Askold A Varangian, Semi-legendary ruler of Kiev - Unsourced Relationships

Based on the sources presented so far, I think it's premature to disconnect Dir as a son of Askold. First find the earliest source that mentions the relationship.

Ulf, better if you stay in the discussion. It brings more balance.

I'm sorry Justin but I really can't handle it. According to Nestor the father of ruruik were unknown, yes, but what did he really know about the geopolitical situation in Scandinavia at that time?

We have today an excellent opportunity to view the whole scene in what we could call an helicopter view from above, we can see it as a puzzle with all the pieces laid out, put them together in a way that Nestor himself couldn't do. Just because he said that the father was unknown, doesn't mean that we really can't figure out almost to 99% certainty to which family he belonged, just by sorting out how such an invitation that first brought Rurik over there must have been dealt with.

When the delegation arrived to Svitjod, they would not satisfy to deal witj farmers or fishermen, they would indeed direct request for help to someone higher up. We are not talking about some simple raid that almost anyone with a ship could fix without bigger notice, the chaos that must have prevailed them to request for help would implicate that they were in need of some kind of army, in fact a military mission to take back control in their homelands. As I write before, Nestor may not have known, but we do, we know exactly who ruled between 850 to 860 in Svitjod, that's also why we with good prediction also assume that the one sooner taking control in what to become Russia, must have been the son of one of this ruler. After that we have ruled out everybody else, we are left with 2 candidates that would be in a 50/50 to be the father.

We have gone from knowing nothing to pinpoint out one direction that would be very likely, and that's as far as we can go without being accused of creating totally fantasy lines out of nothing, it is also in line with what genealogy should stand for when pieces are missing, to study all the facts, consider possible candidates and exclude the impossible ones in order to reach one conclusion.

Ulf, you're right about that. There wouldn't be any point to looking if it weren't possible to find things that the sources didn't know. But that doesn't mean we don't have to go through a slug fest to figure it out ;)

One weird point: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Askold_and_Dir claims that Ragnarsona þattr says Askold was son of Hvitserk. But I can't find Askold mentioned in the copy of Ragnarsona þattr I usually find: http://www.germanicmythology.com/FORNALDARSAGAS/ThattrRagnarsSonar.... - can someone tell me where I can find a copy that makes this claim?

Ulf, I am sorry you feel that way I do read your post every time. I asked that a conversation about Rurik's father be on that profile so that other Geni users can find it. Who would think "I am interested in Rurik's father, i will look at Askold's profile to see if there is any discussion"?

You say "we know exactly who ruled between 850 to 860 in Svitjod" by which i assume you mean Olof? But where is the connection from Olof to Ragnar?

Guess there now are some profiles that are missing. But this would be one of the two candidates that I mentioned, him or his son if I'm not mistaken, I could swear that there was a profile for at least Emund earlier?

Erik Björnsson, King of the Swedes

Very nice!

What happened to the link to the song? I didn't have a chance to look at it yesterday.

A typing a list of names between Ragnar and Olof doesn't prove anything. Ragnar is barel a real person and is commonly associated with the raid on Paris in 845 and the invasion of England in 865.

Bjorn Jarnsida is historically linked by scholars to the viking Berne who was raiding the Mediterranean in the early 860s.

Olof is mentioned as a Swedish king during Ansgar's visit in 854.

What evidence is there that Olof is Bjorn's grandson? They may be related somehow but it seems unlikely to me that Olof would be king while his grandfather is still viking.

As Harald asked you previously where is the evidence for Anund (Emund) Uppsale having a brother, other than Bjorn pa Haga as described in Hervarar saga?

The evidence are just a good assumption, because they both ruled at the same time, "Erik Anundsson" and "Olof" in the middle of 800 according to Hervarar saga. The assumption follow the pattern that several King had co-rulers that also were their brother. When it comes to Olof he is also confirmed in Vita Anskarii that is considered a reliable source. Before them there where the two brothers Björn In Håga and Anund Uppsale who co-ruled, they were sons to Erik Björnsson who was the son of Björn Järnsida. It is possible that the Anund that also were mentioned in Vita Anskarii are the same Anund as this one, described as a king that had to flee. Hopes this explains some of your questions?

Making the connection here on Geni based on a "good assumption" i think would be a mistake, even if it was a very good assumption.

As for the logic, yesterday you said Olof was brother of Anund, today you say he is a brother of Eric Anundsson, this moves him another generation away from Bjorn but still being active at the same time which sounds even less likely to me unless we ignore the idea that Bjorn = Berne who was raiding Italy in 860.

! All of this persons down this line are accounted as historical persons, not mythical or fictional, so have that in mind.

!! There was also a tradition regarding shared leadership between brothers in the vikings society, have that in mind when you talk about mistakes.

!!! There are more than one source, they have to be re-combined in order to make it fit historically, that is not easy so the best result are this lines.

1:Björn Järnsida (late 700-early 800) born early 800, did plunder Paris 845 with his father Ragnar Lodbroke.
Björns two sons where Erik Björnsson that inherrited the throne in Svitjod and Refil.

2:Erik Björnsson, co-ruled with his brother Refil Björnsson (early 800)
The two son of
Erik Björnsson

3:Björn Eriksson på Håga (ca 829 - ca 831), co-ruled with his brother
Anund Eriksson Uppsale, (sources: Snorre Sturlasson Vita Anskarii.)

Anunds two sons
4:Erik Anundsson and co-ruler Olof Anundsson, (middle of av 800), Olof ruled 854, according to Vita Anskarii. (Erik Väderhatt and Erik Anundsson might be same person), ruled to late 800 Erik is possible dead in 882. In Heimskringla he is called Erik Edmundsson).

Succeded by

5:Ring, (ca 910 - ca 940), ruled between 935 och 936. Ring could be the son of Erik, or Olof, or some other in the lines above, but it is all uncertain and not important because this is after the tiime of Rurik,
but anyway.

6:Erik Ringsson, (ca 940 - ca 950)
his son
7:Emund Eriksson, (middle of 900) both mentioned by Adam av Bremen

Sigurd Ring
his son
Ragnar Lodbrok
his son
Björn Järnsida
his son
Erik Björnsson
his sons
Anund Eriksson (Emund) Uppsale
his son
Olof Anundsson (Ring) (the king in Svitjod in the middle of 800)
his son
Rurik

When looking at the line above, we find that it would be tight to fit Rurik
as the son of Olof, it's not impossible, but it would require that all the fathers were very young, almost around the age of 15.

To move him up seems to be a solution that may be more near the truth,
and the second candidate, Erik Björnsson born around 796-800 would make it more reliable and coherence to The Nestors chronicle that said Rurik was born in the early 800, even Ruriks name fit more to a father named Erik, as it seems to be a combination of Rhö, (sword) and the name Erik, but this is just my speculation. I regard it as not important to exactly which one of the mentioned kings he was the son of, more important that it was someone between Björn Järnsida and Olof Anundsson, other candidates than this line does not exist and would only be an attempt to change the history.

Both Björn Järnsida and his father Ragnar had connection to Novgorod at that time called Holmgård, they both belonged to the "House of Ring", after that their father Sigurd Ring become the king over Svitjod, he is also believed to have been brought up in "Gårdarike", which correspond to the same area around Novgorod, that also at that time were called the big Svitjod, and thus belonged to the one who also ruled over Svitjod.

If people, historians, etc, had just called it "The house of Ring", you all would have been able to easier understand how it's connected and we didn't have to argue over this at all. So if it later arises problems in that area, who do you really think had the responsible to fix them?

Finally! When it comes to who Askold was, it would be more than likely that he was a relative to Rurik, either half-brother or near cousin, but that line would be more than hard to get into the light, I consider it a dead end to even try to find that one out. As a child I learned in school that he was a brother to Rurik, but since then a lot of things obviously have changed,
even his name.

Thank you Alex for making me correcting my earlier mistakes in this thread, now it's up to others to see how this line matches the profiles here on Geni.

I know that there are mistakes done among them also because people make mistakes, that's what we all do now and then even when we try our best and without the collaboration of each other pointing out them, we will present profiles that are both misleading and inaccurate.

Ulf,

I understand your logic that as a "king in Sweden" the Olof named in 854 Vita Anskarii must have been part of the royal dynasty or "House of Ring" but Geni is a genealogical website not a history website, you cannot connect Olof as son to one of the other kings and just say "close enough".

Was Olaf part of the "House of Ring"? Almost certainly.

How was Olaf connected to other members of the "House of Ring"? If we don't have any evidence we cannot answer this question and so cannot connect him on Geni because that connection would just be a guess.

As for your earlier statement that " All of this persons down this line are accounted as historical persons, not mythical or fictional, so have that in mind." I can't agree with that statement and suggest this article on Ragnar as an important document for anyone interested in him to read.

http://www.geni.com/documents/view?doc_id=6000000023216898633

If Ragnar was not actually the man we think he was then how can we make an accurate statement about who his father was, or who his sons were?

Here is another interesting article which among other things places Berno/Björn as raiding in France in the 850s, it is hard to accept that Ragnar's son Bier/Berno/Björn Járnsíða is the GRANDfather of Björn Eriksson på Håga who is king ca 829 - ca 831.
To be king in ca 829 Björn på Håga would have to be born ca 809 (at latest), his father would then be born before ca 789 and the grandfather before ca 769.
If Berno/Björn Járnsíða is the grandfather of Björn på Håga and therefore born ca 769 he would be in his 80s when he is raiding France.

Following the same logic Ragnar would be born before ca 749 and would be 96 years old when raiding Paris and Sigurd Ring would be born before ca 729 making him 83 when he dies in battle!

Lets not forget that the sagas say Ragnar was quite young when his father dies (812?) which makes no sense if he is born ca 749.

So apart from anything else i think the idea that Björn Eriksson på Håga is grandson of Björn Járnsíða is impossible. Obviously Erik Björnsson is the son of someone named Björn but that Björn cannot be the son of Ragnar. Sorry.

The second article i referred to i forgot to give a link, here it is http://www.geni.com/documents/view?doc_id=6000000032846134859

"To be king in ca 829 Björn på Håga would have to be born ca 809 (at latest), his father would then be born before ca 789 and the grandfather before ca 769. "
Ragnar were born around 765, he married at age 15, had kids after that,
Björn could have been born as early as 780~782, he could very well in his turn repeated the fathers act and be father at the age 15-16, making it fully possible that his son Erik Björnsson being born 797~800,
if he also had a son at the age of 15-16, then you have a pattern that shows that at the age of 15 they all become kings, as you see it does indeed give a good theory and explanation to how it's possible.

This do in fact also support why royal families from that and forward to late 1600 had another way of regard them self as adults at least to a minimum of 3 years before the age of 18. When you say that this is not an historical site, it's a genealogy website, how do you keep them apart?

Ulf, you did not reply to Alex' comment about Björn being an active raider in the 850s - if you make him born 780, that makes him raiding at the age of 70.

I find it harder to accept a 70-year-old Viking chieftain leading warriors in battle than I find it to accept a 16-year-old fathering a child.

We have already had this discussion in the thread concerning Ragnar Lodbroke, and it's not likely that anyone of them actually swung their swords at that raid. Ragnar would have been in the 90's and his son Björn around the age of 70, but they could both have been alive at that time and frankly commended the raid, not being active in combat at all.

You have an odd way of understanding leadership if you think that they couldn't have lead the expedition without leaving their home or if you think that they had to be on the raid in order to lead it.

Ulf, in my opinion you've made a case that's strong enough to be included in the profile overview as a possibility. I like that, because this is an idea I wouldn't normally consider.

But, I'm just not seeing the argument as compelling enough to displace other theories. When I stand back to weigh the pros and cons I'm left with the feeling that if Rurik had been that closely related to the Ring dynasty, the Primary Chronicle would have made a point of mentioning it. But Rurik stands out as the founder in a way that suggests (to me, at least) that he is not just the continuer of settlements started by his kin.

To accept a speculative connection as a Geni link, I think we have to be able to say it is the "majority opinion" among scholars. However, in this case, the majority opinion seems to be that Rurik's father is unknown.

The way it work

The power is connected to the blood, they all claimed to be descendants of Oden.

The one with most power puts his family on thrones around his center.

After a time, they have sons and siblings, still at the thrones where they rule. Feuds appear and the families strides over dominion over certain areas, still, they are all relative to each other.

Without this blood connection, no one else could become ruler over any of this areas, period.

This make it more than realistic to say that Rurik really belonged to the House of Ring, anything else would be untrue and false.

To put up Rurik as the son of Olof Ring, or his father, would be in the line of both history, traditions and thereby a part of genealogy.

It doesn't matter to whom of them you choose, because it lines up anyway. I have already declared that none in Sweden when it comes to historians are interested in the time before 1450, when it comes to the viking era there are none experts at all from Sweden!

Having said this, I have to blame my fellow countrymen for being the main reason to why other people with none or uncertain connection to this actual profiles now controlling them.

This is a dummy regarding power
One king sends his near relative away, in different direction, one to the north, one to the east, one to the west, and one to the south, meaning that they then control this given lands as client kings. The one in the north would not have anything more to do with the other and so on,
the one controlling the east would not control the west, etc.
Later disputes may arrive, making them fight for dominion over nearby land, as with the conflict between Harald Hårfagre and Erik Anundsson.

This was how it worked then, before that, after that, and still today.

Agreed, except that it does matter which one you choose. I don't doubt he's a relative -- son, brother, cousin, 2nd cousin, 3rd cousin, something. But, as soon as you choose one over all the others, you've said "this one is true" when it would be more accurate to say "something like this".

You solve it by putting up the father of Olof Ring, as the father to Rurik,
then explaining why as following, the age of Rurik described in Nestor Chronicle describes Rurik as born in the early 800 century, making it more likely that he was a brother to Olof instead of his son. The main lead back to Björn Järnsida is there anyway, and that's whats important.
The fact that Nestor claimed Ruriks father to be unknown, is not a reason to stick to that as a fact in order to prevent merges, because the reason why he couldn't know this is because he lived long after that time and probably had no surviving sources to look at.
We at the other hand have just that, we know who ruled in Svitjod and can provide the missing linkage, it should also state in Ruriks profile that it is a good estimation based on geopolitical reason.

You're missing the key point. People disagree, and in this case the disagreements are reasonable. It does no good to keep preaching.

The key point is that people in general are not familiar with this subject,
if they had gone thru this era and looked objectively at all available sources, they wouldn't have had to disagree at all.

It's easy to look at only one source, e.g. The Nestor's Chronicle, and then just stick to that he did wrote that the father of Rurik, was unknown, yes, that solves everything, no need to look further on what other sources says, or look at who did actually control that area at that time?

If you have a puzzle, you do look at the pieces and you do try to see how they fit, and when pieces fits together, you know that just these are right, or you don't solve puzzles at all and are satisfy with bit and pieces preferable stays in the box helter-skelter.

Johanna Elisabet Nilsen the keystone of your argument is that the population of that age would only accept leaders that claimed descent from a particular set of families.

I regard that theory as a retro-fit based on the attempt of 11-13th century kings to justify their rulership by claiming descent (see Sverre the son of Unnas Kammaker for a good example - he cooked up a good story, but there's no reason to believe that the story mattered to most of his followers); I think you haven't provided compelling evidence that this principle was followed at all, far less that it was followed religiously.

Without that theory, the whole chain ls clearly in the realm of "interesting speculation".