Knut den harde - Ancestors

Per Skulason the reason why I ask is that it seems that "Store Saga" is late, derivative, and so not a good source if it's contradicted by others. Adam of Bremen is much closer in time, and many others seem to derive their information from him. So if, in *this particular issue*, I have problems fitting Store Saga with the stories from other sources (including the other sagas that assign more generations between the time of Ragnar Lodbrok and Gorm than the 2 generations in Store Saga will cover), I tend to distrust the info that is only sourced from Store Saga, but will have more trust in something that is stated in Adam of Bremen.

That's why I find "synthesis" incredibly frustrating during our discussion - we have a source conflict here, and discussing source conflict without naming the sources can only lead to confusion.

I'm not talking generic philosophy here, I'm talking about the specific sources for the specific question of "who was Hardeknut's father".

I have to agree with Harald here. A sorce closed to the period discussed is in this issue to be profered.
Adam hovever does not reach further back than to Sweyn when stating who Hardeknut is.
This information and where we got it from, needs to be stated at the top of the " about me"
The further theories can then be stated below.

IF we go further back, their need to be established some way of making it clear that we are on thin Ice. The further back we get the more conflicting the sorces.
Maybee a Curator note or very clearly in the " about me"

Per Skulason In genealogy sources are generally divided into 3 cathegories:

Primary sources, which are the most trusted ones, are written at the time of the event, like the priest write a baptism in a churchbook.

Secondary sources are less trustworthy than the primary ones, because they usually are written by authors using the primary sources and written later in time than when the events happened. A familyhistory book could fall into this category when the author have written the sources he/she has used when writing the book.

Tertiary sources are usually the least reliable sources. They can be written a long time after the events, they can be without sources, they can have used only secondary sources as their own sources, they could be built on theories not facts, and these theories could be poorly substantiated. Most sagas written several hundred years after the events fall into this cathegory.

When it specifically comes to the sagas we usually don't know which sources they have used. It is possible that later writers used the same source for their information for the same events, which could meen that it is possible that there could only be one secondary source and the rest tertiary ones, and if the information in the source the later writers are using is wrong, then this error will continue.

Usually we always trust sources more and more when they get closer in time to the events they write about.

But at the same time we need to have in mind that the author or the one commisioning the book, may have an agenda for writing what he/she does. Which meens that we allways have to use our critical sence when reading books and try to find other independent writers that have written about the same events so we can get some collaborative information. This is specially important in an online communtity like Geni is, so we don't add wrongful information to our genealogies which will spread out like viruses.

@Harald and Remi

The lineage is described in Regnar Lodboks saga a part of Völsungasaga.

It is true Adam of Bremen is concidered as the earliest source also in Denmark and therefore is the main source also some of the storries was told to him by Svend Estridsen 2, I never said he wasn't a main source.

Been reading a little in the Anals of the Franks terrible writen in latin older scripts than Adam of Bremens accounts, Can't find a translation, but there is account of raides in that part by the Vikings, King Horik the 1.

Also the anals of the anglo saxons is a good source it's from 895, it give a picture of the Vikings and how far they been around, and telles the strorie of kings in England latere than the one we are seeking, never the less quiet interesting.

Unfortunaitely the Storrie of Danes disapered for big parts in the fire of Copenhagen in 1728, well amongst it probably a lot Swedish and Norwegina historical documents to.

Who Sweyn is I do not know. But to figure out who is who the lineage before the person you want to find information for is important. I do not think that someone pops out of the blue becomes a king without being of some importans.

If you think Adam of Bremen is the main source, we do not have to figure out who Hardeknuts father is, it alreayd been said Sweyn. but Sweyn Who?

If you think he might be a little of well you have to look at the othe Saga writers and see what they say.

Regading SAGA writing and strories in general, I agree with Remi, if you borrow from a source and the source is wrong historie is wrong.

According to adam of Bremen Sweyn is not a no one. He hsi named as king. Just king of what? it does not say, so yes it is likely that he is connected with the rest of the bunch from this period of time.
We just have a very hard time proving it, and that need to be stated in the profile if we go further back.
I hovever think that it can be reasoned that Hardeknut is son of Sweyn. The other sorces with the surgestions should be mentioned to hovever.

Per Skulason which part of Völsunga saga describes the lineage?

I have a copy here: http://omacl.org/Volsunga/ - Google was only able to find "Ragnar Lodbrok" in the introduction, but that may be because of the way the saga is indexed; I haven't searched all the chapters.

With the way pieces of sagas are distributed among different works, including the URL of the particular copy you read from (if possible) is a good habit!

@Harald

Sorry Harald, it is from Norrøne fornaldersagaer, it was because I had just read part of the Völsunga saga and it stayed in my head.

http://heimskringla.no/wiki/Ragnar_Lodbroks_saga

Fornaldersagaer have a little flattered name the are also called the "lying sagas", not concidered a historical document but more like fiction of events.

Also a link to the Anglo Saxon chronicle. http://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/657?msg=welcome_stranger

Anals of the franks, missed that link forgot to save.

Sry for the incovinience.

Both Ragnar Lodbroks saga from Hauksbók and Þáttr af Ragnars sonum is written between 1300 and 1400. That meens 500-600 years after the events of Ragnars life. There is no doubt in my mind, even with the traditions of that time to keep the stories alive only by someone retelling the stories, that the famous two feathers are evolving to five hens or more a that time to. Therefor I don't see these stories written so long time after Ragnar lived as trustworthy sources when it comes to genealogical information.

Well Remi, thats fine have no problems in what you belive is trustworty, thats fine by me, the storri gives a lineage, and the lineage is used on geni. If we belive the source is not trustworty then we have to concider, when is a source trustworthy until we have establies that, we have to stop the Danish lines of Kings close to around the year 800, and then we still will have some small challenges. I belive that Denmanrk at that time was rulled by more than one Chief/king.

The same storrie with the Settlement of the Viking town Silasthorp , every historien belived it was a Mytical town and thought it was made up, nobody belived there had been a settlement, never the less it was spoken of in letters. Hedeby and Dannevirke is belived to have been controlled from this town Silasthorp build or fortefight, by the Danisk King Godfred.

Silasthorp was first found in 2003, and the digging continues.

A forgot the link. http://videnskab.dk/kultur-samfund/sagnomspunden-vikingeby-fundet

The difference between the stories about Ragnar and the very interesting story about Silasthorp is that the source for the city is contemporary, while the sources for Ragnar is written several 100 years after the events. As such you are proving my view.

Does it prove your view? are you sure that the first time that someone read about Sliasthrop near Hedeby wasn't in Gesta Danorum by Saxo, and then found other sources.

I think it is unlikely that new readen sorces are to be discovered.
The sorces we got is pretty much the same as it was a 100 years ago.
If their is to be new discoveries of any kind, it is going to be physical that will confirm something in the sagas.
The only thing new we can get from the sagas are different interpretations and theories.

Per Skulason according to the linked article on Silasthorp, it is first mentioned in the Frankish yearbooks of 804.

The article on Hardeknut linked to earlier indicates that the author has done a pretty thorough job of scouring those same annals for traces of Danish kings.

@Harald

Yes that true, but until it was discovered it was mentioned and thought of as a Mytical place also in later writings, the point is when you find the right sources and dig deeper eventually it is possible to make the pices of puzzle fit to getter and make historie come to live, and the yearbook of the Franks seems to be the right place to look according to the article. The fun part is that Hedeby is often mentioned also Slien. I can easely see the link when you know it, but often the town near Slien is belvide to be Hamburg.

Yes, and there is a lot more in the Anals of the Franks, the problem is my Latin Sucks.

Theres a person named Reginarius and it is belived that it might be Regnar lodbrog. Heres a passage.

I 845 skriver grev Kobbo af Sachsen (der var på besøg hos Horik på det tidspunkt), at Regnar Lodbrog (her omtalt som "Reginarius") kom på besøg hos Horik 1. og fortalte pralende om sine togter og fremviste det guld, han havde fået af Karl den Skaldede. Regnar var dog i udlandet blevet smittet med en sydgom og døde allerede tre dage senere. Horik lod derefter de overlevende fra Regnars togt henrette

Regnar nævnes flere gange i Ansgars Levned under navnet Reginar. Bl.a. nævnes han efter sin overtagelse af Turholt Kloster, som Karl den Skaldede havde foræret ham.

Horik blev ved med at fralægge sig ethvert ansvar angående plyndringerne, men selv efter at han havde lovet de frankiske konger, at han skulle gøre sit bedste, for at vikingetogterne skulle stoppe, blev Friesland igen plyndret og hærget fuldstændig i 846.Derefter sluttede de tre frankiske konger Karl den Skaldede, Ludvig den Tyske og Lothar 1. sig sammen og truede ham til fred.Angrebene stoppede dog først i 850 som følge af indre danske tronstridigheder.

Unfortunally I can't find the text by count Kobo of Sachen 845, could be interesting. If it really is Regnar, well he didn't die in a snake pit, and he didn't die in England.

He could have been poisoned, the stranges part is that it mentions that the men that followed Regnar was all killed. If the storrie has a little bit of truth in it, it could be a way of getting ride of a competitor to the crown of Denmark. Horik the old seems to be queit a though king. This is speculations and hopefully someone will find the writen source by Kobo of sachen.

There are some reasoble good translations of these Frank annals into German. I have not had the time to read them.
But at least they are translations from scolars understanding Middleage Latin which is not the easiest to deal with.
Maybee I can find a link or to to these. If it is a problem with German, I can read them and make a translation.

Per Skulason you're showing good evidence that the name "Reginarius" in this annal does not refer to the same person as the one who died in a Northumbrian snake pit ~20 years later.

The simplest conclusion is that there are two persons using that name around that time period.

The alternative conclusion is that (at least) one of the stories is false.

@Anette

I would like a german translation if it is possible for you to find it, i understand and read the german language, but only if you have the time.

@ Harald

Yes, I am aware there is a small challenge :-) I think it would be verry nice to find the right storrie. It might not be easy, the good thing is Remi and otheres claiming the person is not one but maybe two persons can then be proven right.

If we are to belive the French version, which likely could be true then it seems like Friesland is the place to look for a source or maybe in Germany

Forgot something, to my best of knowledge Sigurd Orm is also belived to have died in Frisland, he was one of the sons of Ragna, it might not be without reason.

Per Skulason reference? The longest wikipedia article about him seems to be the Norwegian one, https://no.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sigurd_Orm-i-auga - but it doesn't mention his death.

Thanks Harald, but I found a English page where there where a longer storrie about him, see if I can find it again, actually I stumbled over it when I was searching for hardeknud I.

Dont know how trustworthy the storrie is but here is a link

http://www.oe.eclipse.co.uk/nom/Ragnar's%20Sons.htm

Lidt om Ravnefanen, der beskrives i ovenstående link.

Det er lidt historie.

http://www.historie.sydfyn.dk/aserne/aserne13.htm

Since @Remi Trygve Petersen (5/9/2014 at 9:37 PM) is basing his arguments by referring to one of the major literary pearl of Icelanders, Hauksbók (Book of Haukr), I would like to point out to him to at least show the book the courtesy to present the correct facts about the book.

In his argument, R states: […Both Ragnar Lodbroks saga from Hauksbók and Þáttr af Ragnars sonum is written between 1300 and 1400. That meens 500-600 years after the events of Ragnars life…].

The FACTS are:
#The book can´t have been written later than 1334, because that’s the year the author and my ancestor Haukur Erlendsson died. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hauksb%C3%B3k

#Haukur Erlendsson IS NOT the primary author of what is written in Hauksbók. He collected several Manuscripts that where about to be ruined. Therefore, the book is a compilation of texts from more than one ancient Manuscripts that where clearly in danger of total destruction and Haukur and his associates clearly saved from total loss.