King Fridleif Frodasson, of Denmark - Birth dates

I think it is because genealogical precision is inversely affected by time.

Elliot.V.Kelsey It is not possible to get proof of someone living this far back in time in the Nordic countries. Fridleif is only mentioned in the saga literature and almost everything written in the sagas dated before year 1000 shoul'd be looked upon with sceptical eyes. Most historians of today working with the saga literature don't think there is much truth in the genealogies before year 1000. So finding proof is not possible.

Just compare with the ages in the Bible when they fathered children or how old they were when they died. Also not to be trusted.

You should look upon the saga literature as good stories, but not trust them to be true.

In reality, nothing is screwing up research. However, need to be open minded as to how records of time were kept. Also, could be an error from the begging and there is no way to attest other than to take what is available an move forward, and, perhaps, when there will be a time-machine, then you can go back and fix the record. Why not search the Anunnaki, you may find something interest and related, too

Remi Trygve Pedersen
wrote; " Most historians of today working with the saga literature don't think there is much truth in the genealogies before year 1000. So finding proof is not possible."

This what you think is old garbage, today more and more historians actually realizes that there is more truth behind many of the sagas and that it's basically build on real event and persons. They also understand that some of the events can be backed up by archeological findings. Sure they have used a lot of exaggerations in their texts, some events was even so popular that they can have reused them and laid them upon others persons deeds, as in Ragnar Lodbroks saga, where he contains element of at least two different persons, and then we have all the kennings on top of it.

Learn something new today, tomorrow it might be too late.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kenning

Private User It's not old garbage, that is only your view. But if you're able, please show me to books or articles where I can read what these historians you think of have written that there is more truth behind many of the sagas when it comes to the genealogical part of the sagas.

And what have this to do with Fridleif. Which historian do you think of have mentioned Fridleif as a real person and that what is mentioned about him in the sagas is true?

Remi, it has particularly nothing to do with Fridleif, but more to all thoose profiles taken from the sagas, you always starts by claiming distrust and not to take them serious, initially you used to say this about any profile that lived before 1250, but now, you have changed it to before year 1000, could it be that you yourself is a living proof on someone that have partly changed your mind about where the drawn line to distrust and misbelief should be? if you can change your view, others can also, and some set the line even more futher back in time.

Anyway, a short summing-up about how sagas have been observed during the last century. https://www.diva-portal.org/smash/get/diva2:759940/FULLTEXT01.pdf
by https://sv.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lars_L%C3%B6nnroth

I haven't changed the time very much, the timeperiod when the sagas go from being trustworthy i.e. other sources confirm the info, to not being trustworthy i.e., the norse sagas being the only source to the information, is sometime between the time of Olav Tryggvasson / Olav Haraldsson (St. Olav) and Harald Haarfagre Halvdansson. That is sometime between the years 900 and 1000.

Most historians believe that the father of St. Olav, Harald Grenske, was a real person, but almost none of them believe in the story where Harald is courtshipping Sigrid Storråda.

Most historians think that Olav Tryggvasons father could be a person named Tryggve Olavsson, but not that he was son of a person named Olav Geirstadalf and not that he was a king in the area called Vestfold and Vingulmark.

The problem with descendants of Harald Haarfagre being the local kings/chieftains of Grenland, Vestfold, Vingulmark and Ranrike, the area around the Oslo fjord and further down the coast on both the east and the west side called at the time Viken, is that the last battle Harald had was at Hafrsfjord just south of Stavanger in Rogaland, Norway. There he faught the local chieftains of todays Telemark, Agder, Rogaland and Hordaland probably supported by the Danes. Why isn't the people of Viken mentioned at all?

Snorre states that Haralds father, Halvdan Svarte Gudrødsson, came from Vestfold and that his mother, Åsa Haraldsdatter came from Agder. Why then did the people from Agder attack him at the battle of Hafrsfjord when he was a son of the daughter of the chieftain in Agder? And why didn't the people of Vestfold join Harald on his side as long as his father was a son of the chieftain of Vestfold? That's ofcource because the area from Agder to Ranrike belonged to the Danish king and Haralds Hårfagre never had any ancestors from these parts. And Snorre, among others, made this up just to get Harald Hårfagre belong to the interesting ancestors like the fictious Ragnar Lodbrok and the Ynglinga family. When the truth is that Harald Hårfagre just had a father that was a local chieftain in Hadeland and a mother that was a daughter of a local chieftain in the inner parts of Sogn.

Last, I would say, that linking to an article from 1994 about how the historians have looked upon the facts in the sagas is old history. There are plenty of more contemporary information out there than Lars Lönnroth article from 1994.

This one last updated Nov. 5th 2020 summons most things about Harald Hårfagre, written by Professor in history at the University in Oslo (in Norwegian): https://www.norgeshistorie.no/vikingtid/0822-harald-harfagre-fra-ve...

It's an easy way to be famous, or why not, infamous to claim that a historical king never existed, so some unscrupulous historians will always do that, just as some nutcases belive that a hideous crime will get them world attention, which it unfortunately usually does, but instead of lower us self to their level of limited thinking, we can better judge what to belive in by us selves instead of listening to some few loud shrieking fools.

https://snl.no/Harald_H%C3%A5rfagre

Remi wrote above: ”That's ofcource because the area from Agder to Ranrike belonged to the Danish king and Haralds Hårfagre never had any ancestors from these parts...”

That is a very speculative way of reasoning.

Remi wrote above: ” Why then did the people from Agder attack him at the battle of Hafrsfjord when he was a son of the daughter of the chieftain in Agder? And why didn't the people of Vestfold join Harald on his side as long as his father was a son of the chieftain of Vestfold? ”

This is also very speculative. There could be very good reasons why the people from Agder chose sides in that way. That his mother came from Agder does not make him immune.

It is valid as an observation but not more than that.

As we all know the backup files from the computers of the tax authorities are yet not recovered.

While waiting for this to happen we all have to relate to the sources available.

As we all also know all the available sources have different inherent qualities and flaws. They have also been treated and used differently by historians and propagandamakers over time.

About the treatment of the sagas Lönnroth gives an excellent overview.

Some useful analysis:

Bagges undersök­ning blir, att Snorre - trots att han är kristen och i vissa stycken klart påverkad av utländsk historie­ skrivning - ändå starkt skiljer sig från den eu­ropeiska traditionen genom sin relativa opartisk­het och ideologiska neutralitet.

...

Vad man kan hålla med honom (Bagge) om är att Heimskringla, till skillnad från många klerikala historieverk i dåtid­ ens Europa, inte har någon konsekvent genom­ förd augustinsk historiesyn, ej heller någon hövisk panegyrik av härskarna som i medeltidens aristok­ ratiska krönikor.

Huvudsakligen förklaras detta av Snorres stränga fasthållande vid klassisk sagastil men delvis också av det faktum, att han ibland vill hålla flera tolkningsmöjligheter öppna för läsaren. Av samma skäl har det kristna moraliserandet stmkits ner eller dämpats jämfört med vissa äldre källor, t.ex. i skildringen av Olav den heliges fall, där Snorre inte vill skildra fallet som ett rent re­ sultat av diaboliska manipulationer utan också som ett resultat av ett komplicerat politiskt maktspel mellan Olav, Knut den store av Dan­mark och diverse småhövdingar.

...
Sörensen tolkas som ”synpunkten - om jag förstår honom rätt - är att nästan allt som sker i sagorna kan förklaras till fyllest utifrån den vardagliga, sekulariserade och i huvudsak ra­ tionella äresetik han uppehållit sig vid i det före­ gående.”

The sagas have their problems but can not be discarded as sources as long as we have methods and use the information in a balanced way. Sometimes they are more worth as information then a heavily biased 13th century chronicle.

We have seen that other sources also have major inherent problems if we use them without proper methods.

See for instance the Manx chronicles, the hungarian, kievan and french chronicles.

Remi wrote above: ”That's ofcource because the area from Agder to Ranrike belonged to the Danish king and Haralds Hårfagre never had any ancestors from these parts...”

Reidar wrote;
That is a very speculative way of reasoning.

..........

Just a notification about us up in the north, for people not being scandinavians.

In the 800'c, all people in Scandinavia saw them self as danemen, they all spoke dane, they were polytheistic, and this was the time shortly after Charlemagne's heavy spread of Christianity by extrem violence. New allies around the borders were established, and the one with power seeked to expand it by eliminating competing kings and that it was plenty off. This is the start of creating a national identity, one king, one land, one language and the danes in now Denmark was the first one to do that, then followed Sweden, and finally Norway. The languages started to develop in different directions, and so the nationalism was born.

Speaking of danes and norweigian as different people or claims during the 800'c is therefore not true or helpful, it was a bigger game that played out and it must be seen in the total of occurrences during that time to be understood.

To honour Debra I hereby propose that the following statement should forever after be called Denman’s law:

”...genealogical precision is inversely affected by time...”

Elegant!