Talk:Harthacnut I of Denmark

Untitled

Harthacnut is not at name. Canute is a name. and Hartha- is a byname as the correct english name is Hartha-Canute

I danish the name with be Hårde-Knud.

I would like to despute the neutrality of the article. It describes the told tale as a fact, rather than as a chronicle of a single source that is not widely accepted, and especially not by danish historians.

Adam of Bremen tell as one of his sources is Achievement of Angles today known as the Old English annals in this source Harthacnut been followed of Gorm, see List_of_monarchs_of_East_Anglia, as this Harthacnut = Guthfrith.

the "interview" by Adam of Bremen of king Sweyn Estridsson is fiction.

Gnupa was danish king in 934 and Gorm was king in 936 and between these was Gnupas son king. It create a short regime of HarthacnutHåbet 08:17, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

1) Yes, Hartha- is a "nickname".

2) No, the Danish form would is Hardeknud; "Hårde-" is probably Norwegian.

3) I'm changing the opening paragraph to something less matter-of-fact.

4) We know Adam was in Denmark, and most likely he did in fact visit king Sweyn. That doesn't mean what he wrote down is the absolute truth, of course.

5) Gnupa was defeated by Henry the Fowler of Saxony in 934. That's pretty much all we know of him. For all we know, he might not even have been king of Denmark (all of it, anyway).

--dllu 14:54, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

WikiProject class rating

This article was automatically assessed because at least one WikiProject had rated the article as start, and the rating on other projects was brought up to start class. BetacommandBot 14:16, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Same Person?

hi was just looking and is Harthacanute the same person? and if so does this need to be merged --Deadman (talk) 08:38, 6 August 2008 (UTC)--Deadman (talk) 09:57, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

No, they are not the same, look at the dates they lived for a start. PatGallacher (talk) 11:44, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Adam of Bremen's reliability

"The reliability of Adam as a source is called into question since he omits any reference to Sweyn I's exile in Scotland."

I cannot gather who calls it into question, because the source given in the footnote seems to be only an edition of Adam's chronicle, not a historian's assessment of it. Besides, neither an author (nor an editor, publisher, or date and place of publishing...) is given.

But I do know that Adam does mention Sweyn's exile in Scotland. I even think Adam is the only original source to state that Sweyn ever was an exile in Scotland, and that this story is dismissed as a legend in anything scientific I ever read about Sweyn. That means the justification of why Adam is "unreliable" given here is wrong.

Actually, I think that Adam's "unreliability" is somewhat overemphasized here, considering there is hardly a written historical source which is held to be unconditionally reliable by historians. Although it is true that Adam's account of Sweyn's life contains several implausible and improbable elements which are generally rejected by historians, it still seems a rather vague and too general a claim to say that Adam is "unreliable", implying that all of his chronicle is discredited as a historical source, which I frankly think is untrue. At least an academic source for this statement should be specified.

Corinius (talk) 02:39, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

"Actually, I think that Adam's "unreliability" is somewhat overemphasized here", Adam was against Sweyn. If king Sweyn was in Scotland, there was two "king Sweyn"s in that time or king Sweyn had a base port in Scotland for attack of England. But both options are new for the science and in conflict by Adam. At least an academic source for one of those statements should be specified or specify one new detected source.Haabet 10:31, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

1. We apparently agree that Sweyn's exile in Scotland is most likely fictitious. But the wording in the article makes it look like it was an acknowledged truth, and that Adam is not reliable precisely because he does not mention it, although fact is that he does mention it and that he is (widely) thought to be wrong with that. Confusing, and definitely needs change.

2. The statements that Adam's colloquy with Sweyn Estridsson is "likely fictitious", and that Adam (more or less in general) is unreliable, are lacking citation. The citation given is incomplete. Most important, it lacks an author. (Side note: After all, other explanations for Adam's errors are possible. For example, Sweyn Estridsson himself could have given him a "brushed up" version of his grandfather's life consciously.)

I would have rewritten the paragraph, but I do not know what to put in its place. In-depth discussions of Adam's reliability should be on his own page, or (regarding the elder Sweyn's career) on Sweyn's page. I would simply delete this last one and a half line, but if someone wants to keep it and has a valid source and citation for it, I don't want to be a killjoy.

Corinius (talk) 15:33, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

We are here in the prehistoric era. Adam 1.55;1.56 tell as a King Heinric attack Hardecnudth Vurm in 934. The older source: Widukind 1.40 tell about Chnuba, the danish form of the name Cnudth. Hardecnudth is identical by Chnuba. In the same way all thing corrupt in Adam. Widukind love Sweyn and Adam hate Sweyn. The neutral science is a modern concept.Haabet 14:25, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

I have rewritten the last section according to my criticism presented above. If someone feels tempted to revert it, please read the above paragraphs first. Thank you. Corinius (talk) 14:37, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

Silverdale treasure

Could anyone cite any verifiable source to support the claims described in the section about that? Thanks. --Bestiasonica (talk) 18:36, 2 May 2020 (UTC)