Ragnar "Lodbrok" Sigurdsson - 31st Great Grandfather

Anna, your post illustrates a key point perfectly -- there is no way to go beyond the sources. One person will look at the evidence and see an historical Ragnar. Another person will look at the same sources and see a fictional Ragnar. There is a very fine line between (a) seeing a composite figure, and (b) seeing an historical figure around whom legends have grown.

There chronicles that clearly describe Ragnar as a person.
In the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle, Ragnar was said to be the father of three sons—Halfdan, Inwaer (Ivar the Boneless), and Hubba (Ubbe)—who led a Viking invasion of East Anglia in 865 seeking to avenge Ragnar’s murder. In the European literature of the several centuries following Ragnar’s death, his name is surrounded with considerable legend.
According to Davidson (Gesta Danorum), writing in 1979, "certain scholars in recent years have come to accept at least part of Ragnar's story as based on historical fact".

In regard to Santa Claus it becames rather silly, however, Homers story about Troy was regarded as a myth. However using Homers story it was possible to locate Troy.
So a myth became truth through Homer. Not by a desk professor.

@Justin Swanström - based on the knowledge I have on the person Ragnar Lodbrok, I have come to the conclusion that he must have been a real person (who ever he was) and that the Legends surrounding him are not necessarily true nor correct.

I can't dismiss or rule out that the sons/children he supposedly had, where actually his children, but I believe that In order to establish if those people in question where related or not, scientific research should be able to clear out a lot of things someday.

Also - regarding to and Legends - In my opinion - there is often something behind them - but what - that is my question? But my thought's or doubts on this matter doesn't give me the right to decide for others what is right or wrong.

And certainly does not give me the right to alter or change how these people are linked together just because that it is my personal view and not even based on any arguments or proof that the credibility of the sources are not to be trusted.

That's my point, Anna. The sources say this or that. Everything else is just my personal opinion (or your personal opinion). For Ragnar, it is not possible to find enough evidence to firmly say he is fictional, just to say that there is room for disagreement.

And vice verse, it is not possible to find enough evidence to firmly say he is historical.

I believe that in an online software where the genealogy is done with collaboration and cooperation of a number of different People, it is important to try to have the most certain facts as links between people in our tree and try to write about the different theories and disagreements in the persons biographies (at least until a better place to write them comes a long, I wish for a tab with a resarchers book). That way we can keep the most trustworthy as links and the theories as text and discussions.

And that's why the basic presentation needs to stick to the sources, Remi. You can't just throw out the ones you don't like ;)

I'm not throwing out anyone, but you can't include the ones you do like either, just because you think it is correct.

And the sources must be measured by their quality and trustworthyness.

I rely most on what the scholars say about the sources and their content, and if they can't agree about some source it falls into the disagreement category in my book.

Do you see the problem with that methodological approach?

No more than you do the other way around. That method works fine for my genealogical work, and has so for most Scandinavian genealogists for a long time. It is even approved by several history scolars, and this is the way new genealogists are tought.

But maybe we have a differnet definition of what a source is. To us, a source is whatever and whoever you get the information from, therefore they have to be classified into caathegories according to their trustworthyness. It's not a problem in my neck of the woods, since most scholars in fact do agree about a source quality and trustworthyness. At least the ones most commonly used.

I use the method of if it is not provable by primary or several good secondary sources, it's not going to be linked in my personal software, and I think some sort of that approach needs to be done on Geni to. We can't just link persons just because some online tree without sources have it written down. (And that online tree is to me a source, but a tertiary one.)

When it comes to the time before year 1000 almost all of them agree that the genealogies in the nordic stories about the persons living in the Nordic countries are untrustworthy and should not be used in our genealogy as proof of family relationship, and I do believe them.

Not even the Norwegian line of kings are provable genealogically longer than back to king Sverre born around 1150. Almost all genealogists and historians say it is impossible to prove any family relationship back to king Harald "Fairhair" Halvdanson, the first king of Norway, even though there are plenty that tries. I have never understood the fascination with a relationship with kings or nobles.

You need a more careful analysis than you're allowing for, Remi. One of the most common mistakes is failing to understand the scope of academic opinion. See my message at the top of the page. In the case of Ragnar, there is no substantive difference between saying that legends grew up around an historical figure and saying that Ragnar himself is fictional. The resulting opinion is nothing but a guess set against other guesses. Historians might push their own views, but I don't think any reputable historian would take the certainty as far as you want to do.

When you come to a point where the sources are both early and uncontradicted it's important to accept that any analysis is just opinion. Informed opinion, perhaps, but nevertheless reasonable people can differ.

In your own database you can choose to ignore whatever you like, but in a shared database we have to be more transparent -- this link comes from an early source and here are the reasons for and against accepting it.

Private User you said:

According to Davidson (Gesta Danorum), writing in 1979, "certain scholars in recent years have come to accept at least part of Ragnar's story as based on historical fact".
In regard to Santa Claus it becames rather silly, however, Homers story about Troy was regarded as a myth. However using Homers story it was possible to locate Troy.
So a myth became truth through Homer. Not by a desk professor.

...

Your quote attributed to Davidson means nothing, it could be paraphrased “There was once someone named Ragnar but that’s all we can say for certain.”

Regarding Santa you seem to have missed my point, the modern story/legend of Santa Claus is based on an actual historical person, Saint Nikòlaos de Bari, Bishop de Myra.

As for Homer, archaeologists finding a city that matches Homer's description of Troy does not prove that the Illiad is a factual representation of historical fact. All it proves is a that Homer had some knowledge of Troy and that it was destroyed at least once (the archaeology shows several destruction layers if I recall correctly).

You keep misunderstanding my points, Justin, and again you are infact writing he same thing as I am, or at least the same meaning.

I just wrote it the other way than you did, relating the "not enough evidence" to history instead of fiction. To me it is two sides of the same thing. If there is not enough evidence to say somone is fictional, there is not enough evidence to say the same person is historical. As you say, there are disagreements, and therefore uncertainties which ever way you try to prove.

@Alex Moes and @Justin Swanström - good points and I agree with you!

And @Remi Trygve Pedersen! Genealogists and Historians can hardly be a reliable- or the primary sources of what can be done in tracing modern humans back to their origin, specially if they are full of their own "personal opinion" when they approach their research material.

It's just fine to have a critical and analytic approach when you start out your research - specially if you manage to refute the accepted information with irrefutable evidence that the current information is incorrect or in fact wrong.

Personal opinion has nothing to do with results when academic or scientific research is done - only concrete evidence and irrefutable arguments for the proof submitted does make the difference.

Remi, we are very close to saying the same thing but the end result is different. You would disconnect Ragnar, and I would leave him connected.

I do realize that there are no physcal proof, with exeception of several chronicles that bescribes a Ragnar Lodbrok, independent from each other.
"As for Homer, archaeologists finding a city that matches Homer's description of Troy does not prove that the Illiad is a factual representation of historical fact. "
Yes it does. Homer described a city called Troy. Denounced by schoolars, presented as a fairytale story.
Heinrich Schliemann used the data from that book to find Troy.
Not by an desktop professor or schoolar. With them in charge, without Heinrich Schliemann, who used Homers liliad, it is probably that Troy still would have been a fairytale.
Interestingly enough, Heinrich Schliemann, got the same treatment as Thor Heyerdal. Denounced as scientist, mocked and thrown to the side.
The question is why. One reason is that "desk professors" unfortunaly have no desire to dig in the european history included norse history.
They create their theories, denounce written material from the past as fairytale.
In Norway we have viking king laying in the cloak in Trondheim. They know his exact position, but the same desk professors "recommend" that we shal not do any archelogical work.
He is not alone. Norse history will always be in the dark with well fed schoolars.

Anna, there will never be found concrete evidence or irrefutable arguments for the proof of Ragnar either being a fictional character or a historical figure the way the sagas depict him.

And I don't have any personal opinion about Ragnar, only reading the opinions, arguments and analyses of others.

So far the most accepted information I have found is that the Ragnar depicted in the sagas is a composite of up to 5 historical persons.

If professional historians working with that era isn't reliable, I wonder who you think are providing the most reliable information about people living in this era and what profession they belong.

@Remi Trygve Pedersen - DNA research is the only reliable source for now. And Historians are usually not reliable when they can't provide the irrefutable evidence needed to make their case.

David Widerberg Howden sent me this link some day's ago and this is possibly our next step in proving (or establishing) our ancestry - specially if our scientists did some comparison work on Icelandic and Norwegian genes: http://www.norwaydna.no/y-dna/y-dna-haplogrupper/

DNA tests cannot give us the names, birth and death dates, and simple maths can already tell for sure that if a Ragnar Lodbrok did exist he would be related to most of us, - a DNA test, unless you also have his DNA as well, could not tell us any more.

Are they allowed to dig or probe for DNA in known marked graves?

Bjørn P. Brox it is still possible with DNA tests to establish that those who claim that they are descendants of some father/mother have joint genes.

Besides - this discussion is becoming equally intelligent as if we did séances.

But that require that you have the DNA of this historical person?
In this case we cannot even agree that he is a real person.

If you had DNA samples from putative male-line descendants through two different "sons" of Ragnar, it would *begin* to provide an answer. The problem, of course, would be trusting that there are no flaws in the lines to modern times.

My Svanström line, for example, has an exact DNA match to a family that claims to be descended from Erik Løvenbalk, illegitimate son of Christoffer II of Denmark, who in turn is supposedly a male-line descendant of Ragnar.

I can't even imagine trying to reconstruct a DNA signature for Ragnar based on that kind of flimsy evidence. I'd want to hammer away at the line down from Christoffer II to see if it really holds up (I don't think it does), and I'd want to hammer at the line up from Christoffer II to Ragnar.

Nevertheless, if someone took the time to lay a good foundation it would be theoretically possible to do something like this.

And as I said above: DNA tests cannot give us the names, birth and death dates.

Unless you have DNA to test against it just become mathematical theories. If DNA was as simple as some claim you should not be able to see differences among siblings.

DNA in genealogy is in my opinion a hype created by commercial companies. I have deliberately not uploaded my GEDCOM to FTDNA to exclude that they are using it to create "reliable" matches, and even with the most expensive test I cannot see any test results that is worth following up. I bet that if I upload the GEDCOM I suddenly get matches.

LOL. Could be. To use DNA results effectively you need to have a lot better understanding of what it can do and what it can't than the average person has.

Just to use an example closer to home: I have an Y-DNA match with one other Norwegian. I'm pretty certain the match supports my family story of where the family comes from (Jølster), since he has a documented line there.

But I can't *disprove* the competing (completely baseless) theory that there was a travelling salesman who visited both communities and had a really good way with the ladies..... DNA testing of living people tells you that you're almost certain to have common ancestors (or not), but no more.

The core problem with Ragnar Lodbrok and people like him is a question of how much to trust the sagas and other scattered references. These sources are more difficult to work with that our modern birth records and censuses.

Adding to the problem is that academic fashions change. Before the 19th century, most scholars thought the sagas were an accurate record, except when they contradicted one another. Since then, there have been academic fashions that have emphasized the value of oral traditions, fashions for dismissing all oral tradition, fashions for seeing political motives, fashions emphasizing the impossibility of forgery, fashions emphasizing the importance of blood and kinship, and on and on and on. There seems to be no end to the ways the sagas can be dissected.

A new idea caught my eye a couple of years ago. I've been watching for a good popular intro, and here it is:

http://www.theverge.com/2014/7/15/5898653/mapping-mythical-social-n...

The idea is that the density of social networks might be a clue to whether a written account contains a genuine tradition or is a fake. The more incidental characters there are, people who are needed to move the story forward, the more likely the story is someone's genuine memory, particularly if the characters have relationships to one another.

No one thinks this means that the characters are real or the stories are true. There can still be inventions and fabrications. But it might be more likely much of the context is accurate. Otherwise, why invent unnecessary complications?

"The simplest lie to remember is the truth" , to butcher a Mark Twain quote.

To go back to Homer, who is supposed to have compiled the version of the Iliad that we now have several hundred years after any historical war between Greeks and Trojans, some of the Iliad is obviously historically incorrect (for example, the way that chariots could be used at this time). But then, suddenly, we get to the "Ship Catalogue" (which "cities" sent how many ships) and we then find large walled settlements in places which we would not otherwise expect them whose relative sizes correspond to the relative sizes of fleets that Homer says were sent.

On the other hand, Polynesian oral history puts the Polynesian expansion through the Pacific several hundred years earlier than it can be shown to have occurred.

In my family history, there was a (nineteenth century?) myth that the earliest if rather late, Dickinson whose descendants left a paper-trail was a foundling left by a gentry coach. If the idea of this myth was to suggest to a Victorian "superior" family that one of us wanted to marry that we might be bastards of another unidentified gentry family (as there is some written evidence to suggest might be the case) it obviously backfired, as one might expect. All the same, despite that most people would instantly dismiss the story as romantic fiction, it is nice to have contemporary written evidence that roads in the area were completely impassable to coaches.

Mark

Hi cousins, he's my 31st great grandfather

Just for fun and maybe something to do. From another genealogy source my relationship to this mystical character goes thru the first concubine of Richard I (the fearless) de Normandie. Her name was Papia de Normandie (make sure you get the right Papia). BTW, Richard and Papia are real.

Now for the hard part.

Supposedly, Papia de Normandie's father was Ragnald Swenosson(swensson), whos father was Swens Sweno Eriksson whos father was Erik Ragnarsson who was the son of Ragnar Lodbrok and Thora Herraudsdottir. Have fun.

Ranger Bob