Talk:Eric the Victorious

Munsö succession box

I removed the Munsö succession box because in history there never was a House of Munsö. It seems to be mostly a wikipedia-thing. The Swedish term "Munsöätten" does not occur on scholar.google.com. /Pieter Kuiper 16:37, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Jenny Nyström image - not PD

Aside from the fact that Eric the Victorious never sat for Jenny Nyström (and neither did Odin, I think), the image is still copyrighted. Jenny Nyström died in 1946. /Pieter Kuiper 16:40, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Since the copyright status of this image is not uniform worldwide, should a FUR be used for the benefit of those outside the United States? Wilhelm_meis (talk) 02:39, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Name in the lead

While I'm here, I wonder if the lead (which currently reads "Eric I the Victorious...") should read something more like "Eric I of Sweden, better known as Eric the Victorious..."; or should we follow the example of English monarchs named Edward (viz Edward the Elder, Edward the Martyr, and Edward the Confessor, all preceded Edward I), and simply drop the I from Eric I the Victorious in the lead? Any thoughts? Wilhelm_meis (talk) 02:39, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Peasants?

The claim that he took the side of the "peasants" may be a bit anachronistically expressed. Does anyone have the Swedish book this is referenced to, and/or is able to put their finger on the passage in Flateyjarbók? I'm thinking it is in the Saga of Olaf Tryggvason, and wonder whether it actually refers to bönder or what.Yngvadottir (talk) 06:50, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

If we are to take the Saga of Olaf Tryggvason as a good historical source for the 10th century, which is highly doubtful, then yes, "peasant" is the wrong word. I'll change it to "free farmers". Martin Rundkvist (talk) 11:58, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

It does say "according to Flateyjarbók", which is adequate warning :-) Thanks, but now I see we have no entry for bönde/bonde/bønde, or have I missed it listed under Old Norse? Am I right that that's what the passage actually says? Actually I think a quote would be best, since that's an interesting suggestion, saying something about the power of the Thing, especially if we doubt Styrbjörn's historicity. I looked at the article on ceorl and someone may want to add bönde/bonde/bønde to it and/or to draw a distinction between the terms. I'm not well enough grounded in historical sociology to do it.Yngvadottir (talk) 15:53, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

The word bonde just means "farmer" in modern Scandy, so I don't think it would be a good article heading in English WP. (The umlaut marks the plural, as in modern Swedish en bonde, två bönder.) Maybe write a few lines about it in an article on Viking period Norse society? Martin Rundkvist (talk) 18:21, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Move without discussion

{{help}} This article was moved arbitrarily and is now inappropriately named in English against WP guidelines to use known English exonyms, and contrary to articles of all other Scandinavian royals on en.WP named Eric. It needs to be moved back. The user who did this move should also be warned about doing this kind of thing with no discussion and based only on personal POV. The name Eirik is virtually unknown in English, compared to Eric, and also poses needless phonetic difficulty in reading this text aloud. SergeWoodzing (talk) 00:16, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

See Talk:Knut_II_of_Sweden#Move without discussion  Chzz  ►  00:21, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Several anys

Which Erik was an Erik before Eric the Victorious (source please)?Slatersteven (talk) 16:26, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

"Eric who received Archbishop Unni in 936" has been "verified as a historical personage" as quoted from current source [2], where the page # is included. SergeWoodzing (talk) 16:32, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, one page number was missing - now fixed. SergeWoodzing (talk) 16:34, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

Was he a king?Slatersteven (talk) 16:35, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

The heading on p. 8 is "TALES AND LEGENDS ABOUT THE PREHISTORIC KINGS OF SWEDEN" and then all of those pre- Eric the Victorious are listed and described with the ones historically confirmed (5 names) marked especially in the complete list (40 names). SergeWoodzing (talk) 16:54, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

There is one more Eeic also listed as "probable or possible". SergeWoodzing (talk) 16:55, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

So Erik Archbishop Unni was crowned king, when? It does not appear he was king, so he cannot be used to prove there were kings called eric before Eric the Victorious. Does your source list another Eric who was actualy a king.Slatersteven (talk) 16:58, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

You seem to misreading something here. An archbishop's name was Unni. King Eric received him when he came to Sweden in 936. SergeWoodzing (talk)

Accordingly, please reverse yourself and reinstate "several"! SergeWoodzing (talk) 17:38, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

There appears to have been many Erik’s, but it cannot be established who they were as there are conflicting royal genealogies (the Heimskringla of Snorre Sturleson and Adam of Bremen do not match up). Your one source therefore does not ‘prove’ there was more then one Eric (especially as Bremen was writing some 100 years after the event). Just that ther is disagrement over whether there were any.Slatersteven (talk) 18:08, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

Lagerqvist is one of the most respected academic experts on Swedish royalty. I think he, rather than you or Andejons or I or any other layman, should be respected in this case. It can be safely accepted as a fact, in his opinion, that at least one, possibly 2, Swedish king/s named Eric existed before this one. Thus, I am asking you again not to disregard that reliable academic source and, please, to reinstate "several" in the text. SergeWoodzing (talk) 18:31, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

I have re-worded the text to refelct that there is a debate about the existance of these monarchs, that is what we do reflect debate, not put one side of it. The debate is not about how many were real, but if any of them were. Tus to alter the text to imply that there is no debate is dihonest and now how wikiepdia works.Slatersteven (talk) 18:36, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

That new wording is quite acceptable to me, but all this was hardly necessary, I think.

I have never questioned the fact that there is a debate. What you have done here, though, is side-stepped the main issue at hand. Andejons accused me of using "incorrect English" because I wrote that it has been debated whether or not there were "several" Erics. Here's what this debate is about: the accurate use of English language. There has never (since the year 936) been a debate about whether or not "any" King Erics existed before this one. Not one reliable source has ever claimed that King Eric of 936 did not exist as a historical person. Most believe that a King Eric also existed in the 8th or 9th century. These are the facts, unpolluted by any ideology. Thus, changing "any" to "several" was the best possible work I could do for WP on this article in that regard.

At first, you supported Andejons by derailing my well intended question here and then (albeit iadvertantly) joined him in his uncivil mud-slinging here. You too accused me of using the wrong word in using "several". Then you stated that a king became archbishop (or something like that?) and have not even acknowledged that you were wrong. OK the end result is fine now, but your effect on what I tried to accomplish here has been discouraging.

I really resent my English having been smeared. How unfair!

The good thing that came out of this is that a lot more reliable content facts about the whole thing are in here, at least on the talk page. SergeWoodzing (talk) 19:20, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

And this is where is should have been dicused, not raised at ANI. The fact there is a debate (and you accept that) means that its not true that the existance of a Erik in 936 has nevefr been contested, and its your opinion as to those sources not being RS. But I would be interested to see any sources which dispute the existance of the 936 Erik (I have seen a few online sources for this) but would rather seen some book. Any offers?Slatersteven (talk) 19:37, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

I must repeat: The content debate is about whether or not there were several Eriks before this one, not about whether or not there were any.

The general question I raised at ANI was about users whose language is not competent enough to be understood by readers, not about any content issue here. This (incompetently exchanging "several" for "any" because of poor English) is only one of thousands of problems English WP is having with that. I think every good-faither should be interested in solutions. Discouraging someone like me (who corrects hundreds of them), like you have, is not a solution. SergeWoodzing (talk) 19:48, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

Adam's Erik is not universally accepted as historical. Harrison does mention him, and says that Adam is simply too far removed in time and using too unreliable sources for his account to be acceptable.

Andejons (talk) 20:20, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

Not the first King

Everyone knows Olof Skötkonung was the first king of Sweden, and Eric the Victorious was a semi-fictional/real king of the Svear/Svealand.

Note the diffrence, sweden = Both Götaland + Svealand, not just svealand.

Saying Eric was the first king of Sweden is inaccurate and based on saga and not on arcelogical/historical evidence and not suitable for wikipedia, since this is an enclyclopedia, ment to educate based on evidence and reliable sources.

A similar half legendary person is Roland.

I'd recommend a change on his title from King of Swedes (same as Svear but eng-version"Swedes" cause much confusion, since it's the name of the later united kingdom of Sweden's population's name of Götar & Svear) to King of Svears, which is more appropriate, and removal of him from pages were he's refered as "king of Sweden".

Byzantios (talk) 13:45, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

The King of Sweden and his court (today) consider Eric to be the first King of Sweden. That's good enough for me. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 20:48, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

Coin image

Please see Talk:Ragnvald Knaphövde#Coin design and discuss the artist there if necessary. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 22:37, 19 July 2015 (UTC)

This case is even more clear cut than Ragnvald. Eric's son, Olof Skötkonung, is considered the first Swedish king to have minted coins. This should be verifiable in any reputable source on Swedish numismatics. We should not then present a coin design for Eric just because it was mentioned in a seventeenth century work. It is not even a proper fringe theory.

Andejons (talk) 10:20, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

Follow-up from Wikipedia:Third opinion. What seems to be the disagreement? Could anyone summarise the 2 positions in question? Cheers, FoCuSandLeArN (talk) 21:57, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

From looking at the link Serge first posted above, it seems that there is a dispute about the reliability and relevance of an eighteenth-century account of Swedish coins. Serge thinks such opinion is notable and valid for inclusion in Wikipedia, whilst Andejons disagrees and thinks that there should be a reliable modern source noting this eighteenth-century account. Myself, I think Andejons has it right. If someone can find a reliable source noting the eighteenth-century account it shouldn't be a problem, but eighteenth-century sources by themselves aren't reliable sources of information.--Brianann MacAmhlaidh (talk) 23:56, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

Dear FoCuSandLeArN: "seems that there is a dispute about the reliability"? - what an invention! That account is not neutal or accurate, as it ignores the main issue, the image captions. See Talk:Ragnvald Knaphövde#Caption makes image relevant. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 01:29, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

I recuse myself from commenting on this particular issue due to the fact I'm completely unqualified to comment. FoCuSandLeArN (talk) 21:03, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

I'm professionally qualified to do so. Andejons is right. There is no reason to believe that Eric produced coinage. Martin Rundkvist (talk) 21:14, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

Your comment is irrelevant, since nobody has ever claimed that Eric produced coinage.

Your extensive supportive dealings with Andejons over the years also make your (irrelevant) expert comment less than neutral here.

Given your very scant contribution history to English Wikipedia we can also safely assume you were recruited to comment (irrelevantly). --SergeWoodzing (talk) 09:26, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

*sigh* -- Assume good faith, Serge, remember? Martin Rundkvist (talk) 07:12, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

When reasonable. Sarcasms like *sigh* are not constructive. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 16:11, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

Ignoring the caption's text agaion, an editor removed a relevant image for which there is plenty of room in this article. Editor in summary addressed the issue about whether or not this king minted coins. That's irrelevant. Nobody has ever claimed he minted coins. Editor already was corrected by neutral RfC here, though he tried to change the close to suit his POV (which he was asked here not to do). If necessary, we'll have to do the exact same thing over again here. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 21:45, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

We shouldn't illustrate this article with a picture of a coin, as nobody believes that King Erik issued any coins. The article is about King Erik, not about abandoned beliefs about King Erik. Martin Rundkvist (talk) 03:17, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

Agreed. The coins were probably minted by Magnus Eriksson; they are at the very least suspiciously similar to some of his designs: see [1].

Andejons (talk) 06:46, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

The image represents what Brenner thought, and the only mention we have of Eric (above the coins) in any images that old, but does not represent any actual coins. It's at least as relevant as the rather ridiculous fantasy image of Eric with Odin at the top and the one below of a runstone which isn't about Eric at all. Please read the caption, respect the caption's carefully worded text, stop trying to discuss things that are irrelevant to this image the way it is presented here, and stop reverting! Otherwise we'll have to have an RfC again. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 15:19, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

The image of Eric with Odin is fairly ridiculus, yes, but it is at least clearly made for an artistic purpose by a well known artist. The coins were made for a scientific purpose, but they are clearly in conflict with the most basic facts of Swedish numismatics and don't really tell anything except that Brenner made huge mistakes. There are also other things which could be used to illustrate the article, such as File:Efter_slaget_vid_Fyrisvall.jpg, or something having to do with Sigtuna.

The new caption is factual, and I would think that it should make clear why the image does not belong in this article.

Andejons (talk) 16:21, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

18th century antiquarians also believed that Neolithic flint axes were used in the Viking Period for ritual sacrifice. But we don't illustrate the article on ancient Norse religion with pictures of flint axes. Please Serge, just devote your considerable and admirable wiki energies to something more constructive. Martin Rundkvist (talk) 04:45, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

Since you know of those axes and their attibution then and now, that means they have been written about, and putting an image of them exactly where you do not want one would be very helpful to readers who have been mistakenly informed about them, as you say they've been. Same pertains here. We should inform, also about well known errors made. Thank you, but it is important to me that we work ethically and reasonably, and avoid letting our own strong personal views damage the neutrality necessary on WP, especially to the point where we begin to remove despicable images from articles without even reading their captions. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 17:07, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

No, Wikipedia should not cover obscure abandoned ideas. It should cover the best current scholarship. Hardly anyone knows that Brenner misattributed 14th century coins to King Eric. It is not a significant piece of information in relation to the article's subject. Martin Rundkvist (talk) 07:19, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

Why all the bolding every time you write? Seems unnecessarily aggressive to me.

"Hardly anyone knows" is your personal POV (wishful thinking?), but the fact that Brenner's book is and has been so lauded and famous refutes that. Seems to me that anyone seriously studying Swedish coins for the last 3 centuries should know of it, and those alive today should find the image, with it's current caption, very helpful here. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 16:11, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Eric the Victorious. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070930030459/http://histvarld.historiska.se/histvarld/sok/artikel.asp?id=10275 to http://histvarld.historiska.se/histvarld/sok/artikel.asp?id=10275

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 15:19, 25 December 2016 (UTC)

Lede wording about being first

"He is the first Swedish king attested in clearly independent sources" - 2 questions:

1. Independent of what?
2. Should Wikipedia claim that not one Swedish king existed before Eric, contrary to sources such as Ansgar who've shown that there were a few?

Since I see Eric as the first in a somewhat consecutive sequence, but not as the very first of all, I'm writing to the user who recently changed the wording for clarification. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 14:54, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

I also disagree with the edit, and the editor you ask has ignored your question. I don't know how to keep this article in a reasonable shape. This is really a hard part of Swedish history to have an article about. Every article about this era should have a note to the reader about how infected it is among Swedish historians. There is a lack of academic detachment, and someone said that Swedish historians typically are much more critical about the sources than they are about their own alternative theories. But, it gets even wilder if you look at how non-historians see it with Götaland theory adherents bound to visit the article.--Berig (talk) 16:46, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

No, it is only an infected issue about some people trying to cling to outdated notions of a Sweden hundreds of years older than there is solid evidence for. Some historians would not even agree that Eric ruled over "Sweden" sine they would argue that Sweden should encompass both svear and götar, and the first king that can be shown to have ruled over both is Eric's son Olof.

Andejons (talk) 13:00, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

Army of Hunding?

Under the subsection, "Saga Sources," the last line of Thorvaldr Hjaltason's poem is translated as "Hunding's army," whereas the Wiki article on Styrbjörn the Strong rejects this translation in favor of "army of a myriad," arguing there's no other historical record of a "Hunding." Also, the other contemporaneous record in the Styrbjarnar þáttr Svíakappa mentions Styrbjorn as the leader and not a Hunding, so I think that part should be rewritten at least as an alternative between "an army of a myriad" or "an army of Hunding." Cornelius (talk) 10:44, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

I have removed it. It is a problematic line of the poem and it has been emended as hundmargs.--Berig (talk) 16:43, 5 January 2021 (UTC)