »ikke før du har tabt Haralds Banner!« I det samme afhuggede han hendes Hånd og gik videre. - Den gamle blinde Kong Harald kørte frem i Striden med et Sværd i hver Hånd og hug løs på Fjenden. Han faldt i Slaget, man vil sige for Odins egen Hånd, men 15 Konger faldt med ham og 30.000 fribårne Mænd. Da Sigurd Ring hørte, at hans Modstander var falden7 gav han øjeblikkelig Tegn til at standse Slaget. Dagen efter lod han Haralds Lig opsøge og sætte på Bål tillige med hans Hest. Kong Sigurd gik da frem foran Bålet og bad Harald ride rask til Valhalog tinge Husly til Kæmperne, hvorefter alle Høvdinger gik rundt om Bålet og kastede Våben og Guld derpå. Harald Hildetand faldt sammen med sin søn: Rørek i kamp mod Sigurd Ring år 770/772. {geni:comment} http://www.perbenny.dk/dan1.html Kong Sigfred (Sigurd 1. Ring) nævnes i år 777, 782, 798 i det frankiske riges årbøger. Kongemagten er åbenbart ret stabil, siden Sigfred sidder på tronen i mindst 21 år. Sigurd Rings far var Randveig Radbardsson (f.ca. 680-d. 700), der var underkonge i Sverrig. Randveig Radbardsson´s mor var Audr Iversdatter og faderen var Radbert d. 1. fra "Gardariget". Sigurd Ring blev antaget som underkonge i nord-Sverige og i Vestfold af sin faders halvbror: Harald Hildetand, som han slog i 770/772 i Bråvalllaslaget. Derefter blev Sigurd Ring enekonge. Han sendte sin yngste bror: Halfdan som gesandt til Karl den Stores rigsdag i Lippspringe i 782 og modtog gesandter fra Karl den Store i 798. Sigurd Ring var gift med Alfhild Gangalvsdatter, og de fik: Regnar Lodbrog Sigurdsen (f. 735-d.795 i England) og Geva (f.750-d. ?). Fra 772 havde Frankerne og Karl den Store besejret Sakserne og ødelagt deres helligdom "Irminsul" i Westfalen tæt ved Sakserborgen: Eresburg. I 782 giver den danske kong Sigfred asyl til sakserhøvdingen: Widukind (Wedukin). Sakserne og Abroditterne (Venderne) var gået i forbund mod Frankernes ekspansion. Karl den Store skal på én enkelt dag i 782 i byen Verden i Nordtyskland havde ladet 4.500 såkaldte hedenske Saksere halshugge, og Karl den Store indførte strenge straffe for ukristne ritualer, herunder dødsstraf for bestemte forseelser, som han lod nedfælde i Capitulatio de partibus Saxoniae, udstedt i 782 eller i 785. I 783 vandt Frankerne afgørende sejre, og nårsomhelst Sakserne senere forsøgte modstand, ramtes de af frygtelig straf; oprørerne tvangskristnedes og, hvad værre var, de flyttedes i massevis bort fra deres hjemland og ejendomme, der overgives til frankiske nybyggere. I 785 oplevede den Angelsaksiske Willehad fra Northumbrien, hvordan Karl den Store tvangskristede Sakserne. Med våbenmagt opløste Frankerne det Saksiske folk og stamme. Derefter slog Willehad sig ned i Bremen, hvorfra han virkede som missionær, og hvor han døde og blev gravlagt i 789 i Bremens første domkirke. Willehad havde selv ladet den opføre, og dermed skabt grundlaget for det senere Hamburg-Bremen bispesæde. Det nordtyske bispesæde Bremens kirkehistorie og Nordeuropas "missionshistorie" tager derfor sin begyndelse med den angelsaksiske biskop Willehad (ca.740-789). Hamburg (Hammaburg) var ellers engang Saxonernes berømte by, og Saxonernes land udgjorde en betydelig del af Germanien, og var dobbelt så bredt som Frankernes land, men lige så langt. Hamborg blev grundlagt af Frankerne i 811, på en boplads, hvorfra altså Frankerne havde fordrevet Sakserne. Efter således tre faser med Sakserkrige i perioden: 772-804 lykkedes det Karl den Store (747-814) at indlemme og undertrykke Sakserne ind under Frankerriget. Men i 785 var de "nordtyske" Friseres omvendelse til kristendommen så vidt fuldbyrdet, at et bispedømme kunne oprettes i Bremen. Omkring år 790 viste kirken igen interesse for Danernes liv, men mente åbenbart ikke, at det kunne nytte noget. Op imodår 800 skete der store omvæltninger i Nordtyskland, og Karl den Store, konge over det vældige kristne Frankerrige og titulært kejser af Rom, underkastede sig nu størstedelen af det nuværende Tyskland, herunder Sachsen, hvor Sachserne gennem voldsomme myrderier og tvangsforflytninger i 783-805 blev tvangsdøbt til kristendommen. Juledag år 800 kronede pave Leo i Rom Karl den Store til romersk kejser. Ved århundredskiftet var Elben blevet Frankerrigets grænse; men nu syntes det, som om Karl ville gå videre. Med det store kejserhof i Aachen, havde Danmark fået nogle farlige naboer. Frankerne krævede, at Elben blev deres grænse og krævede tvangsforflytning af Sakserne. Landområderne syd for Dannevirke og Ejderen var folketomme, og østpå var der skovområder, som kaldtes Jernved (Isarnho på tysk). Det vældige land var i efterårsmånederne en kæmpemæssig vandflade indtil Ejder-slusen i vor tid gjorde en ende på oversvømmelserne. Holsten var endnu ikke opfundet, og området var omgivet af Vagrien, Stormarn og Ditmarsken. Hele området kaldtes i middelalderen Nord-Albingien og var beboet af Saksere, men efter Karl den Stores erobring omkring år800 og hans hårdhændede kristendomsforkyndelse blev store dele af landet lagt åbent for indvandring af de Vendiske Wagrere og Obotritter. I forbund med de slaviske Obotriter i østHolsten kunne Karl den Store undertvinge og omflytte de Saksiske stammer nord for Elben: Sturmerne og Holsterne, dvs. Holtseterne, de, der havde dyrket jord op og boede i skoven, holtet. I 804 var Karl selv i denne anledning helt oppe ved Elben; da fik han efterretning om, at kong Godfred, en søn af kong Sigfred, havde samlet en hær ved Sliestorp, på Sliens nordlige bred, lige overfor Hedeby. Kong Godfreds fjendtlighed er let forståelig. Karl ville slutte forbund med de slaviske Obotritter, og lade dem fåden saksisk befolkede del af Holsten, og Karl ville tage magten over byen Reric, og dermed Frisernes handelsvej over Hedeby. Godfred forstod hvad denne frisiske handelsvejs beherskelse betød for hans kongemagt, og han tilbød Karlforhandlinger. Barn: 2. Ragnar "Ragnar Lodbrock, King Ragnar Lodbrog, Ragnar"Lodbr" Lodbroks #7551Født 765, døde 845, 79 eller 80 år {geni:comment} http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ragnar_Lodbrok {geni:comment} Some different ideas about who exactly Ragnar is son of here: http://www.vikingekonger.dk/Vikingekonger%20HTML/Centrale%20dele/Prologen.htm REFN: 5773 See Snorre's Saga and the Icelandic Landnamobok (Book of Settlment) . Many historians regard much of the genealogy at this point to be purely l egendary, or even mythical.See Snorre's Saga and the IcelandicLandnamobok (Book of Settlment). "Greatest of all Vikings" (Makers of England, Arthur Bryant, p. 95,Doubleday & Comp., 1962) "Royalty for Commoners", Roderick W. Stuart, 1992, 2nd edition. "Pedigrees of the County Families of Yorkshire", Foster, 1874, 2 vols.vol1: West Riding, vol2: North and East Ridings "Ancestral roots of certain American colonists who came to America before1700", Weis, 1992, seventh edition. Was RAGNAR LOTHBROK historical? One of the things that makes this a difficult question to discuss is that the question "Was Ragnar Lothbrok historical?" is itself somewhat ambiguous. Thus, before the question can be discussed, the question has to first be more clearly defined. To mention two opposite extremes, a skeptic could ask whether or not everything which is said about the character of Ragnar Lothbrok is historically accurate, observe that the answer is certainly "no", and then claim victory. At the other extreme, a proponent of a historical Ragnar Lothbrok could ask if a Viking by the name of Ragnar ever existed, point out that a Viking having the correct name ("Reginheri") appears in the Frankish annals, and claim that Ragnar Lothbrok was therefore historical. Neither of these two extremes is acceptable in a serious argument on the subject, so I will discuss the subject from the following middle ground. The criteria which I will use are that in order for Ragnar Lothbrok to be considered as historical, there should be a historically documented person of that name who actually performed a significant number of the deeds attributed to the legendary Ragnar Lothbrok. I think these are reasonable criteria, and the remainder of this discussion is based on these principles. Now, to answer the question: No, Ragnar Lothbrok does not appear to be a historical figure, based on the above criteria. I will give some comments as to why I have this opinion, and then mention some reading material for those who want more. RAGNAR The contemporary historical records of the ninth century (when Ragnar Lothbrok supposedly lived) show only one Viking of the correct name, a Viking named "Reginheri" (a Latin form equivalent to the name Ragnar) in France WHO DIED IN THE YEAR 845, according to the contemporary Frankish annals. The emphasized words in the previous sentence are often conveninetly overlooked by those who wish to use Reginheri as a historical prototype for Ragnar Lothbrok. Since Reginheri died in France in the year 845, he cannot have participated in the later events which form the principal part of the legendary Ragnar Lothbrok's exploits. In addition, there is no good evidence that Reginheri was the father of any of the individuals who later came to be regarded as sons of Ragnar Lothbrok. Thus, Reginheri fails to satisfy the criterion mentioned above. No other historical Norseman named Ragnar is known for the appropriate time period. LOTHBROK No contemporary record gives this name, and it is significant that when the name finally does make it appearance in the records 200 years later, it stands alone. (Ari, writing in the twelfth century, was the first known writer to make Ragnar and Lothbrok the same person.) The name first appears (as "Lothbroc") in "Gesta Normannorum Ducum", by William of Jumieges, writing about 1070, in which Lothbroc is called he father of Bjorn Ironside. (A Viking named Bjorn is verified by the contemporary chronicles, but without the nickname.) Adam of Bremen, writing soon afterward, called Ivar the son of "Lodparchus". Besides the fact that this Lothbrok is not attested in any of the contemporary sources, there seems to be another problem, and that is that the name ("Lothbroka") appears to be a women's name. See the article on Ragnars saga" by Rory McTurk in "Medieval Scandinavia: an encyclopedia" (New York and London, 1993). If this argument based on philology is correct, then this Lothbrok(a), if historical at all, would be a women, and clearly not identical with the legendary Ragnarr Lothbrok. (I do not have the background in linguistics to comment further on this gender argument.) RAGNALL The "Fragmentary Annals of Ireland" (edited and translated by Joan N. Radner, Dublin, 1978, formerly called "Three Fragments") has an item of interest which has frequently been pointed out as possibly relating to the legend of Ragnar Lothbrok. In it, a certain Ragnall (Rognvald) son of Alpdan (Halfdan), king of Norway, is mentioned, and his exploits prior to the fall of York to the Danes are given, in a context in which it is at least arguable that Ragnall and Ragnar Lothbrok were the same person. There are two problem with this interpretation. First, Ragnar and Ragnall are not the same name, even though they look similar. Second, and more important, the Fragmentary Annals are themselves not a contemporary source, and there is good reason to be suspicious about them. However, even if we were to allow that the events given there are historical (a concession which many historians would be unwilling to make), and then concede further that these events form the basis of the Ragnar legend, then we would still have that the person on whom the legend was based did not have the right name. Could RAGNALL and LOTHBROK have been the same person? We have already seen that the only historically attested Ragnar (Reginheri) cannot reasonably be regarded as a historical prototype for Ragnar Lothbrok. Thus, it appears that the best attempt to argue for a historical Ragnar Lothbrok is to propose (as has been done on numerous occasions) that Ragnall and Lothbrok were both the same person, and then assume that the similar (but different) names Ragnall and Ragnar were accidently confused. Thus, let us see what assumptions are needed in order to assume that Ragnall and Lothbrok were the same person, assuming that they existed at all. In order for this to be the case, we must make the following assumptions: (1) We must assume that Adam of Bremen (late eleventh century) was correct in giving "Lodparchus" (i.e., Lothbrok) as the name of the father of Ivar (late ninth century). (2) We must assume that the "Coghad Gaedhel re Gallaibh" ("The War of the Gaedhil with the Gaill", ed. by Todd, London, 1867), a twelfth century Irish source, is correct in stating that Halfdan of Dublin (killed in Ireland in 877, according to the Annals of Ulster) was the son of a certain Ragnall, and that this Ragnall was the same as the Ragnall who appears in the Fragmentary Annals of Ireland. (3) We must assume that the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle is correct in stating that a brother (unnamed, but called Ubbe in later sources) of Halfdan and Ivar was killed in England in 878, despite the contradictory testimony of Aethelweard which gives a very different reading for the same event (see 4). (4) We must assume that the chronicle of Aethelweard is wrong in stating that Halfdan brother of Ivar was killed in England in 878, for otherwise that would prove that Halfdan of Dublin (d. 877 in Ireland) was a different person from Halfdan brother of Ivar. (5) In addition to assuming that Halfdan of Dublin was the same person as Halfdan brother of Ivar, we must also assume that this Ivar was the same person as Adam of Bremen's Ivar, keeping in mind that Aethelweard's chronicle, if correct, would imply the existence of two Ivars in the British isles at this time. (6) We must assume that the philological argument making Lothbrok(a) a feminine name is incorrect. (7) If Ari, the earliest author to mention Ragnar Lothbrok, is to be considered a reliable source on this matter, then we must also assume that Halfdan of Dublin was the same person as the Halfdan brother of Sigifrid who appears in the Annals of Fulda for the year 873, despite the severe chronological problems which that would cause with Ari's genealogies. of the above assumptions, numbers (1) through (6) are crucial if one wishes to argue that Ragnall and Lothbrok were the same, and (7) is needed also if it is to be assumed that the information given by Ari is accurate. Given the noncontemporary nature of the first two items, along with the contradictions present some of the others, there is a very small chance that all six of the crucial assumptions are correct. However, if any one of the first six items is false, then the case for Ragnall being the same as Lothbrok collapses, and we must conclude that the "Ragnall Lothbrok" attempt for a historical Ragnar Lothbrok is unsatisfactory. [Note: See R. W. McTurk's article "Ragnarr Lothbrok in the Irish Annals?" (Proceedings of the Seventh Viking Congress, 1976, pp. 93-123), where a different, but much more rigid, list of the same type is given.] CONCLUSIONS Since all of the above attempts to find a historical Ragnar Lothbrok fail to satisfy the mentioned criteria, Lothbrok and Ragnall come from noncontemporary sources which are themselves open to suspicion, and the historical records show nobody else (as far as I know) who could be plausibly identified with Ragnar Lothbrok, it must be concluded that Ragnar Lothbrok is not historical according to the terms described above. In fact, if there is any historical basis to Ragnar Lothbrok legend, it is quite likely that Ragnar Lothbrok is the result of combining two or more distinct individuals into a single character having the attributes of both, in much the same way as Ragnar Lothbrok's legendary "father" Sigurd Ring is in fact a composite of two different men who fought against each other for the Danish throne in the year 814, Sigifridus ("Sigurd") and Anulo (of which "Ring" is a translation of Latin "Annulus"). However, such composite characters cannot be considered as historical, and there is no evidence which comes close to being contemporary which shows that either Lothbrok or Ragnall existed. FURTHER READING The most ambitious attempt to portray Ragnar Lothbrok as a historical figure is "Scandinavian Kings in the British Isles 850-880" by Alfred P. Smyth (Oxford University Press, 1977). For a very critical examination of Smyth's views, see "High-kings, Vikings and other kings", by Donnchadh O' Corrain, in Irish Historical Review, vol 21 (1979), pp. 283-323 (very highly recommended). Both of these sources cite numerous other relevant sources for those who are interested in further details. [Note: The usual apologies if my transliterations from the Old Norse alphabet into the alphabet available to me is a bit sloppy.] Stewart Baldwin [Custer February 1, 2002 Family Tree.FTW] [merge G675.FTW] See Snorre's Saga and the Icelandic Landnamobok (Book of Settlment). "Greatest of all Vikings" (Makers of England, Arthur Bryant, p. 95,Doubleday & Comp., 1962) "Royalty for Commoners", Roderick W. Stuart, 1992, 2nd edition. "Pedigrees of the County Families of Yorkshire", Foster, 1874, 2 vols.vol1: West Riding, vol2: North and East Ridings "Ancestral roots of certain American colonists who came to America before1700", Weis, 1992, seventh edition. Was RAGNAR LOTHBROK historical? One of the things that makes this a difficult question to discuss is that the question "Was Ragnar Lothbrok historical?" is itself somewhat ambiguous. Thus, before the question can be discussed, the question has to first be more clearly defined. To mention two opposite extremes, a skeptic could ask whether or not everything which is said about the character of Ragnar Lothbrok is historically accurate, observe that the answer is certainly "no", and then claim victory. At the other extreme, a proponent of a historical Ragnar Lothbrok could ask if a Viking by the name of Ragnar ever existed, point out that a Viking having the correct name ("Reginheri") appears in the Frankish annals, and claim that Ragnar Lothbrok was therefore historical. Neither of these two extremes is acceptable in a serious argument on the subject, so I will discuss the subject from the following middle ground. The criteria which I will use are that in order for Ragnar Lothbrok to be considered as historical, there should be a historically documented person of that name who actually performed a significant number of the deeds attributed to the legendary Ragnar Lothbrok. I think these are reasonable criteria, and the remainder of this discussion is based on these principles. Now, to answer the question: No, Ragnar Lothbrok does not appear to be a historical figure, based on the above criteria. I will give some comments as to why I have this opinion, and then mention some reading material for those who want more. RAGNAR The contemporary historical records of the ninth century (when Ragnar Lothbrok supposedly lived) show only one Viking of the correct name, a Viking named "Reginheri" (a Latin form equivalent to the name Ragnar) in France WHO DIED IN THE YEAR 845, according to the contemporary Frankish annals. The emphasized words in the previous sentence are often conveninetly overlooked by those who wish to use Reginheri as a historical prototype for Ragnar Lothbrok. Since Reginheri died in France in the year 845, he cannot have participated in the later events which form the principal part of the legendary Ragnar Lothbrok's exploits. In addition, there is no good evidence that Reginheri was the father of any of the individuals who later came to be regarded as sons of Ragnar Lothbrok. Thus, Reginheri fails to satisfy the criterion mentioned above. No other historical Norseman named Ragnar is known for the appropriate time period. LOTHBROK No contemporary record gives this name, and it is significant that when the name finally does make it appearance in the records 200 years later, it stands alone. (Ari, writing in the twelfth century, was the first known writer to make Ragnar and Lothbrok the same person.) The name first appears (as "Lothbroc") in "Gesta Normannorum Ducum", by William of Jumieges, writing about 1070, in which Lothbroc is called he father of Bjorn Ironside. (A Viking named Bjorn is verified by the contemporary chronicles, but without the nickname.) Adam of Bremen, writing soon afterward, called Ivar the son of "Lodparchus". Besides the fact that this Lothbrok is not attested in any of the contemporary sources, there seems to be another problem, and that is that the name ("Lothbroka") appears to be a women's name. See the article on Ragnars saga" by Rory McTurk in "Medieval Scandinavia: an encyclopedia" (New York and London, 1993). If this argument based on philology is correct, then this Lothbrok(a), if historical at all, would be a women, and clearly not identical with the legendary Ragnarr Lothbrok. (I do not have the background in linguistics to comment further on this gender argument.) RAGNALL The "Fragmentary Annals of Ireland" (edited and translated by Joan N. Radner, Dublin, 1978, formerly called "Three Fragments") has an item of interest which has frequently been pointed out as possibly relating to the legend of Ragnar Lothbrok. In it, a certain Ragnall (Rognvald) son of Alpdan (Halfdan), king of Norway, is mentioned, and his exploits prior to the fall of York to the Danes are given, in a context in which it is at least arguable that Ragnall and Ragnar Lothbrok were the same person. There are two problem with this interpretation. First, Ragnar and Ragnall are not the same name, even though they look similar. Second, and more important, the Fragmentary Annals are themselves not a contemporary source, and there is good reason to be suspicious about them. However, even if we were to allow that the events given there are historical (a concession which many historians would be unwilling to make), and then concede further that these events form the basis of the Ragnar legend, then we would still have that the person on whom the legend was based did not have the right name. Could RAGNALL and LOTHBROK have been the same person? We have already seen that the only historically attested Ragnar (Reginheri) cannot reasonably be regarded as a historical prototype for Ragnar Lothbrok. Thus, it appears that the best attempt to argue for a historical Ragnar Lothbrok is to propose (as has been done on numerous occasions) that Ragnall and Lothbrok were both the same person, and then assume that the similar (but different) names Ragnall and Ragnar were accidently confused. Thus, let us see what assumptions are needed in order to assume that Ragnall and Lothbrok were the same person, assuming that they existed at all. In order for this to be the case, we must make the following assumptions: (1) We must assume that Adam of Bremen (late eleventh century) was correct in giving "Lodparchus" (i.e., Lothbrok) as the name of the father of Ivar (late ninth century). (2) We must assume that the "Coghad Gaedhel re Gallaibh" ("The War of the Gaedhil with the Gaill", ed. by Todd, London, 1867), a twelfth century Irish source, is correct in stating that Halfdan of Dublin (killed in Ireland in 877, according to the Annals of Ulster) was the son of a certain Ragnall, and that this Ragnall was the same as the Ragnall who appears in the Fragmentary Annals of Ireland. (3) We must assume that the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle is correct in stating that a brother (unnamed, but called Ubbe in later sources) of Halfdan and Ivar was killed in England in 878, despite the contradictory testimony of Aethelweard which gives a very different reading for the same event (see 4). (4) We must assume that the chronicle of Aethelweard is wrong in stating that Halfdan brother of Ivar was killed in England in 878, for otherwise that would prove that Halfdan of Dublin (d. 877 in Ireland) was a different person from Halfdan brother of Ivar. (5) In addition to assuming that Halfdan of Dublin was the same person as Halfdan brother of Ivar, we must also assume that this Ivar was the same person as Adam of Bremen's Ivar, keeping in mind that Aethelweard's chronicle, if correct, would imply the existence of two Ivars in the British isles at this time. (6) We must assume that the philological argument making Lothbrok(a) a feminine name is incorrect. (7) If Ari, the earliest author to mention Ragnar Lothbrok, is to be considered a reliable source on this matter, then we must also assume that Halfdan of Dublin was the same person as the Halfdan brother of Sigifrid who appears in the Annals of Fulda for the year 873, despite the severe chronological problems which that would cause with Ari's genealogies. of the above assumptions, numbers (1) through (6) are crucial if one wishes to argue that Ragnall and Lothbrok were the same, and (7) is needed also if it is to be assumed that the information given by Ari is accurate. Given the noncontemporary nature of the first two items, along with the contradictions present some of the others, there is a very small chance that all six of the crucial assumptions are correct. However, if any one of the first six items is false, then the case for Ragnall being the same as Lothbrok collapses, and we must conclude that the "Ragnall Lothbrok" attempt for a historical Ragnar Lothbrok is unsatisfactory. [Note: See R. W. McTurk's article "Ragnarr Lothbrok in the Irish Annals?" (Proceedings of the Seventh Viking Congress, 1976, pp. 93-123), where a different, but much more rigid, list of the same type is given.] CONCLUSIONS Since all of the above attempts to find a historical Ragnar Lothbrok fail to satisfy the mentioned criteria, Lothbrok and Ragnall come from noncontemporary sources which are themselves open to suspicion, and the historical records show nobody else (as far as I know) who could be plausibly identified with Ragnar Lothbrok, it must be concluded that Ragnar Lothbrok is not historical according to the terms described above. In fact, if there is any historical basis to Ragnar Lothbrok legend, it is quite likely that Ragnar Lothbrok is the result of combining two or more distinct individuals into a single character having the attributes of both, in much the same way as Ragnar Lothbrok's legendary "father" Sigurd Ring is in fact a composite of two different men who fought against each other for the Danish throne in the year 814, Sigifridus ("Sigurd") and Anulo (of which "Ring" is a translation of Latin "Annulus"). However, such composite characters cannot be considered as historical, and there is no evidence which comes close to being contemporary which shows that either Lothbrok or Ragnall existed. FURTHER READING The most ambitious attempt to portray Ragnar Lothbrok as a historical figure is "Scandinavian Kings in the British Isles 850-880" by Alfred P. Smyth (Oxford University Press, 1977). For a very critical examination of Smyth's views, see "High-kings, Vikings and other kings", by Donnchadh O' Corrain, in Irish Historical Review, vol 21 (1979), pp. 283-323 (very highly recommended). Both of these sources cite numerous other relevant sources for those who are interested in further details. [Note: The usual apologies if my transliterations from the Old Norse alphabet into the alphabet available to me is a bit sloppy.] Stewart Baldwin |
N.N. Gift/Forhold til: N.N. |