Ragnar Lodbrog
K. Williams
According to William G. Searle Ragnar Lodbrog did exist and was
killed c.855. He supports this with the following source citations:
"Todd Index" and "Robertson Scotl. j 43 Index". Unfortunately, his list
of sources in long form are in another book by him which I do not have
so I'm at a loss as to the meaning of these citations.
He also shows three sons of Ragnar who were in Britain or Ireland:
1. Ivar Beinlaus, Ingwar (d. 873)
2. Ubba or Hubba (d. 878 in Devonshire)
3. Halfdene (d. 881)
He cites the same sources for these three as well as Florence of
Worcester, Lappenberg's History of England, Symeon of Durham, and "Keary
p. lxvj".
Kelsey
Source:
William George Searle, Anglo-Saxon Bishops, Kings and Nobles (Cambridge:
The University Press, 1899)
Stewart Baldwin
"Todd" is James Henthorn Todd, ed., "Cogadh Gaedhel re Gallaibh" (The
War of the Gaedhil with the Gaill) (Rolls series 48, London, 1867).
"Robertson" is E. W. Robertson, "Scotland under her early Kings" (2
vols., London, 1862). Searle, Todd, and Robertson were all good works
for the time that they were written, but are all now badly out of
date. Ragnarr Loðbrók is not mentioned in any source for more than
two hundred years after his alleged existence, and the even later
Icelandic sagas are now generally regarded as unreliable for events of
this early date. A few years ago, I posted an item on this to the
newsgroup, which is currently available on Anders Berg's webpage at
http://www.algonet.se/~anderzb/genea/medieval/ragnar.htm
The review article by Donchadh Ó Corráin in Irish Historical Review
which I cited in the above essay is highly recommended, and underlines
the careless historical methodology which has often been used by those
claiming that Ragnarr Loðbrók was historical.
Stewart Baldwin
Todd A. Farmerie
I can address one comment.
Kristian Andersen Nyrup wrote:
>
> "At that time there were other kings(*) of the danes or normans harrying
> France with pirat-attacks; the most important ones among them were the
> tyrants Horich, Orwig, Gotafrid, Rudolf , and Ingvar. Ingvar, son of
> Lodparch, the cruelest of them all, was everywhere tormenting the
> christians to death. This is written in "Gesta Francorum"."
>
> (*: Adam has just been telling about the danish kings Sigfrid and Halfdan,
> who made peace with the emperor i 873. This can be found in Annales
> Fuldenses - Adam calls his source "Historia Francorum".)
>
> This - of course - has something to do with the legend of Ragnar Lothbrok. I
> am not (yet) convinced that he is just a legendary figure (too much smoke
> not to have a fire), and this is the origin of some of my doubts.
>
> If Adam is reliable here, then the first occurrence of Lothbrok as father of
> Ivar the Boneless, is not c.1070, but somewhere between 911 and 1070, most
> likely in the beginning of that interval.
One should be careful about equating references to Inguar, son of
Lodparch with Ivar the Boneless, son of Ragnar Lothbrok. Ragnar
Lothbrok appears to be an amalgamation of several historical
individuals, with a lot of legend thrown in. One can find Ragnalls,
Lodparchs, Inguars, Bernos, etc., who in turn appear to match with the
traditions, but there is every reason to believe that the traditions
were concocted by joining these unconnected individuals into a single
story (and in the case of the first two, into a single individual). I
have seen other near-contemporary accounts of Inguar, son of Lodparch
(in fact, just last night, but I don't recall what I was looking at at
the time - Asser's Life of King Alfred, or AEthelweard's Chronicle
perhaps), and he probably served as one model for the heroic Ivar the
Boneless, son of Ragnar Lothbrok, characters of later fiction, but
aspects of Ragnar's life can also be seen in the battle between Anulo
and Reginfrid, which involved different people.
taf
Kristian Andersen Nyrup
Stewart Baldwin <sba...@mindspring.com> skrev i en
nyhedsmeddelelse:39d4ba41...@news.mindspring.com...
This is my first act as active member of this newsgroup.
I hope that I've got the procedures right - otherwise, feel free to correct
me.
I've been following the above mentioned link, and inspired by your very
interesting essay I have been re-reading Adam of Bremen's first book.
It seems to me that everything he writes about the 9th century, he finds in
older books. His has excellent references and tells openly and trustworthly
about his sources. One can in most cases control his statements by looking
in these still existing books and see that he is quite loyal to them.
Occasionally he mis-reads, mis-understands, or deliberately mis-uses his
sources, but that is not the general picture.
He refers to a book called "Gesta Francorum" twice (I may have missed some
occurrences?). From that he gets some information about norman kings
harrying the western franks. In connection with the second reference (I.52)
he writes, that "Gesta Francorum" ends by telling about the death of Louis
the Child (i.e in 911).
Now I wonder: - Has this frankish source of Adam of Bremen been
identified? - Are there reasons to doubt, that it ever existed or contained
this information?
These are interesting questions (to me at least) because the first reference
(I.37) sounds like this (I don't have the latin text here, so this is just
my own poor translation into english of a danish translation of the latin
text.):
"At that time there were other kings(*) of the danes or normans harrying
France with pirat-attacks; the most important ones among them were the
tyrants Horich, Orwig, Gotafrid, Rudolf , and Ingvar. Ingvar, son of
Lodparch, the cruelest of them all, was everywhere tormenting the
christians to death. This is written in "Gesta Francorum"."
(*: Adam has just been telling about the danish kings Sigfrid and Halfdan,
who made peace with the emperor i 873. This can be found in Annales
Fuldenses - Adam calls his source "Historia Francorum".)
This - of course - has something to do with the legend of Ragnar Lothbrok. I
am not (yet) convinced that he is just a legendary figure (too much smoke
not to have a fire), and this is the origin of some of my doubts.
If Adam is reliable here, then the first occurrence of Lothbrok as father of
Ivar the Boneless, is not c.1070, but somewhere between 911 and 1070, most
likely in the beginning of that interval.
I like the idea of such a french chronicle (or annals) as the common source
of Adam of Bremen and Guillaume of Jumiège. I haven't seen any better
explanation of how they got the names Lodparch/Lotroc.
So: does anyone know, what this "Gesta Francorum" is?
Thanks - and apologies to readers conserned about the well-being of the
english language.
Kristian Andersen Nyrup.
Todd A. Farmerie
of this legend in the ONN discussion list archives at:
http://humserv1.hum.gu.se/arkiv/ONN/1998onn/III/msg00356.html
taf
Todd A. Farmerie
>
> I think that is beyond any reasonable doubt that Ivar "the Boneless" is the
> only person named Ivar mentioned in any known historical book or document of
> the 9th century. He is not just an average viking-chief - he is THE Ivar of
> the 9th century. And to say that a person called Inguar, deserving the
> reputation "cruelest of all the norman tyrants" and "killing christian
> everywhere" is Ivar "the Boneless" , is not just another arbitrary same-name
> argument.
I do think a strong argument can be made that Inguar/Imhar was the model
for the heroic Ivar. The problem comes not when one makes one such
identification, but when one considers such documentation to be evidence
in favor of the reliability of the legend in its entirety.
> I agree, that one has to oppose the uncritical use of the fairy-tales or
> historic novels of the islanders and Saxo Grammaticus. I'm just concerned
> about Ragnar Lodbrog: will he be an innocent victim of that campaign?
It is with "Ragnar Lodbrog" that this approach has the worst problem.
While one can find Ragnalls who appear to have been the basis for
aspects of the tale, there is no association between that man and the
"sons of Lodparch", and no single preheroic mention of the two names in
one individual. Likewise, others, models for Bjorn and Sigurd have no
historical connection to each other, to the models for their "brothers"
or that of their "father". Moving on back, the battle fought by Sigurd
Ring can be seen as modeled on a historic battle, between Anulo (Ring)
and Siegfried (I think - a model for Sigurd). Here we have a model for
the battle, but both combattants died, so the rest of Sigurd Ring's life
must be based on an entirely different person.
The likely conclusion then is that several authentic individuals, a
Ragnall, an Inguar, a Berno, etc. were brought together into a single
historical tale, the memories of the models serving to add a historical
realism to the glorious tale being told. This is analagous to the
modern film Braveheart, which brought together into genealogical
relationship people who all individually existed, but did not relate to
each other in the manner portrayed, and the movie also constructed
composite characters to aid in conveying the concepts without
distracting the audience with two many accurate details.
taf
Kristian Andersen Nyrup
Todd A. Farmerie wrote:
> One should be careful about equating references to Inguar, son of
> Lodparch with Ivar the Boneless, son of Ragnar Lothbrok. Ragnar
> Lothbrok appears to be an amalgamation of several historical
> individuals, with a lot of legend thrown in. One can find Ragnalls,
> Lodparchs, Inguars, Bernos, etc., who in turn appear to match with the
> traditions, but there is every reason to believe that the traditions
> were concocted by joining these unconnected individuals into a single
> story (and in the case of the first two, into a single individual). I
> have seen other near-contemporary accounts of Inguar, son of Lodparch
> (in fact, just last night, but I don't recall what I was looking at at
> the time - Asser's Life of King Alfred, or AEthelweard's Chronicle
> perhaps), and he probably served as one model for the heroic Ivar the
> Boneless, son of Ragnar Lothbrok, characters of later fiction, but
> aspects of Ragnar's life can also be seen in the battle between Anulo
> and Reginfrid, which involved different people.
>
> taf
>
Thank you very much for the response and for the advices.
But nevertheless, I think, that I've still got a point.
Ivar the Boneless did exist. Perhaps he wasn't called by that nickname by
his contemporaries (just like Harold Bluetooth or Swein Forkbeard), but I
don't think there is any norse litterature of the 12th or 13th century
mentioning Ivar the Boneless, that doesn't tell about his conquest of York
and/or the killing of St.Edmund. I think it is justifiable - for the sake of
identification - to call the leader of the danes invading England,
conquering York 867, and killing St.Edmund 870 by that name.
During the period 856-873 the Annals of Ulster tell about a certain Imhar
and his deeds on both sides of the Irish Sea. Under the year 873 one reads
that "Imhar, rex Nordmannorum totius Hibernie & Brittanie, uitam finiuit".
That this king of all norsemen of Ireland and Britain is the same person as
the Imhar mentioned the preceding years as king of Dublin and the same
person as the Inguar of the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle cannot be proved. But for
more than thirty years thereafter no person by the name of Imhar/Inguar/Ivar
is registered in contempory irish, anglosaxon, or continental sources. From
c.890 the history of the norse colonies in Dublin and York is crowded with
persons claiming to be a son or a grandson or just a relative of
Imhar/Inguar/Ivar.
I think that is beyond any reasonable doubt that Ivar "the Boneless" is the
only person named Ivar mentioned in any known historical book or document of
the 9th century. He is not just an average viking-chief - he is THE Ivar of
the 9th century. And to say that a person called Inguar, deserving the
reputation "cruelest of all the norman tyrants" and "killing christian
everywhere" is Ivar "the Boneless" , is not just another arbitrary same-name
argument.
If it is a possibility that this derives from some frankish work "Gesta
Francorum" written at the beginning (in the first half) of the 10th century
together with "son of Lodparch", I should think that the question of Ragnar
Lothbrok's historicity is still unsettled.
Which by the way is my only point.
I agree, that one has to oppose the uncritical use of the fairy-tales or
historic novels of the islanders and Saxo Grammaticus. I'm just concerned
about Ragnar Lodbrog: will he be an innocent victim of that campaign?
Kristian A. Nyrup.
PS. I think, you must have been reading Asser's work in which there is a
notice - considered to be an interpolation from the annals of St.Neot -
mentioning three daughters of Lothbrok and sisters of Inguar.
PSPS. I just read your second reply - I know the link and the theory of
L.H., which is very similar to that of S. Baldwin. But also L.H. seems to
ignore the fact that Adam quotes "Gesta Francorum".