Swedes, Goths and Vandals

[Abdul Goatherd]

So, everyone knows kings often have ridiculous titles.

Now, Swedish kings are often referred to as "Kings of the Sveas & Geats". But I was checking some 17th-18th C. documents, and finding continuous references to the title of the King of Sweden as "King of Swedes, Goths and Vandals" (e.g. "Charles XI par la grace de Dieu Roy de Suede, des Goths & des Vandales").

How & when did Vandals get included in the Swedish title? And when were they dropped (were they dropped?) Does Sweden still have a casus belli on Tunisia?

 

[loup99]

And when were they dropped (were they dropped?)

In 1973 when Carl XVI Gustaf became king and took the title "king of Sweden" Sveriges konung.

How & when did Vandals get included in the Swedish title?

From 1540 and onwards with Gustaf Vasa. The Wends were simply confused with the Vandals. The choice of picking the title of king of the Wends (Vendes Konge) was according to the historian Dick Harrison to mark against the rival king of Denmark, who used the title Goters konge (king of the Gutes). The title of king of the Gutes meant the Danish king claimed Gotland, which Sweden wanted to own, but could also be confused with king of the Geats, also a part of Sweden.

 

[Abdul Goatherd]

In 1973 when Carl XVI Gustaf became king and took the title "king of Sweden" Sveriges konung.


From 1540 and onwards with Gustaf Vasa. The Wends were simply confused with the Vandals. The choice of picking the title of king of the Wends (Vendes Konge) was according to the historian Dick Harrison to mark against the rival king of Denmark, who used the title Goters konge (king of the Gutes). The title of king of the Gutes meant the Danish king claimed Gotland, which Sweden wanted to own, but could also be confused with king of the Geats, also a part of Sweden.

Ah. Wends. OK, that makes sense.

Oh pooh. I was hoping for something more romantic.

Did they ever fix the title from Vandals to Wends? Or did it remain "Vandals" down to 1973?

 

[Jopa79]

Roslagen, the coastal area of Uppland, Sweden is supposed to be the home of the Rus' people. The etymology of the word Rus' according to the prevalent theory is in the Finnish and Estonian names for Sweden - Ruotsi - Rootsi. The Rus', as ethnic Scandinavian people traded and raided on the river routes between the Baltic and and the Black Seas.

Rurik (Old Norse Rorik) was a Rus'. In the 9th century he set sail across the Baltic Sea to southern parts of Lake Ladoga, took control of Aldeigjuborg - Staraya Ladoga and founded Hålmgård - Veliky Novgorod. The founder of the Rurik dynasty, which ruled the Kievan Rus', the Novgorod Republic, the Grand Duchy of Moscow and the Tsardom of Russia.

The dominant Rus' elite adopted the Slavic language and the Rus' people assimilated with the locals. However, also the local dialect adopted the word Rusj and used it to describe the people from Roslagen. As a legacy from their old Scandinavian home in Roslagen, the Rus' people delivered the name, Rossija for their new homeland.

 

[loup99]

Roslagen, the coastal area of Uppland, Sweden is supposed to be the home of the Rus' people. The etymology of the word Rus' according to the prevalent theory is in the Finnish and Estonian names for Sweden - Ruotsi - Rootsi. The Rus', as ethnic Scandinavian people traded and raided on the river routes between the Baltic and and the Black Seas.

Rurik (Old Norse Rorik) was a Rus'. In the 9th century he set sail across the Baltic Sea to southern parts of Lake Ladoga, took control of Aldeigjuborg - Staraya Ladoga and founded Hålmgård - Veliky Novgorod. The founder of the Rurik dynasty, which ruled the Kievan Rus', the Novgorod Republic, the Grand Duchy of Moscow and the Tsardom of Russia.

The dominant Rus' elite adopted the Slavic language and the Rus' people assimilated with the locals. However, also the local dialect adopted the word Rusj and used it to describe the people from Roslagen. As a legacy from their old Scandinavian home in Roslagen, the Rus' people delivered the name, Rossija for their new homeland.

This has no relation to the thread topic? Did you intend to post this off-topic content elsewhere?

 

[Jopa79]

This has no relation to the thread topic? Did you intend to post this off-topic content elsewhere?

The thread topic included the Swedes (Svear in Swedish). Also, the King of the Sveas was mentioned.

During the Viking Age, the Swedes constituted the basis of the Varangian subset, the Rus’ people.

 

[loup99]

The thread topic included the Swedes (Svear in Swedish). Also, the King of the Sveas was mentioned.

During the Viking Age, the Swedes constituted the basis of the Varangian subset, the Rus’ people.

The thread was about a specific question about royal titles, which concerns the 16th century to today. The question in the title has no relation with the Varangians, Rurik or the Rus. Gustaf Vasa was not using the title "king of the Rus". Your reply is misleading and your information does not add anything, no one asked for that. If you want to explain the etymology of Russia or Swedish migrations, do so in a separate thread.

 

[Geriander]

The theory was that the Vandals came from southern Scandinavia, same as the Goths, was quite popular at the time the title was adopted. Being the homeland of Vandals and Goths, people who went on to have quite significant historical impacts, was a source of national pride so it makes some sense that Kings would add it to their titles.

 

[Barsoom]

The theory was that the Vandals came from southern Scandinavia, same as the Goths, was quite popular at the time the title was adopted. Being the homeland of Vandals and Goths, people who went on to have quite significant historical impacts, was a source of national pride so it makes some sense that Kings would add it to their titles.

This. It's based on the old billiard ball model of the great migrations which assumed that ethnic identities were stable through time and every migrating horde must therefore have been a full-fledged people with a prehistory somewhere along the Baltic coast. If scouring Tacitus for tribal names didn't work, the next best option was to find a similar-sounding place name. Hence Goths, whose first certain appearance is in 3rd century Ukraine and eastern Romania, were connected to the Gutones living on the Vistula in the 1st century and from there traced backwards to Gotland. The Vandals appeared in 2nd century Hungary but could be traced back to Silesia and were presumed also to have originated in Scandinavia because they were Germanic and that's where the Germanic peoples all come from, right? There was indeed a bit of confusion about a totally unrelated people living on the Baltic some 10 centuries later whose named looked a bit alike if you wrote it in Latin but it wasn't necessary for the Swedish claim anyway, they also connected them to the Vendel region just north of Stockholm.

Most modern historians disagree with this view. A lot of tribes disappeared, merged or took on a new name. Warriors and their families attached themselves to successful warlords as well, both for protection and for loot. Pliny's Vandili is a group name which includes Burgundiones and Gutones as separate tribes but apparently not Vandals as a tribe of their own, so it's not even clear whether Goths and Vandals were separate groups in his time; if it was an umbrella term then there's no reason to think the Goths could not have been in the same category. The Vandal name perhaps remained an umbrella term until they were already in Spain. The Hasdingi and Silingi were separate groups under their kings who only united when one of them was nearly wiped out in a Roman-Visigothic attack in 417. The fact that they did not include the Alans in the same category, even as they joined under the Hasdingi banner at exactly the same time and for exactly the same reason, showed the word was not completely amorphous; the differences with the originally Iranian-speaking steppe nomads were much greater than between two East Germanic tribes which may have shared cultic practices before Christianization. I know this stuff doesn't matter for the Swedish king title but it's a heck of a lot more interesting than the old theory.

 

[Jopa79]

The question in the title has no relation with the Varangians, Rurik or the Rus. Gustaf Vasa was not using the title "king of the Rus".

Yes, I agree. The original question is restricted only to how/when vandals got included with the titles owned by the King of Sweden.

But my insertion about the Rus' people, the Varangians and Rurik intended to give more depth and perspective - while being the King of the Svear/Sveas, the king also ruled Roslagen and the inhabitants of Ros. The Ros' were Svear and thereby subjects of the King of the Svear & Geats. But in the 9th century part of the Ros' formed their own subset, known as the Varangians and the Rus' people while traveling to the east - they no more recognized the King of the Svear & Geats, but the King of Rus & Ruthenia, the Rurik dynasty.

Uppsala öd - wealth of Uppsala made the property of the Swedish Crown in the medieval Sweden - the King of Sweden originally was the King of Uppsala, not the King of the Svear/Geats/Guts/Wends. The Folklands - Tiundaland-Attundaland-Fjärdhundraland and Roden (Roslagen) united in 1296 by electing a common king for themselves and to form the province of Uppland.

Your reply is misleading and your information does not add anything, no one asked for that.

Quite a bad approach, I would say.

 

[Barsoom]

Yes, I agree. The original question is restricted only to how/when vandals got included with the titles owned by the King of Sweden.

But my insertion about the Rus' people, the Varangians and Rurik intended to give more depth and perspective - while being the King of the Svear/Sveas, the king also ruled Roslagen and the inhabitants of Ros. The Ros' were Svear and thereby subjects of the King of the Svear & Geats. But in the 9th century part of the Ros' formed their own subset, known as the Varangians and the Rus' people while traveling to the east - they no more recognized the King of the Svear & Geats, but the King of Rus & Ruthenia, the Rurik dynasty.

Uppsala öd - wealth of Uppsala made the property of the Swedish Crown in the medieval Sweden - the King of Sweden originally was the King of Uppsala, not the King of the Svear/Geats/Guts/Wends. The Folklands - Tiundaland-Attundaland-Fjärdhundraland and Roden (Roslagen) united in 1296 by electing a common king for themselves and to form the province of Uppland.



Quite a bad approach, I would say.

I don't get your argument. The king of Sweden was not using the title king of Rus. Why not? There was a chain of descent - a shaky one, as surely not all Rus came from Roslagen - but sure, if that didn't stop him claiming Goths and Vandals, it wouldn't stop him claiming the Rus. So what was it that made the Rus different in the eyes of 16th century Swedish kings?

 

[Båtsman]

I don't get your argument. The king of Sweden was not using the title king of Rus. Why not? There was a chain of descent - a shaky one, as surely not all Rus came from Roslagen - but sure, if that didn't stop him claiming Goths and Vandals, it wouldn't stop him claiming the Rus. So what was it that made the Rus different in the eyes of 16th century Swedish kings?

"What great deeds have the Russians ever done?" (in the eyes of a "Western" European high culture centred on Rome and Paris). The Goths on the other hand were famous in this chiefly latin-dominated culture sphere; these were the guys that conquered the Roman Empire. So the Scandinavian kings used the image of the Goths to improve on their own prestige. I remember reading a funny anecdote about the 15th century church meeting at Basel, where the Scandinavian and Spanish delegations came into conflict over who was more Gothic. The Nordics claimed that they descended from the heroic Goths and deserved high honours; this then caused the Spanish delegation to retort that the Nordics were merely the "stay-at-home Goths" and that the true Goths who conquered Rome founded Spain.

As for Russia, the idea of some form of "Slavicism" was at a low point during the 16th century, seeing as the Polish intelligentsia - at the pinnacle of its renaissance golden age - was busying itself with dreaming up Sarmatism. Sweden was thus far from deviating from a general trend of general European history, rather completely manufactured impossible historical legends was the trend for this period. Meanwhile, Russia was subject to the Golden Horde, and to the "Western" view there was little difference between the Mongol barbarians and their Russian subjects - you might as well launch a crusade against the one as the other.

 

[Barsoom]

"What great deeds have the Russians ever done?" (in the eyes of a "Western" European high culture centred on Rome and Paris). The Goths on the other hand were famous in this chiefly latin-dominated culture sphere; these were the guys that conquered the Roman Empire. So the Scandinavian kings used the image of the Goths to improve on their own prestige. I remember reading a funny anecdote about the 15th century church meeting at Basel, where the Scandinavian and Spanish delegations came into conflict over who was more Gothic. The Nordics claimed that they descended from the heroic Goths and deserved high honours; this then caused the Spanish delegation to retort that the Nordics were merely the "stay-at-home Goths" and that the true Goths who conquered Rome founded Spain.

As for Russia, the idea of some form of "Slavicism" was at a low point during the 16th century, seeing as the Polish intelligentsia - at the pinnacle of its renaissance golden age - was busying itself with dreaming up Sarmatism. Sweden was thus far from deviating from a general trend of general European history, rather completely manufactured impossible historical legends was the trend for this period. Meanwhile, Russia was subject to the Golden Horde, and to the "Western" view there was little difference between the Mongol barbarians and their Russian subjects - you might as well launch a crusade against the one as the other.

So your argument is that the Rus were not prestigious enough in 16th century Swedish/European eyes. I think you have a couple of dates wrong (Ivan III threw off the Mongol yoke almost a century before; Ivan IV proclaimed himself Emperor of Russia in 1547; Poland was still a small kingdom, didn't unite with Lithuania until 1569, and didn't war on Russia until 1605) but sure, European estimations of their own and others' glory didn't bother overmuch with the facts.

However, I note that your estimate of Rus glory is the opposite of @Jopa79's. So if you're right, then Jopa's post doesn't make sense.

 

[Jopa79]

I don't get your argument. The king of Sweden was not using the title king of Rus.

King of Rus, a title issued to the ruling Rurik dynasty. I don't know the reason why the King of Sweden didn't lay a claim for it - would like to hear if someone else does.

The Rurik dynasty ruled Kievan Rus' which later declined and Novgorod became more independent forming the Novgorod Republic prospering due to Novgorod (the city) being the easternmost part of the Hanseatic League. The Swedish interest and desire to control the lands of the Rurik dynasty grew which resulted the Swedish-Novgorodian Wars in the 12th and 13th century and continued as Russo-Swedish Wars all the way until the Great Northern War declining the Swedish status as a Great Power and losing the Swedish possessions in Ingria and the modern-day Baltic States.

However, I note that your estimate of Rus glory is the opposite of @Jopa79's.

Actually, I didn't press the issue of Rus glory, I don't even known the exact concept of Rus glory, could you bring into focus your opinion of it?

 

[loup99]

King of Rus, a title issued to the ruling Rurik dynasty. I don't know the reason why the King of Sweden didn't lay a claim for it - would like to hear if someone else does.

Because there was no reason justifying laying claim to it. As I explained above it wasn't just randomly claiming titles, the titles used came within a specific context against a particular rival (king of Denmark). Gustaf Vasa wasn't in a conflict with Russia in 1540 and Russia wasn't claiming parts of Sweden by adopting a title. There was one war against Russia later on between 1554-1557 against Ivan IV, but no borders changed.

 

[Jopa79]

As I explained above it wasn't just randomly claiming titles, the titles used came within a specific context against a particular rival

Well, while being rivals during the Swedish-Novgorodian Wars - according the above - the King of Sweden could have laid a claim for the title, Prince of Novgorod, which was the chief executive of the Novgorod Republic and the Rurik dynasty.

 

[loup99]

Well, while being rivals during the Swedish-Novgorodian Wars - according the above - the King of Sweden could have laid a claim for the title, Prince of Novgorod, which was the chief executive of the Novgorod Republic and the Rurik dynasty.

It was Gustaf Vasa who adopted the titles, it is anachronistic to speak of such claims during the Swedish-Novgorodian Wars.

 

[Jopa79]

It was Gustaf Vasa who adopted the titles, it is anachronistic to speak of such claims during the Swedish-Novgorodian Wars.

Actually, it seems that Gustav Vasa only adopted the title King of the Wends as the third "kingdom" to his titles. Before Gustav Vasa's adoption the monarch of Sweden (King of Sweden) had already adopted the titles - King of the Swedes - King of the Goths.

Further, I found that King Magnus III of Sweden regularly used the title - King of the Goths already in the 13th century.

 

[Barsoom]

Actually, it seems that Gustav Vasa only adopted the title King of the Wends as the third "kingdom" to his titles. Before Gustav Vasa's adoption the monarch of Sweden (King of Sweden) had already adopted the titles - King of the Swedes - King of the Goths.

Further, I found that King Magnus III of Sweden regularly used the title - King of the Goths already in the 13th century.

The kings of Sweden were kings of both Swedes and Geats from very early on. The name Geats may well be etymologically related to Goths and was often confused in Latin writing, as was the name Gutes for the inhabitants of Gotland, which was also claimed pretty early. Neither of these claims originally extended to the Goths who roamed around in the Roman Empire. That came later, when Renaissance pseudo-science had amalgated these peoples.

King of Rus, a title issued to the ruling Rurik dynasty. I don't know the reason why the King of Sweden didn't lay a claim for it - would like to hear if someone else does.

The Rurik dynasty ruled Kievan Rus' which later declined and Novgorod became more independent forming the Novgorod Republic prospering due to Novgorod (the city) being the easternmost part of the Hanseatic League. The Swedish interest and desire to control the lands of the Rurik dynasty grew which resulted the Swedish-Novgorodian Wars in the 12th and 13th century and continued as Russo-Swedish Wars all the way until the Great Northern War declining the Swedish status as a Great Power and losing the Swedish possessions in Ingria and the modern-day Baltic States.

Actually, I didn't press the issue of Rus glory, I don't even known the exact concept of Rus glory, could you bring into focus your opinion of it?

I referred to @Båtsman's post above mine. "What great deeds have the Russians ever done?" That post also gives a reason why the king of Sweden didn't claim it.

 

[Geriander]

Well, while being rivals during the Swedish-Novgorodian Wars - according the above - the King of Sweden could have laid a claim for the title, Prince of Novgorod, which was the chief executive of the Novgorod Republic and the Rurik dynasty.

Land claims in this era tended to be dynastic tather than ethnic/ historical. Being ”king of the Goths” did not mean that Gustav Vasa claimed the throne of Spain, it was just for prestige.

The Vasa dynasty would likewise have used a dynastic link if it wanted to claim the throne of Russia, not the historic origin of the Rus as that had nothing to do with the dynasty.