Conrad said:
Well of course Swedish history was as exciting, from what we can glean from the sources (as you mentioned).
I wonder why the Swedes didn't write it all down? Perhaps some chronicles have gone missing?
Woohoo! 4000th post!
-
We have updated our Community Code of Conduct. Please read through the new rules for the forum that are an integral part of Paradox Interactive’s User Agreement.
Well of course Swedish history was as exciting, from what we can glean from the sources (as you mentioned).
I wonder why the Swedes didn't write it all down? Perhaps some chronicles have gone missing?
Woohoo! 4000th post!
Demetrios said:
According to one of our most known historians, the reason was that no Swedish king came up with the idea of making claims for his house by having a scribe write them down (or invent them).
But, yes, many chronicles were lost during the reformation and its pillaging of monasteries. If I don't misremember, one of the guilty king's clerks said something like "there is now more information about our history abroad than here".
Demetrios said:Woohoo! 4000th post!
Congratulations
The Stockholm castle fire of 1697 (+-10 years) was quite devastating to the Swedish collections of written sources. Who knows how much knowledge was destroyed in the flames.Conrad said:
Of course there is a difference in belief between a archbishop and a rich sagawriter...
King Yngvar said:
I've already pointed this out: they...are...contemporary sources . Adam of Bremen was, well, from Bremen, in the empire. The frankish annals are also imperial - at the time a nation hostile to Denmark. Speculate all you will on this, but these sources are from the same time period as the events in discussion. Snorri and Saxo(which so far is all I've got from you-talk about being hung up) are not.
As for the dismissal of the material remnants, I've already pointed out, several times, and for Conrad, that they are used in conjuction with the written material. Alone they might be shed doubt upon, but alongside the writings they make a pretty stroing point.
As a reply to the first post, I think that some of the danish islands should be placed on the map. For exaple Bornholm. It was a very rich island. Maybe also Læsø who the the number 1 saltproducing area in all of scandinavia.
Are you not a good example that what part of the theory you support does not depend on where you come from? Well pherhaps since you live in Købehavn, you can might have started to feel Danish, I don't know.
Snorri and Saxo had their sources from somewhere, and that was from contemporary sources. By the way, they were much more contemporary than you. By the way, contemporary sources from CNN tells us that the Arabs are the terrorists while contemporary sources from Al Jazera(?) tells us that the Americans are the terrorists, just an example...
King Yngvar said:
I'm not going to dignify the first part of your post with an answer.
Snorri(and partly Saxo) based their accounts of the particular period we are discussion on oral histories, mostly icelandic. While norse oral histories have shown themselves amazingly resilent toward corruption, the method is not perfect as a historical record presevation method, as countless examples of comparing the Heimskringla to contemporary(I'm almost sorry for using that word after you managed to stuff it four times into four lines of text) sources, of arab, byzantine and latin western origin. Of course only the frankish annals are truly contemporary to the 810s, as they were written year by year. Adam of Bremen wrote in the 11th century.
Contemporary means:
(http://dictionary.reference.com/)
con·tem·po·rar·y ( P ) Pronunciation Key (kn-tmp-rr)
adj.
1:Belonging to the same period of time: a fact documented by two contemporary sources.
2:Of about the same age.
3:Current; modern: contemporary trends in design.
Thus is is difficult to be more contemporary than anyone. One either is or is not. And while we have a lot to thank the two great norse chroniclers for, one cannot excactly compare historical scholarship in the 1200s with historical scholarship in the 2000s...Of course only the frankish annals are truly contemporary to the 810s, as they were written year by year. Adam of Bremen wrote in the 11th century, but used more written records than oral ones(most of which now are lost).
As for yet another claim that the sources I'm stating are "lying", please back this up with some sort of fact instead of speculating endlessly. There is a reason one of the first things you learn at university is to stay away from ad hoc theories.
EF
Lasse Nielsen said:Give up! it's futile, there's no reasoning with him!
I'll chalk it up to (young) age.
But you're right. It's time to get the thread back on track.
Snorri and Saxo did not only base their sources upon oral ones. Snorri had also taken from written ones that are lost now. But Snorri himself had source criticism, he did not include what he tought of as unrealistic. Do you hear about trolls and such in Heimskringla? Like in the fictional sagas? No, you don't, the only thing is that he added some phoetry to it. Like conversations, etc. To make it more readable.
I don't bother quoting Lasse's comment, hearing those words from a Dane have no effect on me
i'd like åländ to be separated from finland. finland is ugric and the people of åland came from sweden
i allso hope u split österbotten becourse its to big. maby into lappland(dont now what u could call it) and österbodden. the areas togetter are too big.and i doo hope u wont setle for the 6 provinces stated earlyer