Talk:House of Munsö

Dynasty?

I doubt that this is considered a "house" anywhere in the old Nordic literature. Someone has just tried to link together the "House of Ivar and Ragnar Lodbrok", the Old Dynasty and the "House of Uppsala", whatever they are. "Munsö" is a learned construction. There is no reason to assume that all these kings were simply related. This is either antiquated speculative scholarship or original research; WP:SYN. /Pieter Kuiper 10:37, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Proposal for deletion

I propose to delete this article. Although the term is common on google, this seems to come mostly from here. I did some searches on the academic parts of Google:

• books.google.com("House of Munsö"): 0 (zero) hits;
• scholar.google.com("House of Munsö"): "did not match any documents."

The Swedish term is sv:Munsöätten. Also this term is not found on scholar.google. However, on books.google this term occurs. In just one single book, on three pages in "Fornnordisk ordbok" (1975) by sv:Åke Ohlmarks. Conclusion: this is bordering on WP:HOAX. It should not be an article. /Pieter Kuiper 17:17, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Fornnordisk ordbok is published by a scholarly press. The fact that the term does not appear in the sagas is irrelevant, your own research demonstrates that it has been used by scholars and your hoax accusations are therefore inappropriate. Briangotts (Talk) (Contrib) 20:00, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Tiden is a large publisher, but not "scholarly press". Ohlmarks was an "independent academic". For convenience the ISBN link:

Åke, Ohlmarks (1975), Fornnordisk ordbok, Stockholm: Tiden, ISBN 91-550-1914-5

/Pieter Kuiper 20:34, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Too common a name for the dynasty for it to be removed.--Berig 19:07, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

For easy reference: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/House of Munsö. /Pieter Kuiper 21:28, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

WP:FTN discussion

Sadly, not every nation can boast an equally long and equally glorious written past. This is a grave injustice, which some people remedy by synthesizing a past. Sometimes this looks impressive. From snippets of information from the first millennium, Icelandic fireside tales, fancy names of funeral mounds, 17th century historians, and some creativity, someone constructed a prehistoric House of Munsö to make any Swede proud. Now I have put all this hard work up for deletion, because this wikipedia article is polluting the internet. The "House of Munsö" never existed as a dynasty, it is an invention, one that is being spread all over now because wikipedia is so often copied. Of course the "Gothic mafia" is defending their work. It would be nice if a skeptic from here could come to the AfD-page and give his opinion. I am not that well versed in Wikipedia guidelines and precedents. /Pieter Kuiper 21:58, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

hmmm. I responded on the Afd, it seems on the edge of being a notable enough fringe theory, but needs more sources to stay. --Rocksanddirt 00:03, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Pieter Kuiper is right when he states that he is not very versed in WP guidelines and I am sad to note that WP:NPOV is a central policy that he appears not to have familiarized himself with yet, as is made quite obvious by the fact that he still considers it an award to be called a left-wing vandal. As for the present target of his cleanup campaign, the House of Munsö (Swedish: Munsöätten) is so uncontested that it is the name used by the Swedish Museum of National Antiquities[1]. Naturally, it is always possible to find the odd scholar who prefers a different term, but this particular name is the one that is the most commonly used with over 800 google hits[2], whereas the main alternative term Uppsalaätten has only 35 hits[3].--Berig 16:21, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

The national museum made a slip on its website there. It is just one of their hundreds of webpages. Significantly, the term is not in their dictionary Vikingatidens ABC, which is also publshed on paper. As I showed, scholars are not using this term in printed works, except for the "independent academic" sv:Åke Ohlmarks.

As for the award, I thought that the Goths were allied with the Vandals, "sophisticated" is definitely positive, and I do not mind being called "left-wing" by reactionaries. /Pieter Kuiper 16:43, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

The usability of the term is sufficiently confirmed by the Swedish Museum of National Antiquities whose staff most assuredly know what they are doing. The reason why Munsöätten does not appear in the small "Vikingatidens ABC" is probably because it belongs to many notable Viking Age subjects that are not covered by it. The notability of the article is perfectly satisfied by the fact that most of the dynasty appears in legendary material, and WP has a great many articles on both fictive, mythological and legendary dynasties. In this particular case, the article House of Munsö makes it perfectly clear that the matter is "semi-legendary". IMHO, Pieter Kuiper confirms the concerns about abuse that many people voiced about this noticeboard when it was launched. He consciously tries to make quite a notable Norse legendary dynasty, whose more or less historical members appear in many Norse sagas (Ragnar Lodbrok, Björn Ironside, Eric Eymundsson, Eric the Victorious, etc.), appear as "fringe". As one of the main contributors on articles on Norse mythology, legends and history, I find it preposterous to see the article posted here.--Berig 17:15, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

It is not just that there is no article "Munsö-ätten" in Vikingatidens ABC. The point is that the term "Munsö-ätten" does not occur anywhere there. Not in the article about Eric the Victorious, nor anywhere else in that lexicon. /Pieter Kuiper 17:29, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Pieter, Vikingatidens ABC is a very small online dictionary. Why are you so determined that the "slip", as you call it, appears on their main site, and not in Vikingatidens ABC? Whether you like it or not, Munsöätten is the *only* name used by the Museum of National Antiquities for the dynasty, and the most common name with a vengeance on the Internet. I hope that you understand that there are many editors on WP, who are interested in dynasties, whether they were completely historical, semi-legendary, legendary or completely fictional.--Berig 17:43, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

As an outsider, it was clear to be that Peter was seeing the "award" as an unintended tribute. :)

The actual scholarly consensus is not determined based only on the internet, but from authoritative modern reference sources. The way to settle this is from such sources, giving appropriate quotations of text as well as the tables. Of course, some internet sources are considered reliable, but in all fields museum exhibitions do not always agree with current scholarship. They'd be considered tertiary sources, just as encyclopedias and dictionaries are, and not as reliable as the peer-reviewed research papers and books from scholarly publishers.

But Berig is correct that WP deals not with the truth exactly, but with what the world sees as factual. And therefore if a false name or an imaginary genealogy is used in popular works, or by any significant scholars, then it gets an article. The article would explain what the postulated relationship is, It would also include criticism of the theory based on published reliable sources. Berig is however not correct that the number of google hits determines what is the state of consensus on the matter, or even what articles can be supported. Rather, the sources they link to must be individually analyzed. If the page is kept at the AfD its contents can be discussed on its talk page in the customary manner here. If not, on some other appropriate page. I regret to tell Pieter that if the public has gotten hold of a false idea, the false idea will be represented in WP--if it is essentially unknown, then it won't. The place to write a fully scholarly article is elsewhere, such as Citizendium, where specialists with academic qualifications are always eagerly welcomed and supported. DGG (talk) 17:52, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

DGG makes some good points. the google hits for my real name put actually me in the first several items, and there are lots of hits (greater than 10,000) and I'm totally un-notable. --Rocksanddirt 18:15, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

hello? this has nothing to do with WP:FRINGE. The article clearly states the dynasty is "semi-legendary". The article is categorized as "Norse mythology". There is a difference between mythology and fringe science. The only question here is, should this stay separate or be merged into a larger topic. dab (𒁳) 19:06, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Dbachmann. This is a clear case of how this noticeboard can be misused.--Berig 19:18, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

I disagree with dab. While most fringe stuff is science/psudoscience related fringe theories are not restricted to the sciences. This one seems to fall into the group of fringe history similar to the indian astronomy stuff discussed above. --Rocksanddirt 19:23, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

So, according to Rocksanddirt, this means that the articles Norse mythology, Thor and Ragnar Lodbrok also fall under WP:FRINGE?--Berig 19:25, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

No, as there are historical as well as current discussions of the histories of those myths, legends and such. This one appears to be a new historical/mythological story and as such needs substantial references to get over the notability hurdle. I agree with Dab's point below, it's about notability and verification not the material itself. And that's really what this board has turned to....helping folks to focus on eliminating the OR, increasing the number and quality of references, less about the balance of main and minority theories. --Rocksanddirt 20:00, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

That wasn't my point at all. My point is, Peter seems to complain here because the House of Munsö is mostly unhistorical (The "House of Munsö" never existed as a dynasty, it is an invention). The fact of the matter is undisputed: this is a concept cobbled together by Swedish genealogists from Norse saga. This fact is accepted even by Peter. Thus, this debate is entirely about WP:NOTABILITY, and not about WP:FRINGE at all. case closed. dab (𒁳) 19:32, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

It is the cobbling that makes this WP:FRINGE. This dynastic tree structure is an example of "original research" and WP:SYN. I do not think this is anywhere in print. In this elaborate form it is unusual on the web. With this article Wikipedia is highjacked for promoting a fringy interpretation of history. /Pieter Kuiper 19:48, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

This genealogy is described in lucid detail in the medieval Hervarar saga whose part on Swedish history is even cited by Nationalencyklopedin as a historical source. So much for Pieter Kuiper's statement "I do not think this is anywhere in print"[4], which is preposterous. He is either poorly informed on the subject or trying to trick this board. As Dbachmann said: case closed.--Berig 15:04, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

This is not from medieval manuscripts. It is from an addition to Hervarar Saga, only found in some 17th century manuscripts, according to translator sv:Lars Lönnroth. Nothing in that addition connects any of these persons to Munsö. I have not seen anywhere in print these persons connected as a genealogical tree. Quite a few branches connected to the tree are not mentioned in the addition to Hervarar Saga. Also patronymica are added. Would it not be much better to replace the tree by the 'lucid detail' of the addition to Hervarar Saga? That would take up less space. /Pieter Kuiper 15:23, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Folks, I think you are arguing about this in the wrong place. This isn't a WP:FRINGE issue. The policy states that as long as there is mainstream discussion of the theory, we can have an article on it. That discussion does not have to even agree with the theory... simply having mainstream discussion moves it into the OK side of the equation. In this case, there seems to be lots of mention of this house on the internet (and some of those sites are mainstream). Thus it is not Fringe enough for exclusion on FRINGE grounds. The article may have other issues, but WP:FRINGE is not one of them. Blueboar 15:32, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

I agree. It's time to go back to the talk page on this and argue there about how/what to include and how to reference it. --Rocksanddirt 15:41, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

I agree too. Both Dbachmann and I have been trying to making Pieter Kuiper and others understand that this is not WP:FRINGE. I am happy that other editors presently concur.--Berig 15:45, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure I agree. Pieter contends that there isn't mainstream discussion of the "House of Munsö", that this term doesn't occur in scholarly sources, and that the Wikipedia article is OR based on a reading of medieval sagas (or maybe an early modern appendix to the sagas). What scholarly sources discuss the "House of Munsö"? --Akhilleus (talk) 15:46, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

It is one of the names of the dynasty of the first four confirmed historical Swedish kings. That should answer your question. Concerning Pieter Kuiper, you should read Talk:Eadgils closely.--Berig 15:58, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

There is no mainstream discussion of the term. Any mention at a history department of the "independent academic" Ohlsmark - the only print occurrence that I could find - is met there with loathing and disgust. User:Berig patronizingly referred me to Nationalencyklopedin. Well, a search on ne.se (accessible from Swedish libraries) for the term Munsöätten results in a bunch of irrelevant suggestions starting with m, and "Björn Ironside". There are two people with this name, but neither of those short articles mention anything Munsö in any form in the present online edition. So this is almost exclusively an internet phenomenon. /Pieter Kuiper 16:47, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

WP:FRINGE states: "Even debunking or disparaging references are adequate, as they establish the notability of the theory outside of its group of adherents." So even that one print occurence that you say meets the theory with "loathing and disgust" is enough to move it beyond the realms of WP:FRINGE. The fact that there are other, non-accademic (amature scholarship) sources clinches the deal. I am not saying that the theory is true... nor that article does not have problems... only that WP:FRINGE isn't one of them. Blueboar 17:00, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

I cannot find any reference to Ohlsmark's Munsö-concept (disparaging or otherwise) in print. The disgust was expressed orally when I asked around at the university. /Pieter Kuiper 17:47, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Fair enough (I assumed you were talking about something in print.)... so what about the reference at the Swedish Museum of National Antiquities (linked above)... I know you say someone made a "slip"... but slip or not, isn't that a mainstreme reference? Blueboar 17:56, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

It is just a web page, not signed. Maybe a summer student was assigned to putting up a list of kings, who knows. It does not discuss the term, it is a label for a few kings. Maybe this page will be gone next year, who knows. /Pieter Kuiper 18:05, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

You're right, we don't know... so we have to assume that it was reviewed by museum authorities since they own the site. Unless they do remove it, I have to say that it does count as a mainstreem source. Combined with all of the "amature" pages, it moves this out of the realm of WP:FRINGE... it may be Fringe, but it isn't Fringe enough to be excluded under this guideline. Sorry. Blueboar 18:12, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Name

There are certainly some naming issues. Why Munsö? The term does not seem to be extensively used. I suggest moving the page to some less fanciful title, such as Dynasty of Björn Ironside or Old Uppsala Dynasty. --Ghirla^-трёп- 22:38, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

A change of name does not really solve the problem. Old Uppsala Dynasty would only be applicable to the last four or five kings. There is no good evidence that the other rulers (if they existed at all) were related in these father-son sequences. In fact, this is most unlikely. The first time most of these old names are related occur in some of the 17th-century Icelandic manuscripts of Hervarar Saga. This basis is probably a learned construction by some 15th or 17th century Icelandic amateur genealogist. This text has then become the starting point for the speculations and further elaborations in this article.

What one could do is to have a title like: Hervarar Saga appendix. However, I do not know what his fragment is called by philologists. /Pieter Kuiper 22:50, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

What we should do is to remove the unsourced table (unless it is sourced, that is). Per WP:NOT, Wikipedia is not a genealogy reference book. There are websites and newsgroups specializing in this sort of speculation. What may be reasonably expected from an encyclopaedia entry is a brief mention that there was a royal dynasty in Sweden before the House of Stenkil but that contemporary medieval sources do not permit us to reconstruct a family tree going back more than three generations. --Ghirla^-трёп- 23:07, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Well, we'd just need to state on which medieval sources the table is based. If there are alternative genealogies, they should naturally be discussed too. I disagree with Pieter Kuiper's theory that the appendix of Hervarar saga is not older than the 17th century, and this is simply because if it were as late as he would like it to be, scholars and Nationalencyklopedin would not use the appendix saga as a historical source.--Berig 15:23, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Self-correction: I assumed good faith on Pieter Kuiper's part when he claimed that the source on Swedish history was in the appendix. However, it is not in the appendix[5] as presented in Kershaw's translation.--Berig 18:13, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

"Beyond ch 12, we are dependent on the paper ms," Kershaw writes. The "ättartal" is ch XVI. Sigh. /Pieter Kuiper 18:32, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Even if it is 15th century, it cannot be taken as a serious source for early medieval genealogies. --Ghirla^-трёп- 17:14, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

The Hervarar saga is dated to the 13th century and the oldest surviving manuscripts are from c. 1325. Swedish scholars use the Hervarar saga as a source for 11th century history, but not for earlier history. The 9th and 10th century accounts from the saga are AFAIK not held to have enough historical value. However, since I work a great deal on legendary material, I think that it is valuable that the article also covers legendary kings and their relations in the sagas.--Berig 18:07, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Trying to clean up here

User:Berig is reverting all changes here. Whatever the "House of Munsö" is, Sweyn Forkbeard and a bunch of others that I had removed, do not belong to it. That is why I delete them, and it is a complete mystery why Berig puts them in. /Pieter Kuiper 20:45, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

The maybe insecure family relationships between the Danish house of Sweyn Forkbeard and the House of Munsö are hardly in need of removal as "cleanup". They are rather in need of discussions in the article, and in need of references. Moreover, you also insist on removing a category in the process[6], and I'd rather you explain in what way this article does not deal with a royal family.--Berig 10:22, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

As I have argued, the category:Royal families or even category:European royal families does not apply here, because these people were not related. All these family relations are just based on 13th-century infotainment to dress up kings' lists with juicy stories. If you want to this stuff back in, you must provide a verifiable scholarly source displaying a family tree of the house of Munsö with Sveyn Forkbeard in the place that you put him here. But I suspect that this is original research, WP:OR. /Pieter Kuiper 12:15, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

I strongly disagree with your notion that people like Eric the Victorious, Olof Skötkonung and Emund the Old were not related, since you remove category: Royal families while keeping these related kings in the article. If you want a verfiable scholarly source that combines the families, you can consult the article Ulf jarl in Nordisk familjebok (1920) so the connection between the two royal families is hardly "OR", as you wish to call it.--Berig 13:53, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Straw man. A credible scholarly source is required for Lodbrok being related to Eric the Victorious. User:Berig put Forkbeard back in the family tree without providing a source that links him to anything Munsö. I will revert. /Pieter Kuiper 14:15, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

If you have problems with Forkbeard, why don't you remove only him instead? If you have problems with the name of the article as in your edit summary, why don't you suggest a better name?--Berig 14:20, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

What I am trying to do against uncomprehensible resistance is to weed and clean up this unwieldy, unstructured, unsourced article, so that maybe it will become clear what its subject is, if any. /Pieter Kuiper 14:27, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Well, I doubt that you will succeed by removing sources and content. So far, I have not seen you trying to improve this article by adding either sources nor information, nor by doing any restructuring. Moreoever, the link to Gothicismus that you try to add under "see also" seems to be either irrelevant or some kind of strawman.--Berig 15:10, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

About "cleaning up here": It’s not the role of Wikipedia to "sanitize" history writing. People will have met this concept in different circumstances and it needs to be covered in a Wiki article where the use of the name is explained. Saying nothing about notable issues or concepts is never preferable to saying "what, who, why and when". (The "when" appears to be missing from the 3rd sentence of the article though). It's true that Sweden has a lot of baggage because of "Great era" expansionism, romantic nationalism history writing run amok in the early 20th century, a combination of Gustaf Kossinna's "same culture-same people" axiom and ethnic glorification and self-assertion based in Darwinism and in making pre-history and later eras of expansion confirm ideas of Swedes as the "crowning glory" in the Germanic race theories (as per the 1922 state supported race biology institute of Uppsala (see page 6-7 about German-Swedish Networks In Race Biology: Hans F. K. Günther and the Swedish Race Biology Institute), etc, etc. These ideologies have, unfortunately, seeped into and charted the course in some Swedish history writing, making scholars part of the national legitimacy project, up until the 60s and 70s according to several recent PhD theses on this issue (such as Håkan Petersson's 2005 thesis Nationalstaten and arkeologin to pick one---mentioning that one here only because it's online, with an English summary, at [7]). But although the uncertainty about the pre-Christian period has been misused to create nationalistic homogenization and cultural standardization in Sweden, I feel that it is total overkill and overreaction to want to erase all mentions of saga material from Wikipedia articles about historical or legendary persons or to have the articles incorporating them declared "in-universe". Instead, either include and present the controversy about the interpretations and the criticism of the sagas as primary sources, or, if disinclined to do that sort of work, simply add fact tags to request that reliable secondary sources are introduced to support what's there. No need or reason to delete. Pia 03:46, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

What Lars O. Lagerquist actually writes

User:Berig tries to adduce Lagerquist as support för this Munsö stuff. Let us see what Lagerquist actually writes on page 24 under the heading "Viking kings":

Björn järnsida behöver vi inte acceptera som historisk. Han ska ha varit den första av den nya ätten. Han härjade i utlandet. En storhög på Munsö i Mälaren blev i början av 1700-talet attribuerad till honom, säkert vad vi brukar kalla för en de lärdas antikvariernas spekulation. Men högen hette faktiskt "Biörne-backen" och liknande...

My translation:

Björn Ironside we need not accept as historical. He is supposed to have been the first of his dynasty. He pillaged abroad. A mound on Munsö in Lake Mälaren was attributed to him in the begiining of the 18th century, certainly speculation of learned antiquarians. But <irony on> this mound was actually called "Biörne's mound" and similar...

Berig's use of this reference is a travesty of its intent. But I will use it as a good enough reason to cut the pre-Björn-branches out of the family tree. /Pieter Kuiper 12:56, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

Your intent seems to be mainly provocative, and I doubt that anyone else but you would read "Munsö is the island where a barrow has been claimed to be the grave of Björn Ironside, its legendary founder" and call it "a travesty" of Lagerquist's text. Note that I have quoted Lagerquist with the information that Björn Ironside was legendary and used the word "claim" for the attribution of the mound to Björn.--Berig 14:00, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

I have added a citation of Lagerquist in the note with a translation and so everyone can make up his/her own mind on whether the text is a "travesty of its intent" as you feel it to be.--Berig 14:30, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

So the impression that Lagerquist claimed that Ironside is in the Munsö mound was totally unintentional?

I notice that Berig put the Lodbrok back in the tree as the father of Björn. Any historian to support this? /Pieter Kuiper 14:32, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

I am quite sure that you have misread the text, since I did not write that it was Lagerquist who had claimed so. I only wrote where a barrow has been claimed to be the grave of Björn Ironside, information for which I referred to Lagerquist. If you try to read closer, you'll see that the tree is also attributed to Hervarar saga, a primary source that you can read in translation.--Berig 14:35, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

I think wikipedia policies requires a modern secondary source for the family tree. If Lagerquist says that Björn was considered the first of his dynasty, you need a better reference to dispute that. I will top off that tree again. /Pieter Kuiper 14:44, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

It is certainly permissible to refer to primary sources on WP. Please, explain to me on what you base your interpretation that you need to cut off the family tree above Björn Ironside.--Berig 14:47, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

Explanation: Lagerquist says that Björn was considered the first of a new dynasty. /Pieter

Kuiper 14:55, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

You have a very different interpretation from mine. I interprete this as a statement that the House of Munsö is named after Björn's burial site, and indirectly after him (if a dynasty is named after a person, he is effectively its founder). Moreover, do not remove content unless there is consensus on the talkpage. I don't think that there is any reason to remove earlier generations, if they are of general interest to the reader. Note that one of the names is the House of Yngling which puts the beginnings of the dynasty generations earlier. PS, a great Wikipedia authority on Swedish history once wrote:

Sadly, not every nation can boast an equally long and equally glorious written past. This is a grave injustice, which some people remedy by synthesizing a past. Sometimes this looks impressive. From snippets of information from the first millennium, Icelandic fireside tales, fancy names of funeral mounds, 17th century historians, and some creativity, someone constructed a prehistoric House of Munsö to make any Swede proud. Now I have put all this hard work up for deletion, because this wikipedia article is polluting the internet. The "House of Munsö" never existed as a dynasty, it is an invention, one that is being spread all over now because wikipedia is so often copied. Of course the "Gothic mafia" is defending their work. It would be nice if a skeptic from here could come and give his opinion. I am not that well versed in Wikipedia guidelines and precedents. /Pieter Kuiper 21:58, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[8]

Why are you suddenly engaging in editing a "fringe article", citing a historian on a dynasty that you claim never existed?--Berig 15:47, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

I think I will have to put this article up for deletion again. It is obviously impossible to correct this this chimera. I have tried to amputate the Danish graft off this tree. I have tried to cut the top, based on a reference provided by user:Berig. It is hopeless. /Pieter Kuiper 15:59, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

Don't you think it would be more constructive to listen to what other editors think? I'll invite some other editors and see what they think should be done to the article. If they agree with you, I'll fold.--Berig 16:03, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

Being invited to this discussion by User:Berig, I have some comments to this:

• "House of Munsö" was not a family name of the time, but a late invention by historians just to sort family ties out. Family names were not used back then at all. Where to start and where to end this, is not very clear.
• Björn seems to have been regarded as the founder of the new dynasty because his father's kingdom was split effectively when he died, Björn being given the Uppland and adjacent territories which he and his descendants then ruled. It did not seem to have meant that he was the founder of a new ruling family, since the same family had already earlier held the royal title. There exist similar claims about new dynasties that sprung up from an unbroken male line.
• I see no reason not to present Björn's notable ancestors in the family tree. They are clearly mentioned in the same sagas that tell about his life anyway and give information to the reader about its background.
• User:Pieter Kuiper, I regard it as very unconstructive to nominate articles for deletion just because other editors do not agree with you, or even use deletion nomination as a threat in the talk page. That is against the spirit of Wikipedia:Disruptive editing. -Drieakko 16:48, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

If you don't want my opinion, run away and hide. Here it is:

When you wonder what should or should not be in an article, ask yourself what a reader would expect to find under the same heading in an encyclopedia.

I feel that the arguments here miss the mark. Whatever the exact wording used, I would be disappointed if I purchased a supposedly reliable encyclopedia of early medieval Scandinavia and found it littered with family trees which baldly included the likes of Ragnar Lodbrok. Perhaps I'm deceiving myself, but if I were a reader I think I'd prefer something like this or this, which make no bones about our almost total ignorance of the subject, to an article where a possibly fictional character in a medieval Icelandic story, or a Skaldic poem of very uncertain date, is uncritically presented as a real person about whom we know a great deal. To my mind, this is not how we should write early medieval history articles. If Swedish academics write in this way, we have no choice but to follow them, if they are the best sources. However, I've yet to see any evidence that this is how they cover the subject, but only that popular history magazines and quite general encyclopedias do it this way. Angus McLellan (Talk) 17:58, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

Well, the article explicitly states which kings are considered to be historically attested, so I don't see where that part of your criticism applies. The issue may be what we want a WP article to do: do we want it present what only a critical historian would include in the tiny space an encyclopedia edition allots to him (Wikipedia is not a paper encyclopedia). Or, do we want an informative and critical discussion on whatever information exists? I guess I am an inclusionist and a Norse mythology buff, so I do think it is important to include information from primary sources and verifiable secondary and tertiary sources.--Berig 19:22, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

Two points. (1) Critical discussion is something that rarely appears, and none in the Wiglaf version. (2) Regarding primary source pick-and-mix, aren't there any prosopographical collections or standard sourcebooks that can be used, rather than not-so-randomly selecting material? I have no obection to vivid and misleading detail being included, so long as we are quite clear that it is misleading, or potentially misleading. One last thing: there has been a huge improvement in this article since Peter K. and you took an interest in it. That's a good thing! Angus McLellan (Talk) 20:34, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

I am still waiting for PK to *add* any content to this article.--Berig 06:13, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Editing also means removing material. I know that I find that more difficult than adding it. Angus McLellan (Talk) 07:49, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Well, I said "add" content not "edit". As for what is easier - removing or adding information, I guess it's individual.--Berig 08:16, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

It is extremely difficult here to prune any article where User:Wiglaf was the main contributor. /Pieter Kuiper 08:22, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Yes, it is difficult to "prune" good articles.--Berig 08:38, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

House of Yngling contradicts this article

This article states right at the beginning that House of Yngling is an alternative name for the dynasty House of Munsö. However, the article House of Yngling itself, which is prominently linked from the second sentence here, states with equal confidence that House of Munsö was merely one of three "clans" which together comprised the dynasty House of Yngling. I'm no historian, but at least one of the articles has to have it wrong. Right? Bishonen | talk 16:35, 6 October 2007 (UTC).

I have tried to fix the intro of House of Yngling. I believe that the confusing naming is due to the fact that formerly Swedish historians wanted to trace the family of Eric the Victorious to the Yngling kings that the Ynglinga saga and Ynglingatal said lived at Uppsala.--Berig 16:40, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. That was quick! :-) Bishonen | talk 16:43, 6 October 2007 (UTC).

You are welcome, Bish :-).--Berig 16:51, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

Original research WP:OR

The tree structure in the article is original research. It is a synthesis and harmonization that should not be here unless a reliable recent printed source can be provided. /Pieter Kuiper 14:44, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

You over-react, there is no original research. Quoting sagas is not WP:OR. --Drieakko 15:02, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

This tree is in no saga. It is a synthesis, with arbitrary choices for the harmonization of conflicting primary sources. It should not be here. /Pieter Kuiper 16:09, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

The WP:OR specifically encourages to draw diagrams that are original works, like this. --Drieakko 17:05, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

"This is welcomed because images generally do not propose unpublished ideas or arguments, the core reason behind the NOR policy." The policy does not apply to this kind kind of diagrams, unless one can refer to a figure with the same structure in the literature. Parts of this thing may be in some printed work, but a synthesis like this one should not be here: WP:SYN. That is why I tried to cut the Danes off, that is why I removed Lodbrok. But I think I will just throw out the whole tree of no good source is presented. /Pieter Kuiper 17:20, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Oh well, drawing a diagram of well-referenced family ties is by all means acceptable. If two men have the same parents, it is not original research to say that they are brothers. You are Wikipedia:WikiLawyering. --Drieakko 17:39, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

No, some people here are obstructive. The text admits: "The connection with the Danish dynasty which began with Sweyn Estridsson is consequently uncertain." But when I try to cut this branch, my edits are constantly reverted by User:Berig, without giving any modern secondary source for this connection. /Pieter Kuiper 18:00, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

I added a note about the uncertain heritage regarding Sweyn. It is better to add disclaimers to present both views if they are disputed than just to remove the other side of the story. --Drieakko 18:23, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

As Angus wrote:"When you wonder what should or should not be in an article, ask yourself what a reader would expect to find under the same heading in an encyclopedia." It is better to remove discredited and teneous stuff. This is just not encyclopedic in any way. /Pieter Kuiper 19:05, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Nah, I always prefer to find all the speculations in my encyclopedia, with all the pros and cons presented. Preferably do not remove information because some source says it may be unreliable. Just note that a certain source says it may be unreliable and leave the rest for the reader. --Drieakko 19:17, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

[outdent] Agree with Drieakko. My personal problem with this subject, which is why I have hesitated so long to heed Berig's call for comments here, is that "Svealand" and the "Kingdom of Sweden" has been merged into one concept on Wikipedia. I consider this merger to be misleading for a territory that had many kings or overlords or chieftains, and was not yet unified. This entity (Svealand-Sweden) is then also merged into Tacitus' "land of the Suiones" in various Wikipedia articles. If "King" is a symbol or representative for "the unity of a kingdom", and if that unit is to be identified as the Kingdom of Sweden, it was not yet established at this time. The concept would not appear ascertained until it was first officially recorded, in this case by the use of "king of svear and götar", which appeared in a papal bull of 1164. But my unease does not mean that I think that the possible relationships expressed in the family tree in this article should be removed. It is interesting as a commentary on the relationships described in the sagas and elsewhere. I would personally much prefer to have the family tree converted into running text with footnotes, so that it can be established where and in which terms the relationships have been described/discussed and thus deduced, in each case. But that’s a lot of work and you can’t demand that others to do what you feel would be an improvement, so I’m hesitating to point this out. Still: for example, the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle states that Ragnar Lodbrok had three sons, Halfdan, Inwaer (Ivar the Boneless), and Hubba (Ubbe), see EB article. (Another possible complication when using continental or other non-Scandinavian sources about Vikings is described in the Cambridge History of Scandinavia, p. 222, where Thomas Lindkvist writes that when "svear" are referred to in early manuscripts, it is a term associated with "seaborne military activity" and, he writes, "could therefore be a term indicating functions or a social group rather than ethnicity".) Pia 03:46, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

So the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle mentions other people as Lothbrook's sons. Not Björn Ironside. Then we should cut the top.

Drieakko, as far as I know it is only user:wiglaf who is the source of the information about the Danish connection. It looks like hirs original research. Why should an anonymous wp editor (con) be given equal credibility with contemporary scholars (pros)? /Pieter Kuiper 06:54, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Traditional saga research has Ironside as Lodbrok's son: [9]. --Drieakko 06:58, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

That reference does not regard Björn Ironside as Lodbrok's son. It mentions later accretions under the Valdemars, Saxo and Icelandic geneologists' inventions. And this is citing literature up to 1878! Why should wikipedia be more oldfashioned than that? /Pieter Kuiper 07:17, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Hm? The reference specifically says that Björn was one of Lodbrok's sons. The age of the reference does not make it bad. Should we remove all references to Bible because it is "oldfashioned"? These genealogies are well presented as legendary. As such they are fully acceptable in Wikipedia, whether they originally were propaganda, misunderstandings or truthful. Doubt may be cast on any lineage and specifically be addressed as well, if meaningful. --Drieakko 07:25, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Have you even read the next page of the article? Nordisk Familjebok (1915 edition) does not regard Björn Ironside as a historical son of Lodbrok. Wikipedia looks silly with such tree structures as in the article. /Pieter Kuiper 07:57, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

The point here seems to be that you detest Wikipedia having content which is legendary, even if that were marked as such. But there is no rule against legendary contents. There is however WP:IDONTLIKE. --Drieakko 08:14, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

I do not like the hodgepodge of legend and dates. The Icelandic sagas do not sa "Ring (c 910 - c 940)". But OK, if you like hodgepodge, I will mark it as hodgepodge. /Pieter Kuiper 09:16, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

In my view, it is not wrong to include material from narrative sources of uncertain historicity (or no historicity), but, as others have already pointed out, it has to be framed in critical discussion of the sources and based in the already existing scholarship on the subject. As with the article on Ragnvald Ulfsson, no effort is apparent in this article to base it in current historical scholarship or to trace the historiography of the subject. The printed references are of the most superficial, popular kind with titles like "Sweden's regents, from ancient to current times" and "The History of Sweden: What every Swede should know". Olaus 09:57, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Well, everybody keeps harping on a good user who was incredible productive, but who's no longer active, a user who wrote before Wikipedia started to make ref tags etc obligatory for good article status. It would really nice if people would start to grab "whatever source is on their desk" or whatever the wording was. ;) I see very little of that here. Maybe because Wikipedia is not only time consuming but also a thankless and harsh climate for people who bother to pull in any sourced content at all, and I mean content to be used in articles, not discussion page stuff. But I agree with the assessment about the truly sorry state of articles about Swedish history in general (with the exception of articles by the participants in this discussion thread, naturally). I mean in particular the ridiculously glowing nobility worship demonstrated in unreferenced articles such as Charles XII, where many, many editors have been "pulling the load", still producing crap, I mean, pearls of wisdom, such as: "Charles strengthened his body for war by riding horses bareback and hunting wolves in Sweden's fir forests.[...] He was known to wrestle bears wielding only a net. The king brought Sweden to its pinnacle of prestige and power through his brilliant campaigning." (sic!) Charles XI has been edited somewhat, but in Jan 07 this version ruled the day [10]: "He was known to be truthful, upright and God-fearing; if he had neglected his studies it was to devote himself to manly sports and exercises; and in the pursuit of his favourite pastime, bear-hunting, he had already given proofs of the most splendid courage." Pia 04:02, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

I cannot see that Pia L has tried to improve the article Charles XII of Sweden (who was at least a historical person, unlike Lodbrok etcetera). /Pieter Kuiper 06:51, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

The reason Lothbrok and Ragnar's saga are interesting, no matter if he is legendary or not, is the role he may have played as a figure used to transmit oral history, for historic events confirmed in other, independent sources, such as Annals of St-Bertin. And as per Oxford Illustrated History (p. 29): "Muslim sources of the 10th century and later record other episodes of [the 859 raid by Danish "pirates" in Spain and Africa]: al-Andalus was raided, and then the little Moroccan state of Nakur, whose royal women were carried off then handed back after ransoms were paid by the amir of Cordoba; [...] A basis of historical fact thus underlies the epic Mediterranean journey described in the later medieval Hiberno-Norse version of Ragnar's Saga." All I can hope is that you're not going to target the Iliad next. ;) (PS. No hard feelings I hope, Pieter; I like other work you have done on Wikipedia, but I disagree with your attempt to "clean-up" by deleting saga and legendary material, rather than just making sure it is understood that it is not eye-witness accounts and such.) Pia 20:07, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Pia! All I am saying is that "Hey, instead of continuing this stale and fruitless debate, you might want to go check out publications A, B and C which will offer you well-referenced articles by specialists that both give a good overview and relate to the historiography of a subject". As far as I can tell, neither Berig nor Pieter Kuiper is sitting in the middle of a wilderness. Both were able to go a library and look up the Ragnvald Ulfsson article I mentioned on Talk:Ragnvald Ulfsson within a day. If we were all hermits in the middle of some ancient Egyptian desert, then any content might be good enough for the time being. But there is no need to limit oneself to the usually very short articles in NE or other similarly shallow references when better resources may be only a five- or ten-minute walk away.

Are you suggesting that it is immoral of me to give literature tips to people without doing the whole job of rewriting the article from scratch myself? Olaus 08:10, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

No, of course not Olaus! That's the best way to go about it. I'm so glad I noticed that post---and I'm really appreciative of, and confident in, the professional way you approach historical issues — with a cool head. Hopefully more people will find their way to that list of yours, eventually. As I'm sure you agree, this is a time consuming hobby, and there is a lot of stuff to do. You turn your attention to stuff that's in your interest sphere and where you know you can contribute without starting from scratch with the research part. Going on deletion campaigns before you are ready to contribute constructively is not in the best interest of this project, in my opinion. That's why I have only "contributed" by reverting vandalism in the Charles XII article, although, to be honest, my first impulse was also a trigger-happy delete stance and a "shot the messenger" approach, or whatever one should call the tendency to look for a single user to blame for the "no sources" state of an article. PS. Sawyer's Medieval Scandinavia, The Cambridge History of Scandinavia series and The Oxford Illustrated History of the Vikings are good alternatives on your list, "in-between" specialist and popular sources, not too narrow in scope, accessible to students and non-experts, but still not trivial popular history. An added plus: authored by internationally peer-reviewed scholars, as a complement to the construction of history originating locally in Sweden. Pia 19:28, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Peter Kuiper is really overdoing it with his criticism. Drawing a family tree from prose accounts isn't original research, give us a break. Try to be constructive. This dynasty is legendary or semi-legendary. If the article doesn't make this sufficiently clear, tweak the wording, don't slap it with {{in-universe}}. The real question is, should this perhaps be merged into Semi-legendary kings of Sweden? I see no reason why "House of Ynglings/Scylfings", "House of Ivar Vidfamne" and "House of Munsö" cannot be discussed in extenso over there, without splitting the topic into sub-articles like this one. dab (𒁳) 09:40, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

I totally agree with Dbachmann that this should not be a separate article. That is what I have been saying all along. As far as I have been able to find, Ohlmarks's Fornnordisk ordbok" (1975) is the only modern book mentioning this term. That is not an academic work, and our library does not have it. I cannot find "Munsöätten" or similar in the digitized Svensk historisk bibliografi on Libris, or in other large historical reference works mentioned by Olaus.

I slapped on the in-universe tag in sheer frustration, after my attempts to prune constructively had been met with knee-jerk reversals. Drawing a family tree like this out of different and not obviously compatible primary sources is the kind of harmonizing synthesis that goes against WP:PSTS. /Pieter Kuiper 11:29, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

You don't find any information on pre-12th century Swedish kings in the Svensk historisk bibliografi, whether they are historical, semi-legendary or legendary. Even of the later ones only a few of the pre-Reformation kings are mentioned there. --Drieakko 13:55, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

That's not entirely correct. Searching SHB for "skötkonung" (use "valfria sökord"), for instance, finds a number of titles. The search results include titles like this (in Svenska akademiens handlingar), this and this (both in Scandia). But you can not expect everything to be perfectly indexed with all the keywords you might wish. Sometimes you just have search creatively, then take whatever titles you get and look at their references. Olaus 14:33, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Parentage of Thorgils Sprakalägg

The parentage of Thorgils Sprakalägg is very disputed, instead the father of Ulf Thorgilsson, according to the Chronicon ex chronicis of Florence of Worcester/John of Worcester is "Spraclingi". More precisely, it is reported: comitis Ulfi, filii Spraclingi, filii Ursi, ac frater Suani Danorum Tegls. Source:

• Florence of Worcester (1118). Chronicon ex chronicis (in Latin). p. 202..

Another sources are Knýtlinga saga and Gesta Danorum (two centuries later). In any case, I've just deleted the dotted line between Styrbjörn and Thorgils Sprakalägg: the hypothesis of "Thorgil son of Styrbjörn" was proposed by Jakob Langebek and/or Peter Frederik Suhm only in the XVIII century. --Skyfall (talk) 19:52, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

The family tree

To give more detail on why I removed the mess of a family tree:

1. It was an unsourced mess of synthesis. The text claimed that it was based on the Hervarar saga (actually the genealogy appended to it), but there were also kings from the Vita Ansgari and Adam of Bremen. Such synthesis requires separate sources (the additional sources given where about the parentage of Thorgils Sprakalägg). 2. It had peculiar ideas of what is disputed or not. Historians would as a rule assign greater significance first to the account in Vita Ansgari, then to Adam of Bremen, and last to the Icelandic sources, but it was the Kings mentioned by Adam that were marked as "Disputed". (actually, almost the whole tree could be marked as "disputed"). 3. It couldn't even get the kings that no one actually doubts right. Stenkil was not "King consort of Denmark"! The name "Ingamoder Emundsdötter[sic!]" is a later placeholder name, and it is not even sure that she existed (she does come from Adam of Bremen, but he is not sure whether Stenkil was the stepson (privignus) or nephew or grandchild (nepos) of Emund). Sigrid the Haughty is seen as a less likely person than the polish princess Świętosława that is attested in contemporary sources as having roughly the same history.

For these reasons, I removed the tree. All of them should be addressed before an attempt is made to reinsert it.

Andejons (talk) 12:08, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on House of Munsö. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060328125356/http://www.home.ix.netcom.com/~kyamazak/myth/norse/kershaw/Kershaw1s-hervor-and-heithrek.htm to http://www.home.ix.netcom.com/~kyamazak/myth/norse/kershaw/Kershaw1s-hervor-and-heithrek.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 11:54, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

Using sources

When using sources, please try to be as faithful to what they say as possible. I guess I will have to go through this article and verify everything eventually.--Berig (talk) 07:31, 6 March 2021 (UTC)

Sweden and Götaland

Please drop this "Götaland+Svealand=Sweden" that is a leftover from Gothicism. Götaland was very loosely attached to Sweden until at least the 13th century.--Berig (talk) 20:19, 6 March 2021 (UTC)

• Larsson, Mats G. 2002. Götarnas riken: Upptäcktsfärder till Sveriges enande. Stockholm: Atlantis, p. 170.

Något belägg för en sådan tolkning finns dock inte; tvärtom skiljer källorna mycket tydligt mellan götar och svear ända från Jordanes på 500-talet till långt in på Medeltiden. Och sist men inte minst är det just på det sättet som Äldre Västgötalagen själv ser på saken. I dess balk om mandråp anges nämligen lägre böter för dråp på en »svensk« eller smålänning än på en västgöte. Att vara västgöte eller smålänning var helt enkelt inte att vara »svensk«, eftersom detta ord ursprungligen är adjektivformen för en man från svearnas hemland i Mälardalen, det vill säga en som tillhörde sveþiuþ, »svearnas folk«" (Larsson 2002, p. 170)

As Larsson states here, a man from Västergötland or Småland was still not "Swedish" in the 13th century. In fact, a Swede was according to Geatish law inferior in worth to a Geat. It is very far from NPOV to claim that there was a common national identity from c. 1000 ... or even imply it without good references.--Berig (talk) 22:32, 6 March 2021 (UTC)

Common national identitet or not, wasn't the system of "Common kingship" meant to function the way, that the Geats had the right to choose the King, but they had to choose someone from the royal house/family of Svealand? Oleryhlolsson (talk) 23:29, 6 March 2021 (UTC)

In a manner of speaking. The choice was actually made for them by the Swedes, so we don't really have a situation of equality here:

»Svearna äga att taga konung och likaså vräka«, säger denna lag [Västgötalagen] (Larsson 2002, p. 168)

The "common kingship" was based on the old Swedish supremacy ("gamla överhöghet") over the Geats:

[...] men svearnas gamla överhöghet levde kvar i form av att det var upplänningarna som hade första valet. Och det är inte bara landskapslagarna som ger en sådan beskrivning av förhållandena under tidig medeltid; en liknande bild ges också av den danske historieskrivaren Saxo Grammaticus och av Snorre Sturlasson som troligen fått uppgifterna av Västergötlands lagman Eskil under sitt besök hos honom år 1219. (Larsson 2002, p. 169)

Saxo writes about the overlordship of the Swedes, concerning the Geats' refusal to accept Ragnvald Knaphövde, and killing him, due to his arrogance towards the Geats. The Geats decided to elect Magnus the Strong instead, but the Swedes maintained their "ancient rights" over the "lesser" Geats:

Dessa vägrade också mycket riktigt att frångå sitt folks urgamla rättighet att välja först enbart på grund av avund från ett mindre ansenligt folk, fortsätter han, och ogiltigförklarade götarnas val genom att välja en ny regent. (Larsson 2002, p. 172f)

According to contemporary sources the Geats had to "take it or leave it", because the Swedes did the choosing. So, it is simply not NPOV to make it sound like Sweden was a union of two equal parties. It was not, which is reflected in the name of the country.--Berig (talk) 07:48, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

If anything, the compromise might have been that the Swedes had the right of election, but it had to be a Geat (since Stenkil and Håkan Röde, two of the kings who were elected without being sons of previous kings, are noted as having links to Västergötland, and Olof Skötkonung's Christian agenda seems to have been more accepted there). But the theory is little more than guesswork.

Andejons (talk) 08:23, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

Yes, it seems reasonable that the choice of Stenkil served the purpose of stabilizing the common kingship. However, in the better Stenkil article, there's a reference to Peter Sawyer that says that the associations between Stenkil and Västergötland may have been added later to "express a later need to advocate Västergötland as the hub of the Swedish kingdom".--Berig (talk) 08:39, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

[outdent] Also, we have the fact that until the mid-13th century, the roles of Swedes and Geats were strikingly different. The Geats paid tribute in the form of taxes, while the Swedes were the muscle, the enforcers. The Swedes served the role of a pre-Alsnö warrior class, which is evident as they rebelled against being demoted to tax payers in the Battle of Sparrsätra (1247):

Deltagandet i kungens krigståg hade varit något naturligt och ärofullt med djupa rötter hos förfäderna under hednatiden, men att betala en årligen återkommande skatt till honom var troligen helt främmande för upplänningarna - det var något som de underkuvade stammarna i svearnas skattländer hade varit tvungna att göra, inte de själva. (Larsson 2002, p. 178)

I can also quote Dick Harrison, here:

• Dick Harrison. 2009. Sveriges Historia, 600-1350. Norstedts.

Om inte detta hade varit en radikal och smärtsam reform hade den inte blivit ihågkommen i annalerna. [...] De gamla ledungsplikterna omvandlades till skatter. (Harrison 2009, p. 286)

So, until the mid-13th c. we see the remains of an old Germanic tribal structure, where the Swedes collected protection money in return for peace.--Berig (talk) 09:06, 7 March 2021 (UTC)