Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss

More Viking fun: Rolf the Ganger, Rollo, etc.

1,295 views
Skip to first unread message

Hans Vogels

unread,
Dec 4, 2021, 8:06:07 AM12/4/21
to
The vikings are again a popular subject. I bumped yesterday into two other papers elswhere.

https://www.academia.edu/62070193/Rolf_the_Ganger_NOT_the_first_Count_of_Rouen

A story reconstructed from Saga's, chroniclers, historical facts and what ifs.

https://www.academia.edu/search?q=Vikings%20on%20the%20river%20Somme

This is a new paper open for comment.

With regards,
Hans Vogels

Stewart Baldwin

unread,
Dec 4, 2021, 8:01:59 PM12/4/21
to
On Saturday, December 4, 2021 at 7:06:07 AM UTC-6, hansvog...@gmail.com wrote:
> The vikings are again a popular subject. I bumped yesterday into two other papers elswhere.
>
> https://www.academia.edu/62070193/Rolf_the_Ganger_NOT_the_first_Count_of_Rouen

This one stood out as garbage before the end of the first page.

> https://www.academia.edu/search?q=Vikings%20on%20the%20river%20Somme

This one took a bit longer, but I still found nothing to recommend it.

Stewart Baldwin

Hans Vogels

unread,
Dec 5, 2021, 5:17:55 AM12/5/21
to
Op zondag 5 december 2021 om 02:01:59 UTC+1 schreef Stewart Baldwin:
> On Saturday, December 4, 2021 at 7:06:07 AM UTC-6, hansvog...@gmail.com wrote:
> > The vikings are again a popular subject. I bumped yesterday into two other papers elswhere.
> >
> > https://www.academia.edu/62070193/Rolf_the_Ganger_NOT_the_first_Count_of_Rouen
> This one stood out as garbage before the end of the first page.

Like I wrote (more viking fun) with a lot 'what ifs'.
Would you care to elaborate on the eye-catching misconceptions?

With regards,
Hans Vogels

Stewart Baldwin

unread,
Dec 5, 2021, 5:58:15 PM12/5/21
to
On Sunday, December 5, 2021 at 4:17:55 AM UTC-6, hansvog...@gmail.com wrote:
> Op zondag 5 december 2021 om 02:01:59 UTC+1 schreef Stewart Baldwin:
> > On Saturday, December 4, 2021 at 7:06:07 AM UTC-6, hansvog...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > The vikings are again a popular subject. I bumped yesterday into two other papers elswhere.
> > >
> > > https://www.academia.edu/62070193/Rolf_the_Ganger_NOT_the_first_Count_of_Rouen
> > This one stood out as garbage before the end of the first page.
> Like I wrote (more viking fun) with a lot 'what ifs'.
> Would you care to elaborate on the eye-catching misconceptions?

Too many absurdities to list, but one pretty obvious one is the claim to have narrowed down the death of Harald Fairhair to between 20 and 25 March 851. For someone first mentioned in sources from a few centuries later, this is not even close to being credible.

Stewart Baldwin

joseph cook

unread,
Dec 5, 2021, 9:19:45 PM12/5/21
to
On Sunday, December 5, 2021 at 5:58:15 PM UTC-5, Stewart Baldwin wrote:

> > > > https://www.academia.edu/62070193/Rolf_the_Ganger_NOT_the_first_Count_of_Rouen
> > > This one stood out as garbage before the end of the first page.
> > Like I wrote (more viking fun) with a lot 'what ifs'.
> > Would you care to elaborate on the eye-catching misconceptions?
> Too many absurdities to list, but one pretty obvious one is the claim to have narrowed down the death of Harald Fairhair to between 20 and 25 March 851. For someone first mentioned in sources from a few centuries later, this is not even close to being credible.
>

I know you mean "birth of"; but that only makes it more hilarious. The idea that we can 'determine' the birthdate of someone who is far more legendary than historical, and whose parents were only 'named' in surviving sources nearly *350 years* after the fact..is...silly.

This author (a retired computers teacher?) has a very broad set of subjects that they post papers on, from this, to analyzing Jesus's pre-teen years; and shows an over-abundance of surety in his conclusions (like the exact locations and dates for King Arthur's battles) that no amateur, and no expert would ever claim merely by re-examining sources that have been available for hundreds of years.

I don't recommend this author's work in any way whatsoever.
--Joe C

Stewart Baldwin

unread,
Dec 6, 2021, 12:00:36 AM12/6/21
to
On Sunday, December 5, 2021 at 8:19:45 PM UTC-6, joe...@gmail.com wrote:

> I know you mean "birth of"; but that only makes it more hilarious.

Yes, that was a typo on my part.

> I don't recommend this author's work in any way whatsoever.

No kidding. The other paper of his that I saw tries to trace the Pictish monarchy WAY back using the prehistoric part of the Pictish king lists.

Stewart Baldwin

Paulo Ricardo Canedo

unread,
Dec 6, 2021, 5:23:30 AM12/6/21
to
Do you believe Harald Fairhair existed at all?

Stewart Baldwin

unread,
Dec 7, 2021, 2:27:12 AM12/7/21
to
He may have existed, but the evidence is not very good. The verifiable history of the Norwegian monarchy begins in the late tenth century with Olaf Tryggvason.

Stewart Baldwin

Paulo Ricardo Canedo

unread,
Dec 7, 2021, 4:45:25 AM12/7/21
to
Are you more inclined towards him having existed or not, though?

joseph cook

unread,
Dec 7, 2021, 7:07:18 AM12/7/21
to
On Tuesday, December 7, 2021 at 4:45:25 AM UTC-5, Paulo Ricardo Canedo wrote:

> > > Do you believe Harald Fairhair existed at all?
> > He may have existed, but the evidence is not very good. The verifiable history of the Norwegian monarchy begins in the late tenth century with Olaf Tryggvason.
> >
> > Stewart Baldwin
> Are you more inclined towards him having existed or not, though?

This question implies there is a binary choice when there is not. Its a matter of how much of what the sagas say about this person is true from 'there never was a guy names harald' at all to 'there was an ancestor who did one of the things mentioned', on up.

It's also unclear what useful information is relayed by an answer to your question. If one expert says there is a 48% chance "they existed" vs a "52% chance" that doesn't really relay any useful information beyond what has already been stated, which is "he may have existed, but the evidence is not very good" which I think sums it up very well without needing to be reductive.

Joe cook

taf

unread,
Dec 7, 2021, 9:57:34 AM12/7/21
to
On Tuesday, December 7, 2021 at 4:07:18 AM UTC-8, joe...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Tuesday, December 7, 2021 at 4:45:25 AM UTC-5, Paulo Ricardo Canedo wrote:
> > Are you more inclined towards him having existed or not, though?
> This question implies there is a binary choice when there is not. Its a matter of how
> much of what the sagas say about this person is true from 'there never was a guy
> names harald' at all to 'there was an ancestor who did one of the things mentioned',
> on up.

Along these lines, if a Harald existed who was elaborated upon to create the legend, it seems unlikely he was from Vestfold, related to the Inglingas, conquering king of 'all Norway' nor ancestor of the 11th century kings, at which point one has to ask if such an individual could rightly be referred to with the name of the legendary king Harald Fairhair considering how little they would have in common, even if one was the remote basis for the other.

taf

Stewart Baldwin

unread,
Dec 8, 2021, 2:15:06 AM12/8/21
to
When you are talking about a legendary figure around whom there have been a huge number of embellishments, what does that question even mean? For example, if there is a tiny grain of underlying truth around which a large amount of fiction has been added, how much "truth" is needed to say that he really existed. If there is a 1 percent grain of truth surrounded by 99 percent fiction, is the 1 percent sufficient to qualify him as having "existed"? What kinds of errors are allowable before the story is rejected? Does the name have to be right? etc.

Several English sources (John of Worcester, Orderic, etc.) state that in the eleventh century there was a famous Norwegian king named Harald Harfagar, who was killed in 1066 at the Battle of Stamford Bridge by king Harold II of England. Later Icelandic and Norwegian sources called this king Harald Hardrada, and instead applied the nickname Harfagar to an obscure legendary king from the early tenth century. So, to the question of whether or not Harald Fairhair existed, I could legitimately (if misleadingly) reply that Harald Fairhair was a well-documented Norwegian king who died in England in the month prior to the Battle of Hastings. After all, the English sources giving that nickname to the king killed in 1066 are somewhat earlier than the earliest known Icelandic and Norwegian sources applying that nickname to a king from a prior century.

Stewart Baldwin

Paulo Ricardo Canedo

unread,
Dec 8, 2021, 5:05:12 AM12/8/21
to
Yes, you, Joe and Todd are right, this isn't a binary question.

Hans Vogels

unread,
Dec 9, 2021, 2:08:14 AM12/9/21
to
Op woensdag 8 december 2021 om 08:15:06 UTC+1 schreef Stewart Baldwin:
This sums it up.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harald_Fairhair

Hans Vogels

Paulo Ricardo Canedo

unread,
Dec 9, 2021, 4:55:19 AM12/9/21
to
Could you, please, expand on why those things are unlikely? I am especially interested in why it's unlikely he came from Vestfold and was ancestor of later kinga (I know all Norwegian kings traced descent from him through very doubtful lines but i wonder why some could not, in fact, have descended from him.

taf

unread,
Dec 9, 2021, 11:21:59 AM12/9/21
to
On Thursday, December 9, 2021 at 1:55:19 AM UTC-8, Paulo Ricardo Canedo wrote:

> Could you, please, expand on why those things are unlikely? I am especially interested in
> why it's unlikely he came from Vestfold and was ancestor of later kinga (I know all Norwegian
> kings traced descent from him through very doubtful lines but i wonder why some could not,
> in fact, have descended from him.

Addressing the second first, the family of Harald Fairhair is clearly a construct, with more than a dozen children that tie into specific stories or specific lines, all with different mothers. The saga account of Olaf Trygvesson, discovered as a child slave in Kievan Rus' yet recognized as a royal prince, does not merit serious consideration as reflecting accurate history. We have here an adventurer of obscure origins with an invented pedigree. Turning to Olaf Haraldson, there is every reason to view him as similarly an adventurer who took the kingdom, and for Harald Hardrada, his claim was as half-brother of Olaf Haraldson, plus the following he had built as a leader in the Varangian guard. Once one accepts the manufactured nature of Harald Fairhair's family, there is no reason to think the pedigrees linking them to Harald Fairhair are anything by political constructs, no more authentic than the later instances of a previously unknown illegitimate son of a former king showing up and claiming the crown, in some cases successfully.

As to Vestfold, I should have said he was not originally from Vestfold. I am going a little from memory here, because it is not worth the effort of digging out sources I haven't looked at for decades. That said, this requires one to first accept that there was a historical Harald, son of Halfdan the Black. The latter had a dedicated saga that seems to predate the Heimskringla account. This saga makes no mention of Vestfold, while mentioning lands elsewhere. Coupling this with Heimskringla's clumsy linkage of Halfdan to the Inglingas leads to something that doesn't look that dissimilar to the later pattern - you have a royal family with an established historical tradition, the Inglingas, including what may be contemporary verse about the last of them, Ragnvald, and then you have a new king only documented in other places in the earliest source, and having a seriously awkward pedigree link to the earlier dynasty. I am not the first to conclude that, if you accept that there is any history underlying Heimskringla at all, this is another fabrication to cover a conquest of the Inglingas by outsiders.

That said, it is all reading tea leaves and among scholars and genealogists with too much free time, and the more prudent conclusion is the null conclusion - there is so little sourcing, and that so poor of quality, that it is unwise to draw any conclusions at all.

taf

Paulo Ricardo Canedo

unread,
Dec 9, 2021, 8:16:01 PM12/9/21
to
Thanks. Did the Inglingas exist at all? They are even earlier than Harald Fairhair.

taf

unread,
Dec 9, 2021, 8:42:08 PM12/9/21
to
On Thursday, December 9, 2021 at 5:16:01 PM UTC-8, Paulo Ricardo Canedo wrote:

> Thanks. Did the Inglingas exist at all? They are even earlier than Harald Fairhair.

I am hampered here in that most of the scholarly material I read on the subject back in the day was generations old even then, so I don't know what the modern thinking is. At least at that time, it was accepted that the skaldic poetry dedicated to him was taken as demonstrating Ragnvald existed, and there certainly seems to have been royalty at Vestfold during the approximate period, if the burial mounds are any indication, but I suspect that a lot of the other argumetns made at the time are now thought to have been overly credulous. i would assign basically zero probability fo the pedigree being accurate back to the time of settlement, five generations before Ragnvald.

taf

Peter Stewart

unread,
Dec 9, 2021, 10:58:44 PM12/9/21
to
Treating Harald Fairhair as a real historical figure is still current in
some academic work - for example, Björn Weiler in /Paths to Kingship in
Medieval Latin Europe, c. 950–1200/ (Cambridge, 2021) writes (pp.
132-133): "The anonymous 'Historia Norwegie' from c. 1170–5 (though
possibly conceived as early as 1152–3) recorded the history of Norwegian
kings from their mythical origins in Sweden to the reign of Olaf
Haraldson (d. 1030). The 'Historia' ordered time via the sequence of
rulers ... Writing about a past for which he had only fragmentary
information, the anonymous author constructed a strict sequence of son
succeeding father. There was no disruption in the line of kings. They
might drown in barrels of mead, disappear into stones in the pursuit of
dwarves or be suffocated by goblins, but they were still succeeded by
their sons. The pattern was broken only when the author reached the
reign of Harald Fairhair in the late ninth century – when, in short, he
entered historical time. While the sixteen sons attributed to Harald may
have been a symbolic rather than an accurate number (other sources
counted twenty), the dynastic wars of the eleventh century were rooted
partly in the sheer number of Harald's progeny."

Peter Stewart

Hans Vogels

unread,
Dec 10, 2021, 2:14:08 AM12/10/21
to
Op vrijdag 10 december 2021 om 04:58:44 UTC+1 schreef pss...@optusnet.com.au:
https://www.academia.edu/5676309/Historia_Norwegie

Hans Vogels

taf

unread,
Dec 10, 2021, 9:44:29 AM12/10/21
to
On Thursday, December 9, 2021 at 7:58:44 PM UTC-8, pss...@optusnet.com.au wrote:

> Treating Harald Fairhair as a real historical figure is still current in
> some academic work - for example, Björn Weiler in /Paths to Kingship in
> Medieval Latin Europe, c. 950–1200/ (Cambridge, 2021) writes
[snip]
> "While the sixteen sons attributed to Harald may
> have been a symbolic rather than an accurate number (other sources
> counted twenty), the dynastic wars of the eleventh century were rooted
> partly in the sheer number of Harald's progeny."

Of course, Weiler's view presupposes that they were 'dynastic wars' to begin with. The alternative scenario is that 'the sheer number of Harald's progeny' was rooted in a recasting of a non-dynastic free-for-all as if it was dynastic in nature.

taf

Paulo Ricardo Canedo

unread,
Dec 10, 2021, 1:43:41 PM12/10/21
to
Thanks for this, Todd and Peter.

Peter Stewart

unread,
Dec 10, 2021, 4:45:58 PM12/10/21
to
Recent specialist scholarship appears to be taking a more nuanced view
than was usual not long ago about the historicity of Harald Fairhair -
for example, Bruce Lincoln in /Between History and Myth: Stories of
Harald Fairhair and the Founding of the State/ (Chicago & London, 2014)
wrote in the introduction (pp 2-5):

'I was drawn — no doubt, for idiosyncratic reasons—to the Old Norse
sagas and, more particularly, to the subgenre of Konunga sögur ("Kings'
Sagas"), which treat the institution of the state as a series of royal
lives. And most particularly of all to the stories of Hálfdan the Black
(said to have ruled ca. 839-58) and his son, Harald Fairhair (ruled ca.
858-930, as king of a unified Norway from the mid-870s), for these two —
and the space in between them — mark the transition from legendary
prehistory to that which modern scholars regard as history proper. The
distinction between the two figures is not made primarily on evidentiary
or epistemological grounds, for we do not know much more of Harald than
of his father. Rather, it is the sagas themselves that construe the
difference as ontological, even cosmogonic, for they recount how Harald
changed existence itself and created a new world by consolidating
monarchic power, unifying the Norwegian nation, and establishing a
modern state.'

and

'Stories of Harald's state-founding activities began to circulate more
or less contemporarily with the events themselves. This was not a
spontaneous reaction to the unfolding drama, however, for Harald
employed a number of skalds as his propaganda corps. He is said to have
valued them most highly among his retainers, and he placed them in
positions of signal honor. In turn, they were expected to bestow still
greater honor upon him, for it was their task to transform the king's
accomplishments into unforgettable verse and undying fame. Their poems
circulated widely, as did other accounts of royal deeds that gradually
took the shape of legends, tales (þættir, sing. þáttr), and sagas. One
of the earliest of the Kings' Sagas gestures toward the abundance of
material in circulation, stating, "Many things and wondrous ones are
remembered of [King Harald], but now it would take too long to narrate
these individually." ... All told, we have fewer than a dozen variants
of Harald's story ... The chief surviving sources include Theodricus
Monachus, Historia de Antiquitate Regum Norwagiensum Chapter 1, Historia
Norwegiæ 10–11, Ágrip af Noregskonunga sögum 1–4, Fagrskinna 1–3, the
"Tale of Hálfdan the Black" (Þáttr Hálfdanar svarta, in Flateyjarbók
1.561–67), the "Tale of Harald Fairhair" (Þáttr Haralds hárfagra, in
Flateyjarbók 1.567–76), Hálfdan the Black's Saga, and Harald Fairhair's
Saga (the second and third sagas included in Heimskringla). Pieces of
the narrative and allusions to it are also scattered in other sagas,
including Orkneyinga Saga, Egil's Saga, Laxdæla Saga, Flóamanna Saga,
Barð's Saga, and others. We should not, however, mistake this dossier
for the full body of evidence. As we have seen, all of these sources are
relatively late and all drew on prior variants — written and oral,
poetic and prose, learned and popular, Norwegian and Icelandic — some of
which survive, some of which are known only by name, and many of which
are lost altogether. What each version could assume, however, was an
audience already familiar with the story and keenly interested in it.
They could address themselves to readers (or hearers) who could
recognize modifications to the conventional shape of the story and
appreciate such nuances as these innovations conveyed.'

Peter Stewart

Stewart Baldwin

unread,
Dec 11, 2021, 12:37:28 AM12/11/21
to
On Thursday, December 9, 2021 at 7:16:01 PM UTC-6, Paulo Ricardo Canedo wrote:
> Thanks. Did the Inglingas exist at all?

The answer to this would have to be almost certainly not, unless you wanted to make a convoluted argument that historical kings from the twelfth century and later believed themselves to be descended from kings who were called Ynglings in the twelfth century and later sources, and would therefore qualify as Ynglings themselves on that basis.

Stewart Baldwin

Paulo Ricardo Canedo

unread,
Dec 11, 2021, 7:13:19 AM12/11/21
to
Is Ragnvald no longer considered historic? Also, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yngling calls them semi-historic and says some of them may have been real.

Peter Stewart

unread,
Dec 11, 2021, 9:09:58 PM12/11/21
to
According to the Norwegian historian Claus Krag in *The Cambridge
History of Scandinavia*, vol 1 (2003) p. 188, "In the formation of a new
political order in Trøndelag and north Norway Earl Håkon Grjotgardsson
was perhaps more important than Harald [Finehair]. Another earl whose
name is known is Ragnvald, earl of Møre in northern Vestlandet. Harald's
relationship with such earls would probably entail their formal
recognition of the king as their overlord but in such a fashion that
they would keep a relatively strong and independent position in their
own territories. The core of Harald's kingdom appears to have been
central and southern Vestlandet."

Peter Stewart

Hans Vogels

unread,
Dec 13, 2021, 2:08:49 AM12/13/21
to
Op vrijdag 10 december 2021 om 08:14:08 UTC+1 schreef Hans Vogels:
https://www.academia.edu/7849058/Kings_sagas_and_Norwegian_history_problems_and_perspectives

Hans Vogels

Peter Stewart

unread,
Dec 13, 2021, 2:55:05 AM12/13/21
to
Regarding the question raised about historicity of Harald Fairhair, on
pp. 66-67 the author wrote:

"We should note that like Ludwig in Francia, Haraldr and Óláfr were
extremely common names in the north, so a name (itself often absent in
the verse) would not really inform us whom the poem is about; nicknames
are also not necessarily present in the verse, and thus also not always
reliable. The case of the two most famous Haraldrs - Haraldr hárfagri
Hálfdanarson, the supposed unifier of Norway in the late ninth century,
and Haraldr harðráði Sigurðarson, who lived in the mid-eleventh century
- is an excellent example. While the latter Haraldr is relatively
well-attested in contemporary sources, his earlier namesake remains a
shadowy figure, known only from much later writings; it seems to be
impossible to determine how much of what is attributed to him really has
anything to do with a real historical figure. A number of scholars have
recently suggested that the material accruing around him has little or
no basis in fact, and is a product of a much later creation of legend,
tied to contemporary political situations in the twelfth century. Krag
has argued that the Norwegian kings' claim to legitimacy was rooted in
the fact that Norway was purported (in the extant and late histories) to
have been the 'oðal', or family property, of Haraldr and thus his
descendants, but in Krag's view, this is a retrospective claim, having
little to do with the realities of Haraldr's reign. Krag, and more
recently Pesch and Sverrir Jakobsson, have also argued that neither
Haraldr nor his supposed father Hálfdan svarti were actually from
Vestfold; this geographical location also has more to do with the
situation in Norway from the mid-twelfth century onwards than the period
c.900. Approaching the problems from an archaeological perspective,
Pesch presents a thorough analysis of all that is known about Hálfdan
svarti, concluding that - as with Ynglingatal and Ynglinga saga - there
is little archaeological information to support the saga narratives,
which are in themselves not consistent with each other; she argues
furthermore that if there was a Hálfdan as a predecessor to Haraldr
hárfagri, he may not have had the nickname of 'svarti'; he was not a
'Yngling'; he did not rule in Vestfold; he was not buried in four
different places; and he probably did not father Haraldr. She suggests
that the origins of the narratives about Hálfdan and the Ynglingar were
in a saga about Haraldr, from which a tale about his father developed,
which was then attached both to Vestfold and to the Swedish Ynglings, in
an effort to create a seamless genealogy for Haraldr hárfagri, who had
such an important role in Norwegian and Icelandic traditions about their
early history. Taking these suggestions further, Sverrir Jakobsson
presents an even more critical view: beginning his argument with the
fact that there are no contemporary sources (even from outside
Scandinavia) on Haraldr, he suggests that Haraldr is perhaps best seen
as a legendary figure; the sources provide no solid evidence that we
could connect to any real historical personage."

Peter Stewart

AC Grant

unread,
Jan 5, 2022, 4:50:00 PM1/5/22
to
On Sunday, December 5, 2021 at 1:01:59 AM UTC, Stewart Baldwin wrote:
> On Saturday, December 4, 2021 at 7:06:07 AM UTC-6, hansvog...@gmail.com wrote:
> > The vikings are again a popular subject. I bumped yesterday into two other papers elswhere.
> >
> > https://www.academia.edu/62070193/Rolf_the_Ganger_NOT_the_first_Count_of_Rouen
> This one stood out as garbage before the end of the first page.
>
> > https://www.academia.edu/search?q=Vikings%20on%20the%20river%20Somme
>
> This one took a bit longer, but I still found nothing to recommend it.
>
> Stewart Baldwin

Regarding Rolf the Ganger: Hmmmm....In the first place this is because you have not read my book, Stewart. The resort to invective in the place of reasoned argument should be beneath you - but I do understand that my work challenges the comfort zone within your world view. Clearly you have an agenda, albeit I am not sure just what it is. Your "slip" confusing the birth and death of Harald Tanglehair is extremely instructive - illustrating your frame of mind at the time. No doubt you will claim that you do not have time to discuss the issues, but it is rude to be insulting and this is exacerbated by not defending yourself.

My agenda has been to see how much of the old legends can be seen as feasible and if so on what basis - and it turns out that it is a good deal more than smug modern academics will allow. I invite readers to think for themselves - to read my papers for themselves (they include synopses of my books). Feel free to try to pick holes (this is how scholarship advances) - but you will be hard pushed to do so.

Regarding the Somme: As a matter of fact I do not agree with Willy, but that is no reason to rubbish his work either. I understand WHY he has conflated Hrollaug Hrolfsson and Hrollaug Ketilsson, but there is no need to be dismissive here. Often there are still gems to be recovered.

AC Grant

unread,
Jan 5, 2022, 4:55:52 PM1/5/22
to
On Sunday, December 5, 2021 at 10:58:15 PM UTC, Stewart Baldwin wrote:
> On Sunday, December 5, 2021 at 4:17:55 AM UTC-6, hansvog...@gmail.com wrote:
> > Op zondag 5 december 2021 om 02:01:59 UTC+1 schreef Stewart Baldwin:
> > > On Saturday, December 4, 2021 at 7:06:07 AM UTC-6, hansvog...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > > The vikings are again a popular subject. I bumped yesterday into two other papers elswhere.
> > > >
> > > > https://www.academia.edu/62070193/Rolf_the_Ganger_NOT_the_first_Count_of_Rouen
> > > This one stood out as garbage before the end of the first page.
> > Like I wrote (more viking fun) with a lot 'what ifs'.
> > Would you care to elaborate on the eye-catching misconceptions?
> Too many absurdities to list, but one pretty obvious one is the claim to have narrowed down the death of Harald Fairhair to between 20 and 25 March 851. For someone first mentioned in sources from a few centuries later, this is not even close to being credible.
>
> Stewart Baldwin
On what basis? Clearly you have not read my book - yet you feel able to pontificate?

AC Grant

unread,
Jan 5, 2022, 5:01:16 PM1/5/22
to
On Monday, December 6, 2021 at 2:19:45 AM UTC, joe...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Sunday, December 5, 2021 at 5:58:15 PM UTC-5, Stewart Baldwin wrote:
>
> > > > > https://www.academia.edu/62070193/Rolf_the_Ganger_NOT_the_first_Count_of_Rouen
> > > > This one stood out as garbage before the end of the first page.
> > > Like I wrote (more viking fun) with a lot 'what ifs'.
> > > Would you care to elaborate on the eye-catching misconceptions?
> > Too many absurdities to list, but one pretty obvious one is the claim to have narrowed down the death of Harald Fairhair to between 20 and 25 March 851. For someone first mentioned in sources from a few centuries later, this is not even close to being credible.
> >
> I know you mean "birth of"; but that only makes it more hilarious. The idea that we can 'determine' the birthdate of someone who is far more legendary than historical, and whose parents were only 'named' in surviving sources nearly *350 years* after the fact..is...silly.
>
> This author (a retired computers teacher?) has a very broad set of subjects that they post papers on, from this, to analyzing Jesus's pre-teen years; and shows an over-abundance of surety in his conclusions (like the exact locations and dates for King Arthur's battles) that no amateur, and no expert would ever claim merely by re-examining sources that have been available for hundreds of years.
>
> I don't recommend this author's work in any way whatsoever.
> --Joe C
Clearly you have not read the book. Pretty well every book on Arthur claims to be able to locate the battles. Naturally I think I have got them right when everyone else has got them wrong - but obviously you need to read the rationale. Try arguing against any of the sites I propose - you will be hard pushed.

Will Johnson

unread,
Jan 6, 2022, 2:50:10 PM1/6/22
to
Maybe you could explain why you start by saying that he was born 846 "traditionally" without citing any sources for that specific year.

when *I* look at what I consider "traditional" sources, they don't state any birth year at all, or even any way to determine a prospective birthyear

AC Grant

unread,
Jan 6, 2022, 4:28:31 PM1/6/22
to
On Thursday, January 6, 2022 at 7:50:10 PM UTC, wjhons...@gmail.com wrote:
> Maybe you could explain why you start by saying that he was born 846 "traditionally" without citing any sources for that specific year.
>
> when *I* look at what I consider "traditional" sources, they don't state any birth year at all, or even any way to determine a prospective birthyear

First of all thank you for an intelligent question instead of the invective spewed out by some other members of this group who should know better.

My starting point both for Rolf and for Harald Tanglehair (the year not the month and day!!) was the Fordham translation of Snorri. I assumed that these dates were interpolated, but I am confident that the translator did not pull them out of the air. I don't know where these dates came from before that and I agree/accept that tracing it back would have been helpful.

I treated these dates with some scepticism and there are others offered which I have rejected - so, for example, Haakon Ericsson was born c990 - NOT 998 and so too I have a different date for his father Eric Haakonsson. Had the numbers not worked out I would have argued for (a) different date(s) and frankly I was surprised when these dates slotted in to the rest of the timeframe so well. By the way it was Haakon Ericsson who martyred St Aelfege.

The one anomaly was that at that time (20 years ago now) "everyone" assumed that Rolf=Rollo and I cannot get my head round why anyone would have done this. This made for Rolf having three names and marrying at a silly age and bending the knee completely contrary to his nature. So there was a problem and this is why others have sought different ways to resolve it. However once I knew about Rolf's daughter Caitlin the pattern began to emerge. There is very little wiggle room for the date of Rolf's birth because of the circumstances of his exile (when he was in severe danger of being blood eagled in his turn). I was then faced with the problem of explaining WHY Rolf's sons would be called Rollo and "Gurim" - and this I have done. Again this helps triangulate the dates.

By the way there is a logic to the date for Harald's birth - but Stewart Baldwin was so insulting and unprofessional that I will invite anyone interested to read the argument in my book (Volume II).

I will take this opportunity to sound off further regarding the poo-pooers in this forum. They (not you, of course) are the reason that history, as a discipline is in such a shambles. No-one should be regarded as or attempt to claim to be "the" authority on anything. The scientific method is to advance a hypothesis and invite people to shoot it down. Insulting invective usually means "Oh dear my reputation is about to be trashed because my pet theories are about to be refuted" and this arises from an excessive urge to pontificate in the past. All my papers are up for scrutiny and if someone has something intelligent to say which turns into a killer fact... great - this is how scholarship advances.

Will Johnson

unread,
Jan 6, 2022, 6:19:49 PM1/6/22
to
Will you post the full bibliographic citation for this Fordham translation

Stewart Baldwin

unread,
Jan 7, 2022, 1:06:01 AM1/7/22
to
On Thursday, January 6, 2022 at 3:28:31 PM UTC-6, AC Grant wrote:
> On Thursday, January 6, 2022 at 7:50:10 PM UTC, wjhons...@gmail.com wrote:
> > Maybe you could explain why you start by saying that he was born 846 "traditionally" without citing any sources for that specific year.
> >
> > when *I* look at what I consider "traditional" sources, they don't state any birth year at all, or even any way to determine a prospective birthyear
> First of all thank you for an intelligent question instead of the invective spewed out by some other members of this group who should know better.

I apologize for my previous use of the word "garbage" in reference to your work, which was insensitive on my part. However, any honest opinion which I could have given, however skillfully worded, would have essentially amounted to saying the same thing in more obscure language. I'm sorry that it works out that way, but I felt that the less experienced readers deserved to know my honest opinion.

> My starting point both for Rolf and for Harald Tanglehair (the year not the month and day!!) was the Fordham translation of Snorri. I assumed that these dates were interpolated, but I am confident that the translator did not pull them out of the air. I don't know where these dates came from before that and I agree/accept that tracing it back would have been helpful.

Not only helpful, but absolutely essential to the argument. So, what you are saying is that you took a ninth century year from an interpolation by a modern translator of a thirteenth century work, not knowing the ultimate source, because you were confident that the date was not pulled out of thin air! The fact that you readily confess to such carelessness suggests that, at the very least, you do not fully appreciate how inappropriate this is for a supposedly serious study.

> I treated these dates with some scepticism and there are others offered which I have rejected - so, for example, Haakon Ericsson was born c990 - NOT 998 and so too I have a different date for his father Eric Haakonsson. Had the numbers not worked out I would have argued for (a) different date(s) and frankly I was surprised when these dates slotted in to the rest of the timeframe so well. By the way it was Haakon Ericsson who martyred St Aelfege.
>
> The one anomaly was that at that time (20 years ago now) "everyone" assumed that Rolf=Rollo and I cannot get my head round why anyone would have done this. This made for Rolf having three names and marrying at a silly age and bending the knee completely contrary to his nature. So there was a problem and this is why others have sought different ways to resolve it. However once I knew about Rolf's daughter Caitlin the pattern began to emerge. There is very little wiggle room for the date of Rolf's birth because of the circumstances of his exile (when he was in severe danger of being blood eagled in his turn). I was then faced with the problem of explaining WHY Rolf's sons would be called Rollo and "Gurim" - and this I have done. Again this helps triangulate the dates.
>
> By the way there is a logic to the date for Harald's birth - but Stewart Baldwin was so insulting and unprofessional that I will invite anyone interested to read the argument in my book (Volume II).

Huh? So, since you are upset by something written by me, others who wish to know the "logic to the date for Harald's birth" are invited to read it for themselves in your book, somewhere (no page citations?) in volume II? If you really want this suggestion to be taken seriously, you should have a better response than "read my book" (should I translate this as "buy my book"?).

> I will take this opportunity to sound off further regarding the poo-pooers in this forum. They (not you, of course) are the reason that history, as a discipline is in such a shambles.

> No-one should be regarded as or attempt to claim to be "the" authority on anything.

True, but it is unfair for you to insinuate that anyone in this forum has made such a claim, and to use that to present yourself as an injured party.

> The scientific method is to advance a hypothesis and invite people to shoot it down. Insulting invective usually means "Oh dear my reputation is about to be trashed because my pet theories are about to be refuted" and this arises from an excessive urge to pontificate in the past. All my papers are up for scrutiny and if someone has something intelligent to say which turns into a killer fact... great - this is how scholarship advances.

Such a "killer fact" was in fact advanced in this thread (although I erroneously said death date instead of birth date): Your claim to have narrowed down a birthdate (to within five days) of a legendary individual who is never mentioned in any known source written within a few centuries of that alleged birthdate, is a claim of extraordinary proportions, and extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.

In a different posting, you berated me for criticizing your work without reading your book. I have only so much time, and before I read a book, I like to believe that it will be worth my time to do so. For a much less extravagant claim on a subject of interest to me, I am willing to read a journal article. For an extraordinarily implausible claim in which I am being asked to read an entire book, simply in the hope of finding an explanation somewhere within it pages, I am generally not going to bother. And while there are certainly some professional historians and genealogists whose work consistently irritates me, I have a great deal of respect for historians in general, and I believe that any claim which is completely at odds with the usual historical consensus among historians deserves to be doubted unless proper evidence is put forward. Changes in the historical consensus seldom occur in the sweeping and revolutionary manner which your research seems to desire (at least from the few examples I have seen), but in a more evolutionary manner, and that is how it should be for the most part. If not that many professional scholars are willing to accept a revision in the standard consensus, it usually means that a revision is not necessary.

Stewart Baldwin



AC Grant

unread,
Jan 7, 2022, 5:11:43 AM1/7/22
to
OK, my apologies, I had misremembered. What I thought I was referring to was the Sunsite at Berkeley, but for the "traditional" date try googling "Harald Fairhair 850" and you will see many sources. This is what I took to be "traditional". However that is not the point, for, as I noted, I have taken issue with other "traditional" dates (such as the birth of Haakon Ericsson). My triangulation for the birth of Harald Fairhair comes from the Landnamabok which says that Harald had been 12 years on the throne in 874 (see my book Volume II p234) and the Saga which says he was 10 years old when he became king (and yes, Stewart, do please buy my book - or at least get your institution to do so, both volumes). Bear in mind also that in those days the new year started on March 25th. The most likely time for his father to fall through the ice..... (why am I giving all this away....?). So he was 10 years and 11 months old at the time.

One other member of the forum whinged about my thesis being a series of "what ifs". Half true - and nothing wrong with that. Here is the point: the currently fashionable thing (as it was when I went to press) is to dismiss people like Harald Fairhair as a mythical or composite figure. What I demonstrated is that given a whole load of provisos (which I specify) it is possible to construct an understanding of a real person living a real life at a feasible time in history consistent with what went before and afterwards (and yes, I do correct the saga in several places). These provisos then become the working hypothesis for what actually happened unless and until someone shows that one or more of the conditions to be false. This may or may not be crucial to the overall scenario - ie the new fact may or may not be a killer. So far no fact at all, never mind a killer one. Result: People like Stewart Baldwin who dismiss Harald Fairhair have no leg to stand on because there is a feasible biography.

AC Grant

unread,
Jan 7, 2022, 5:22:06 AM1/7/22
to
On Friday, January 7, 2022 at 6:06:01 AM UTC, Stewart Baldwin wrote:
> On Thursday, January 6, 2022 at 3:28:31 PM UTC-6, AC Grant wrote:
> > On Thursday, January 6, 2022 at 7:50:10 PM UTC, wjhons...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > Maybe you could explain why you start by saying that he was born 846 "traditionally" without citing any sources for that specific year.
> > >
> > > when *I* look at what I consider "traditional" sources, they don't state any birth year at all, or even any way to determine a prospective birthyear
> > First of all thank you for an intelligent question instead of the invective spewed out by some other members of this group who should know better.
> I apologize for my previous use of the word "garbage" in reference to your work, which was insensitive on my part. However, any honest opinion which I could have given, however skillfully worded, would have essentially amounted to saying the same thing in more obscure language. I'm sorry that it works out that way, but I felt that the less experienced readers deserved to know my honest opinion.
> > My starting point both for Rolf and for Harald Tanglehair (the year not the month and day!!) was the Fordham translation of Snorri. I assumed that these dates were interpolated, but I am confident that the translator did not pull them out of the air. I don't know where these dates came from before that and I agree/accept that tracing it back would have been helpful.
> Not only helpful, but absolutely essential to the argument. So, what you are saying is that you took a ninth century year from an interpolation by a modern translator of a thirteenth century work, not knowing the ultimate source, because you were confident that the date was not pulled out of thin air! The fact that you readily confess to such carelessness suggests that, at the very least, you do not fully appreciate how inappropriate this is for a supposedly serious study.
> > I treated these dates with some scepticism and there are others offered which I have rejected - so, for example, Haakon Ericsson was born c990 - NOT 998 and so too I have a different date for his father Eric Haakonsson. Had the numbers not worked out I would have argued for (a) different date(s) and frankly I was surprised when these dates slotted in to the rest of the timeframe so well. By the way it was Haakon Ericsson who martyred St Aelfege.
> >
> > The one anomaly was that at that time (20 years ago now) "everyone" assumed that Rolf=Rollo and I cannot get my head round why anyone would have done this. This made for Rolf having three names and marrying at a silly age and bending the knee completely contrary to his nature. So there was a problem and this is why others have sought different ways to resolve it. However once I knew about Rolf's daughter Caitlin the pattern began to emerge. There is very little wiggle room for the date of Rolf's birth because of the circumstances of his exile (when he was in severe danger of being blood eagled in his turn). I was then faced with the problem of explaining WHY Rolf's sons would be called Rollo and "Gurim" - and this I have done. Again this helps triangulate the dates.
> >
> > By the way there is a logic to the date for Harald's birth - but Stewart Baldwin was so insulting and unprofessional that I will invite anyone interested to read the argument in my book (Volume II).
> Huh? So, since you are upset by something written by me, others who wish to know the "logic to the date for Harald's birth" are invited to read it for themselves in your book, somewhere (no page citations?) in volume II? If you really want this suggestion to be taken seriously, you should have a better response than "read my book" (should I translate this as "buy my book"?).
Yes, do please read the book and if that implies buying it so much the better.
> > I will take this opportunity to sound off further regarding the poo-pooers in this forum. They (not you, of course) are the reason that history, as a discipline is in such a shambles.
>
> > No-one should be regarded as or attempt to claim to be "the" authority on anything.
> True, but it is unfair for you to insinuate that anyone in this forum has made such a claim, and to use that to present yourself as an injured party.
I don't think this is at all unfair
> > The scientific method is to advance a hypothesis and invite people to shoot it down. Insulting invective usually means "Oh dear my reputation is about to be trashed because my pet theories are about to be refuted" and this arises from an excessive urge to pontificate in the past. All my papers are up for scrutiny and if someone has something intelligent to say which turns into a killer fact... great - this is how scholarship advances.
> Such a "killer fact" was in fact advanced in this thread (although I erroneously said death date instead of birth date): Your claim to have narrowed down a birthdate (to within five days) of a legendary individual who is never mentioned in any known source written within a few centuries of that alleged birthdate, is a claim of extraordinary proportions, and extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.
No.... I don't agree. Had there been "evidence" it should have been unearthed before now. What I have done is to re-examine the evidence and draw a new conclusion. This is standard stuff for any "cold case".
>
> In a different posting, you berated me for criticizing your work without reading your book. I have only so much time, and before I read a book, I like to believe that it will be worth my time to do so. For a much less extravagant claim on a subject of interest to me, I am willing to read a journal article. For an extraordinarily implausible claim in which I am being asked to read an entire book, simply in the hope of finding an explanation somewhere within it pages, I am generally not going to bother. And while there are certainly some professional historians and genealogists whose work consistently irritates me, I have a great deal of respect for historians in general, and I believe that any claim which is completely at odds with the usual historical consensus among historians deserves to be doubted unless proper evidence is put forward. Changes in the historical consensus seldom occur in the sweeping and revolutionary manner which your research seems to desire (at least from the few examples I have seen), but in a more evolutionary manner, and that is how it should be for the most part. If not that many professional scholars are willing to accept a revision in the standard consensus, it usually means that a revision is not necessary.
I entirely accept that you can and should choose what to spend your time on. What you do NOT have the right to do is to adopt a "don't confuse me with the facts" approach of dismissing something you know nothing about. What you should have said is "I have not read the book, so I cannot comment". By all means add the rider "if true this would upset my apple cart".
>
> Stewart Baldwin

AC Grant

unread,
Jan 7, 2022, 6:55:43 AM1/7/22
to
Again my apologies. First it was not Fordham (which I have been using recently for many sources - they are doing an excellent job). What I thought I was referring to was Sunsite at Berkeley - again doing a super job - where several (at least putative) dates are indeed inserted. But no, I had misremembered. However if you google Rolf Ganger 846 you will find many such references. This is why I referred to it as "traditional". But the authenticity - like the ultimate source - does not actually matter at all. The point is that I arrived at my broad agreement with that date by logic.

Rolf was exiled because he had sought to take revenge on Harald (well really on his maternal uncle Guthrum) for the death of his father Ragnvald of the Uplands - probably by blood eagling. He would have suffered the same fate but for the intervention of his mother whose appeal was based on Rolf's youth. So on the one hand we have someone old enough to be in charge of his own boat and on the other hand someone young enough to be given easy treatment because of his youth. That narrows the age to c14-16. Given how quickly he married and started a family when he got to Harris we really need to prefer 16 over 14. [Remember that at 14 Eric Haakonsson theoretically had his own boat, but actually it was commanded by someone else (Skagge Skoptasson or Skopte Skaggesson - I forget which).] For the revenge aspect see the Orkneyinga Saga Chapter 8.

So assuming, as I do, the trial c862 that makes his birth 846. On the other end, because he was "too stout" for any horse to carry him it is unreasonable to expect a long life for him - and by 911 he would have been 65 (getting married again????) and by 827/830 he would have been over 80. Errr.... no. Added grist to the mill that he died in 911 and this is what allowed Rollo, now acting in his own right, to bend the knee convert to Christianity, become a count - a liege man to the king of France - and marry for a second time (in his mid 40s).

[By the way there is an implicit error in my book (but only I spotted it and only this year): I assumed that because Rolf's daughter was called Caitlin and hence also his wife then it was likely she was Christian. She may well have been, but the name pre-dates the conflation with Catherine (see my paper on this name on academia).]

Hmmm.... why am I rewriting my book?..... Please get your own copy....

joseph cook

unread,
Jan 7, 2022, 8:42:21 AM1/7/22
to
You are missing a big (important) point. If I wrote a book today that George Washington had a secret girlfriend named "Frannie".... do you think a scholar a thousand years from now should pick up my book and say "well, this book is ancient; I should trust he knew what he was talking about"; even though the things of which I write were 250 years before my time so I could not possibly have any useful direct insight to provide? Does my claim become more likely with age? The Sagas were written in the 13th century.

Anyway, I had a real question; you say that his dad was most likely to die on March 25th because that's when New Year's started back then? 1) why is someone more likely to die on New Year's Day, (late night partying??) 2) What is the source that the Icelandic Sagas would consider March 25th the 9th century Icelandic new year? I thought it was Sumardagurinn fyrsti in April... (Norway had the same 9th century new year of April...)

--Joe C

AC Grant

unread,
Jan 7, 2022, 9:06:08 AM1/7/22
to
Ha ha ha ha .... Clearly you have no idea how Halfdan the Black died. Why not read the Saga? It is freely available online. I do explain this in the book - so why not buy a copy? I would not expect readers of my book to have much if any background knowledge but surely in a dedicated forum such as this I should not expect people actually revelling in ignorance and being unwilling to make even elementary enquiries before scoffing (which only serves to parade this ignorance). [PS for all I know you may be right about April 9th vs March 25th - there was a date adjustment which may account for this - but it makes not a scrap of material difference beyond extending the date range I offer from about 5 days to nearly 20.]

Halfdan the Black died because the ice cracked beneath him as he was crossing a lake. So at what time of year would he take a chance on such a thing and it costs him his life? Not in midwinter and unlikely in autumn when the ice is not yet reliably thick. The only sensible time would be early March (conceivably late February). [I appreciate there is an element of wiggle room here as I don't know exactly what the climate conditions were at that place in that era and there have been climate variations all the time - so if someone with specific expertise wished to refine the calendar window I propose I would be delighted.]

Now given your propensity to opine without any background knowledge I do agree that relying on a book you wrote about Washington would not be clever. I am not relying on Snorri. Again you overlook where I correct him (you really should read my book) and you are failing to notice my crossreferencing.


joseph cook

unread,
Jan 7, 2022, 11:28:00 AM1/7/22
to
> Ha ha ha ha .... Clearly you have no idea how Halfdan the Black died. Why not read the Saga? It is freely available online. I do explain this in the book - so why not buy a copy? I would not expect readers of my book to have much if any background knowledge but surely in a dedicated forum such as this I should not expect people actually revelling in ignorance and being unwilling to make even elementary enquiries before scoffing (which only serves to parade this ignorance). [PS for all I know you may be right about April 9th vs March 25th - there was a date adjustment which may account for this - but it makes not a scrap of material difference beyond extending the date range I offer from about 5 days to nearly 20.]

In mathematics, we call this a 400% error.

> Halfdan the Black died because the ice cracked beneath him as he was crossing a lake. So at what time of year would he take a chance on such a thing and it costs him his life? Not in midwinter and unlikely in autumn when the ice is not yet reliably thick. The only sensible time would be early March (conceivably late February). [I appreciate there is an element of wiggle room here as I don't know exactly what the climate conditions were at that place in that era and there have been climate variations all the time - so if someone with specific expertise wished to refine the calendar window I propose I would be delighted.]

OK; your contribution here is then that this fake literary figure must have died during a season where ice was melting (not starting to freeze) because the ice cracked. But you say that it isn't fair to criticize part of your book without reading the whole thing.

I agree; I'll stay quiet now until I read your entire work. But it isn't high on my to-do list and may be a while.
--Joe C

AC Grant

unread,
Jan 7, 2022, 11:38:27 AM1/7/22
to
On Friday, January 7, 2022 at 4:28:00 PM UTC, joe...@gmail.com wrote:
> >... [PS for all I know you may be right about April 9th vs March 25th - there was a date adjustment which may account for this - but it makes not a scrap of material difference beyond extending the date range I offer from about 5 days to nearly 20.]
> In mathematics, we call this a 400% error.
Between April 1 850 and January 1 2022 there were 427,970 days, an error of 10 days either way is therefore 99.9766% accurate - so a 0.0234% error

joseph cook

unread,
Jan 7, 2022, 11:51:19 AM1/7/22
to
On Friday, January 7, 2022 at 11:38:27 AM UTC-5, AC Grant wrote:
> On Friday, January 7, 2022 at 4:28:00 PM UTC, joe...@gmail.com wrote:
> > >... [PS for all I know you may be right about April 9th vs March 25th - there was a date adjustment which may account for this - but it makes not a scrap of material difference beyond extending the date range I offer from about 5 days to nearly 20.]
> > In mathematics, we call this a 400% error.
> Between April 1 850 and January 1 2022 there were 427,970 days, an error of 10 days either way is therefore 99.9766% accurate - so a 0.0234% error
> >
HAHAHA. That made me laugh at least; touche'.

--JC

Will Johnson

unread,
Jan 7, 2022, 4:03:23 PM1/7/22
to
Please provide a full bibliographic citation to where you got the birth year of 846

AC Grant

unread,
Jan 7, 2022, 4:09:35 PM1/7/22
to
On Friday, January 7, 2022 at 9:03:23 PM UTC, wjhons...@gmail.com wrote:
> Please provide a full bibliographic citation to where you got the birth year of 846
If you cannot even keep up with the thread then really what is the point?
I'll give you a clue: it was one of my answers/contributions...

Will Johnson

unread,
Jan 7, 2022, 4:50:30 PM1/7/22
to
Yes you said "Google it".
That's not a bibliographic citation

Will Johnson

unread,
Jan 7, 2022, 5:03:11 PM1/7/22
to
It is a tragedy when people purporting to be credible authors, have to resort to feigning ignorance of the source material, almost entirely.

https://books.google.com/books?id=sV7OjiabkcUC&newbks=1&newbks_redir=0&dq=heimskringla&pg=PA38#v=onepage&q=ganger&f=false

AC Grant

unread,
Jan 7, 2022, 5:20:55 PM1/7/22
to
Well I checked the link you posted and nothing of relevance emerged. The copy of Snorri which I used was the one on Berkeley's Sunsite. I am not aware of any "bibliographical citation" for 846 - but it is the date that comes up if you google it. That is why I referred to it as "traditional" because it is the one that people use. What you seem to be deliberately avoiding is that I came to exactly the same date by logic using both Snorri and the Landnamabok. The confusion of the past is that everyone before me conflated Ragnvald of the Uplands with Ragnvald of Moere. [I say "everyone" but I mean that I have not come across anyone advancing an alternative.] But this is actually silly - and my alternative is set out in the family tree in my paper, resolving also contradictions in the Sagas which I examine in detail in the book.




Will Johnson

unread,
Jan 7, 2022, 5:59:34 PM1/7/22
to
Here is a thought.
When you are writing a paper that you people to take *seriously* as a Serious Reseacher
Stop. Using. Google.

Google is not your friend as a serious researcher. Google BOOKS is another story.
As you should be able to see clearly there is NO source whatsoever in this entire universe, that can credibly support 846 as a specific birthyear.


We have a *few* a VERY few datapoints for his *entire life*. Beginning to end.
Nothing allows us to say, even within a *decade* what year he might be born.

The link I posted, is relevant as you can see, because it says nothing about his age, birth, or any other thing that allows us to pinpoint this data.

I'm in the process of deleting all the utter nonsense people have spewed all over Wikipedia. That might help.

Will Johnson

unread,
Jan 7, 2022, 6:01:24 PM1/7/22
to
By the way you absolutely did *not* come to this same date by "logic" using Snorri and the Landnamabok.
NEITHER sources say *anything remotely* of relevance to the establishment of a specific year.
That you continue to argue when the sources are presented blank-face in front of you
Shows that you are not a serious researcher at all
You should take down your paper, and exile yourself to the most remote island of the Hebrides in shame.

AC Grant

unread,
Jan 7, 2022, 6:15:26 PM1/7/22
to
You really don't get it do you? And you have not read my post. It is of no consequence that there is a "source" claiming 846. What I said, which is correct, is that this is what is the urban myth; this is the "traditional" date (which is used mainly by people trying to construct a fabulous and erroneous pedigree for themselves). Because the red mist has descended you are failing to notice that I was surprised that my calculations supported the date! We have the categoric date of 974 in the Landnamabok and we have that Harald had been king for 12 years already by that time. That gives you the time frame for Rolf's revenge raid and hence for his birth. What are you not getting from that. The numbers all come from the Landnamabok, the story from that, Snorri and the Orkneyinga Saga.
The fact remains that the stories which many of you dismiss as myth and hence lie can be construed in such a way as to make sense - and so far you cannot challenge it.
Your approach is what stultifies History. The fact is that there are things which are unknown, so if we are to have a go at understanding what went on we need to theorise and then test the theory. NOTHING in what you write contradicts what I have said. Your criticism is merely that no-one has said it before.... Hmmm that reminds me of the Inquisition when someone said that the earth was not flat.....





AC Grant

unread,
Jan 7, 2022, 6:19:18 PM1/7/22
to
On Friday, January 7, 2022 at 11:01:24 PM UTC, wjhons...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Friday, January 7, 2022 at 2:20:55 PM UTC-8, AC Grant wrote:
> > On Friday, January 7, 2022 at 10:03:11 PM UTC, wjhons...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > On Friday, January 7, 2022 at 1:50:30 PM UTC-8, Will Johnson wrote:
> > > > On Friday, January 7, 2022 at 1:09:35 PM UTC-8, AC Grant wrote:
> > > > > On Friday, January 7, 2022 at 9:03:23 PM UTC, wjhons...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > > > > Please provide a full bibliographic citation to where you got the birth year of 846
> > > > > If you cannot even keep up with the thread then really what is the point?
> > > > > I'll give you a clue: it was one of my answers/contributions...
> > > > Yes you said "Google it".
> > > > That's not a bibliographic citation
> > > It is a tragedy when people purporting to be credible authors, have to resort to feigning ignorance of the source material, almost entirely.
> > >
> > > https://books.google.com/books?id=sV7OjiabkcUC&newbks=1&newbks_redir=0&dq=heimskringla&pg=PA38#v=onepage&q=ganger&f=false
> > Well I checked the link you posted and nothing of relevance emerged. The copy of Snorri which I used was the one on Berkeley's Sunsite. I am not aware of any "bibliographical citation" for 846 - but it is the date that comes up if you google it. That is why I referred to it as "traditional" because it is the one that people use. What you seem to be deliberately avoiding is that I came to exactly the same date by logic using both Snorri and the Landnamabok. The confusion of the past is that everyone before me conflated Ragnvald of the Uplands with Ragnvald of Moere. [I say "everyone" but I mean that I have not come across anyone advancing an alternative.] But this is actually silly - and my alternative is set out in the family tree in my paper, resolving also contradictions in the Sagas which I examine in detail in the book.
> By the way you absolutely did *not* come to this same date by "logic" using Snorri and the Landnamabok.
> NEITHER sources say *anything remotely* of relevance to the establishment of a specific year.
Well you are simply wrong here
> That you continue to argue when the sources are presented blank-face in front of you
> Shows that you are not a serious researcher at all
> You should take down your paper, and exile yourself to the most remote island of the Hebrides in shame.
You mean you wish you had thought of it first..... Sorry.....

Darrell E. Larocque

unread,
Jan 7, 2022, 8:28:51 PM1/7/22
to
I'm part Scandinavian from my great grandmother, who was half Swedish and half Norwegian, and my great great grandfather, who was born of Norwegian parents. It still amazes me how much of our history is taken over by mythology and I prefer to have an "out of sight, out of mind" approach towards it and focus on what I can prove. It's far, far more satisfying to me to find records of people that I knew were real instead of people that "may" have been real or imaginary through whatever sagas that are out there.

There was a reason why I ignored this thread and now after reading through it I now know why... nothing good ever comes from trying to go back this far in Scandinavian history in discussions.

Darrell E. Larocque

Will Johnson

unread,
Jan 7, 2022, 9:49:16 PM1/7/22
to
Utterly False.
There is NO mythe that he was born in 846
If you believe there is such a myth then post the SOURCE of the mth
Google is not source for anything.
A thousand people copy each other trees, all claiming 846 is not a SOURCE
you utter and complete amatea

The rest of your paper is as worthless as your insistence on doing NO useful research to support your ridiculous claims that 846 is a "traditional" year.

You cannot use "a Google search" to claim a traditional year, unless that year is based on... tradition.
And that tradition has to be credible support of ANY KIND WHATSOEVER.

So that's you.
Next caller.

Will Johnson

unread,
Jan 7, 2022, 9:50:37 PM1/7/22
to
No what I mean is, you are here over your head.
You have not consulted the relevant sources.
You have created a pig out of taffee and it's easy to smash it.

Next caller

Hans Vogels

unread,
Jan 8, 2022, 4:08:15 AM1/8/22
to
Op zaterdag 8 januari 2022 om 03:50:37 UTC+1 schreef wjhons...@gmail.com:
Will,

Are you well? You seem to become emotional instead of approaching things logically. Furthermore you are not in a position to judge someone on his qualifications. Just look at your own record here on the Newsgroup. I have been around allmost 20 years now and have seen quite a few outburst and they do not help. They only reflect on yourselve. Please keep it civil and logical.

Alan takes the time to explain here how he comes to some of the conclusions he presented in his book. One can differ on opinion on what in the saga's is true or (probably) made up. One can even be so strict in throwing the child along with the bathwater away. That would be sorry. One never knows for sure - even you don't - if there are kernels in the story that hold up if you look deeper.

Details are just ordinary pieces of information that become relevant if you happen to trip over them or if you bump your toe agains them. If you step over them you don't notice it until somebody else does.

A month ago I came on something similar. Certain things were know for sometime but in the setting (area) presented nobody noticed. I reseached a noble family from the 13th century in North Brabant. In another province Utrecht a younger scion of that family pops up and became castellan of a stronghold for the Bishop of Utrecht. 150 years later in the 15th century a descending castellan became imprisoned by his son and killing the time he told a story about his ancestor who came from Sint-Oedenrode in the duchy of Brabant. This servant of his remembered to put this oral story on paper or parchment. These notes passed through the family and a (great-)grandson of his published a chronicle in the late 16th century incorperating the information that his own ancestor had heard from the imprisoned (and dying) old castellan. Within the family of the castellans of Montfoort this story was not known. The ancestor of the castellans originated from North Brabant and from a thesis on the Castellans of Montfoort in the '50s it became clear that the story of the ancestor seemed to have been mixed up with that of his documented father. After that nobody did something with it until I took it up in the '90s and published a book on how they could fit in the known (and newly reconstructed) family of the lords of Mierlo, Rode and other places. Last year the spotlights came back on my reconstruction of 1999 and I retraced some of my conclusions due to some criticism and took a new look on the story published in the late 16th century. A detail popped up that had been overlooked even by my commentator. Combined with other known (unexplained) details a new genealogical (and historical) sketch arose about something that happened 770 years ago (published 4 1/2 centuries ago) that explained more then I dared to hope in 1999.

Long story short. Oral history has its shortcomings but you may never now what can be true. Or better said, what can be explained better by someone who happens to trip over a detail. These trippings can set you on an inspirational journey. Knowledge increases by thinking outside the known paths. Usually a discussion starts until in the end a new equilibrium sets in. Academia is full with new thought provoking papers on all kind of subjects and who knows were the cross pollination of ideas lead to. There is no problem with being critical but keep it civil.

With regards,
Hans Vogels

AC Grant

unread,
Jan 8, 2022, 4:35:57 AM1/8/22
to
On Saturday, January 8, 2022 at 1:28:51 AM UTC, Darrell E. Larocque wrote:
> I'm part Scandinavian from my great grandmother, who was half Swedish and half Norwegian, and my great great grandfather, who was born of Norwegian parents. It still amazes me how much of our history is taken over by mythology and I prefer to have an "out of sight, out of mind" approach towards it and focus on what I can prove. It's far, far more satisfying to me to find records of people that I knew were real instead of people that "may" have been real or imaginary through whatever sagas that are out there.
>
> There was a reason why I ignored this thread and now after reading through it I now know why... nothing good ever comes from trying to go back this far in Scandinavian history in discussions.
>
> Darrell E. Larocque
Well there is a good deal of sense in what you say, Darrell, and if everyone took your view who can say whether the world would be a better place. However there is in very many people a deep desire for ‘rootedness’ and then to glorify their ancestors. I have been engaged in some family history research on behalf of other people and have been amazed by the transformation of their psyche once they know “where they come from”. However this can then manifest in a desire to ‘live up to’ these roots and this energy can be abused by people who seek to mislead people about these roots and thereby channel them into courses of action for their own ends. And too often - again you are right - nothing good comes of this.

However I do know from the experience of my immediate circle that we are the product of those who have gone before and hence knowing about our ancestors helps us to know about ourselves - and this knowledge can be used to allow us to make freer, more intelligent, choices for ourselves.

I started into this rather over 20 years ago because there were two mutually exclusive origin legends for the Clan Grant - the one based on truth but badly infected by misunderstanding and hence falsehood (which I unravelled in part of my book) and the other one invented in the middle 1700s at the behest and for the convenience of the son of the chief of the day. Getting at the truth has necessitated unravelling simple confusion and exposing some deliberate lies. This took me directly to the life of Harald Tanglehair and indeed of Rolf the Ganger. [By the way to scotch the descent of the red mist for some of your colleagues there is no chiefly blood in me so this has nothing to do with me personally.]

AC Grant

unread,
Jan 8, 2022, 4:48:43 AM1/8/22
to
On Saturday, January 8, 2022 at 2:50:37 AM UTC, wjhons...@gmail.com wrote:
> > You mean you wish you had thought of it first..... Sorry.....
> No what I mean is, you are here over your head.
> You have not consulted the relevant sources.
> You have created a pig out of taffee and it's easy to smash it.
>
> Next caller
Hmmmm.... Invective is an inadequate alternative to reasoned argument. Because you have not read the 3000+ word bibliography in my book you are not well placed to judge my use of sources. Clearly you don't LIKE what I propose - but if you had an argument I think you would have deployed it by now. Yes, I am here well over your head.

Darrell E. Larocque

unread,
Jan 8, 2022, 9:36:24 AM1/8/22
to
Oral history is problematic and shouldn't be trusted as gospel, only as a guide by which to conduct further research. It has resulted in many people claiming to be a descendant of royalty, nobles, famous or infamous notable people, Native Americans, etc. all because someone told them stories orally.

In my case, our Larocque ancestry was pretty much obscured by an author, Robert Roquebrune, who decided to write a long tale about how we were descendants of some fanciful noble line in southwestern France. It was pretty much something that we could not challenge because there was no trail of records anywhere proving it or disproving it. Thankfully DNA came along and finally rid ourselves of this nonsense oral history he tried to pass off as legitimate genealogical research, and it wasn't even close, for it proved we had Scot origins and explained why our ancestor's history was very obscure. That oral history without DNA would still be replicated far and wide and it was all a lie.

Another instance that is problematic for me is the de Joyeuse oral account given in a document by a supposed descendant of Robert de Joyeuse who claimed he was a product of a disinherited son. How are we to prove that what he says is true? I am very skeptical and too many are willing to accept the document's contents because they are thrilled to be connected to royalty through it, but as a genealogical researcher, I am NOT thrilled because it's unsubstantiated at this point, based on oral history.

So you see I have no trust whatsoever in oral history and to continue to use it as a trusted source without question is reckless and irresponsible. I'm not saying it shouldn't be used, but extreme caution should be used and perspective given.

Darrell E. Larocque

AC Grant

unread,
Jan 8, 2022, 9:51:35 AM1/8/22
to
You are pretty much spot on, Darrell - and I can tell you that this extends to various histories MS and otherwise regarding many Scottish clans. The pervading task of my book - extended into several of my papers on the academia site had been to expose these lies for what they have been and to try to reconstruct the truth - as far as this is possible. If you have identified the Scottish element of your family tree (ie beyond the fact of it being Scottish) then there maybe something I have done which may be relevant to you. The traditional Campbell history is one case in point and then there are the Stewarts who tried to claim descent from "Banquo". [Actually in my book I identify who Banquo was and why he had that nickname.] The Stewarts and the Campbells did what they did in order to try to claim to be Scottish....

AC Grant

unread,
Jan 9, 2022, 6:23:59 PM1/9/22
to
On Monday, December 6, 2021 at 2:19:45 AM UTC, joe...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Sunday, December 5, 2021 at 5:58:15 PM UTC-5, Stewart Baldwin wrote:
>
> > > > > https://www.academia.edu/62070193/Rolf_the_Ganger_NOT_the_first_Count_of_Rouen
> > > > This one stood out as garbage before the end of the first page.
> > > Like I wrote (more viking fun) with a lot 'what ifs'.
This is the way a new hypothesis is put together - of course something only becomes feasible provided that a number of conditions are met. This sneering attitude is why history is stultified.
> > > Would you care to elaborate on the eye-catching misconceptions?
> > Too many absurdities to list, but one pretty obvious one is the claim to have narrowed down the death of Harald Fairhair to between 20 and 25 March 851. For someone first mentioned in sources from a few centuries later, this is not even close to being credible.
On what basis is this "absurd"? How arrogant can you be to make this accusation without even reading the argument?
> >
> I know you mean "birth of"; but that only makes it more hilarious. The idea that we can 'determine' the birthdate of someone who is far more legendary than historical, and whose parents were only 'named' in surviving sources nearly *350 years* after the fact..is...silly.
>
> This author (a retired computers teacher?) has a very broad set of subjects that they post papers on, from this, to analyzing Jesus's pre-teen years; and shows an over-abundance of surety in his conclusions (like the exact locations and dates for King Arthur's battles) that no amateur, and no expert would ever claim merely by re-examining sources that have been available for hundreds of years.
Rather than sneering try challenging what I actually say. In my paper about Jesus I make three claims which no-one has ever suggested have been made before (well for 1800 years anyway). And two of them are to do with genealogy - albeit not mediaeval. In the process I resolve two contradictions: (a) the different genealogies for Jesus and (b) the two locations for his birth. I also give a full explanation as to how he was able to argue with the priests at such a young age. All this is, at least in effect, brand new.
As I have said elsewhere almost every book written about Arthur claims to identify the battlefields with greater or lesser precision. If you were to read my book you would see that I identify some with more precision than others. As for the dates with two firm time pegs between which to to pin the bulk of the rest actually I give date ranges based on the military circumstances of each battle.
>
> I don't recommend this author's work in any way whatsoever.
You are entitled to recommend or otherwise at will. However you are not in any position to make an intelligent recommendation and due humility SHOULD have dictated that you not opine at all.
> --Joe C

Will Johnson

unread,
Jan 10, 2022, 9:38:00 PM1/10/22
to
My point was that a birth year of 846, gleaned by a Google search is the most base type of research possible.
*That* you did not realize that this particular birth year is based on.....*nothing at all*, speaks quite well to the rest of your article.

*That* is your article you call this a legendary birth year or "traditional" birth year again, based on nothing, and then say something to the point of "I don't see any reason to dispute it*.

Here is a reason
It's based on *nothing*

AC Grant

unread,
Jan 11, 2022, 5:47:03 AM1/11/22
to
On Tuesday, January 11, 2022 at 2:38:00 AM UTC, wjhons...@gmail.com wrote:
> My point was that a birth year of 846, gleaned by a Google search is the most base type of research possible.
I was already of this very view long - decades - before your restated it so gracelessly.
> *That* you did not realize that this particular birth year is based on.....*nothing at all*, speaks quite well to the rest of your article.
Ah..... well here we have insult based on the limitations of your imagination. It is true that I was not able to track down where the use of this date came from - and this, combined with its widespread use (which, I had already long recognised, may well be one person copying another - there is ample evidence of this happening all over the interweb) is why I described it as "traditional". But just because neither you nor I can say where the date came from does NOT necessarily imply that it was plucked out of the air. So you are NOT in a position to say that it is based on "nothing at all" - what you can say is that you do not know what, if anything, it was based on. Because your overstatement is itself baseless the ensuing insult says nothing about me, but it does speak powerfully about your arrogance. Clearly you are oblivious to this maxim: Absence of Evidence is not Evidence of Absence.
>
> *That* is your article you call this a legendary birth year or "traditional" birth year again, based on nothing, and then say something to the point of "I don't see any reason to dispute it*.
Again you miss the point. I would like to think that you did this deliberately, but no, I have no basis for assuming that.
The point is that I happened to come to that very date (or extremely close) based on separate evidence and my own calculations. Had my conclusion varied significantly from 846 then I would have preferred and adhered to my own calculations as I have done in so many other instances (already exemplified). However because my own calculations happen to tally so closely with this date then, as I wrote, I am not in any position to dispute it.
>
> Here is a reason
> It's based on *nothing*
Because my thesis is not based on the use of this date by anyone else, you are going round in circles, shortly to disappear up.......

Will Johnson

unread,
Jan 11, 2022, 9:29:34 AM1/11/22
to
Actually your paper presents exactly Zero evidence that you used any kind of logic or deduction to "come to this date"
So more circular argument that you found this date from a google search, and it is merely one person copying another with zero evidence.

In fact your paper explicitly states that you found *no* evidence for any other date or even this date.
You are making yourself look incompetent, not competent.

What you should have said is "You're right, I'm wrong" and moved on.
Your head in the ground approach shows that you used your sources in an non-novel yet ridiculously plucked way to come to a ridiculous conclusion based on waving your hands in the air.

As you're doing here.

Will Johnson

unread,
Jan 11, 2022, 9:34:53 AM1/11/22
to
On Tuesday, January 11, 2022 at 6:29:34 AM UTC-8, Will Johnson wrote:

> Actually your paper presents exactly Zero evidence that you used any kind of logic or deduction to "come to this date"
> So more circular argument that you found this date from a google search, and it is merely one person copying another with zero evidence.
>
> In fact your paper explicitly states that you found *no* evidence for any other date or even this date.
> You are making yourself look incompetent, not competent.
>
> What you should have said is "You're right, I'm wrong" and moved on.
> Your head in the ground approach shows that you used your sources in an non-novel yet ridiculously plucked way to come to a ridiculous conclusion based on waving your hands in the air.
>
> As you're doing here.

*All* of the sources for this man (or two men if you think Rollo is not Hrolf) have been well known for quite a long time. What they say, and more importantly what they do *not* say are common knowledge in academic circles.

*That* you believe you have *suddenly* found something new does not smack of intensive study of the actual sources, but of a person cherry picking to arrive at a conclusion they already believed.

AC Grant

unread,
Jan 11, 2022, 11:27:04 AM1/11/22
to
On Tuesday, January 11, 2022 at 2:29:34 PM UTC, wjhons...@gmail.com wrote:
> Actually your paper presents exactly Zero evidence that you used any kind of logic or deduction to "come to this date"
The purpose of this paper was to argue the case for Rollo being Rolf's son and for the two not to be elided, which has happened in the past and which has been the basis of Rolf being thought of as a mythical character. So you are correct that the argument for the date of Rolf's birth is not set out in this extract. The bulk of this paper is, as it explains, a précis and a small part of a longer (c15000 word) chapter in my book. It is in the rest of the chapter that the time windows are discussed.
In short Landnamabok says that Harald had been on the throne for 12 years in 874 - ie coming to the throne c861/2 when he was still 10 years old.
The second tranche of the argument comes from my interpretation of Snorri's Harfarger Ch.24. I assign a date around 862 to this and drawing on evidence in the Orkeyinga Saga I suggest that Rolf could not have been more than about 16 for his mother to be intervening in this way. This also fits with the rest of the dates for the rest of his family.
QED.
>
> In fact your paper explicitly states that you found *no* evidence for any other date or even this date.
> You are making yourself look incompetent, not competent.
Well so you say. There is no accounting for your view (apart from the red mist) and the fact that you have not read the book..
>
> What you should have said is "You're right, I'm wrong" and moved on.
Hmmm I would have been untrue to myself. TBH I have no idea what you think you are "right" about.

AC Grant

unread,
Jan 11, 2022, 11:42:02 AM1/11/22
to
On Tuesday, January 11, 2022 at 2:34:53 PM UTC, wjhons...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Tuesday, January 11, 2022 at 6:29:34 AM UTC-8, Will Johnson wrote:
> *All* of the sources for this man (or two men if you think Rollo is not Hrolf) have been well known for quite a long time. What they say, and more importantly what they do *not* say are common knowledge in academic circles.

I hope you are not here suggesting that the names Hrolfr and Hrollaug have the same meaning and/or are interchangeable. That would be preposterous, particularly given that Hrolf had a half-brother Hrollaug.
For you to suggest that you know all the sources for Rolf is some claim. I don't believe it.
>
> *That* you believe you have *suddenly* found something new does not smack of intensive study of the actual sources, but of a person cherry picking to arrive at a conclusion they already believed.

I think that it is possible for you to put that construction on it, if taken out of context - but I will refrain from discussing possible reasons for your problem.

What you forget (well I mean never took on board) is that my book is about Scottish Clans and Scottish History. My discussion of Norse History was entirely ancillary to that and Rolf and his son have no implications whatsoever to the thrust of my work. So there was nothing in it for me beyond showing that Rolf's seeking leave from a siege in France to pay Guthrum back when he was beset by Grig serves to show that the claim made by John of Fordun about the person he called "Gregory the Great" was actually a good deal more true than most historians allow (not that this has any impact elsewhere). [In this respect it was more grist to my mill refuting naysayer revisionists amongst Scottish History academics who have indeed got so much so wrong by adopting the supercilious "we know better" attitude which you clearly demonstrate in spades.]

Will Johnson

unread,
Jan 11, 2022, 11:48:26 AM1/11/22
to
So you now acknowledge that your spurious claim of "846" and your papers claim that you have *proved* this, to be false. That your actual claim is something more like... he was born by 872....

AC Grant

unread,
Jan 11, 2022, 12:05:36 PM1/11/22
to
Can you read English? So you have Rolf leading an army into France at the age of 4???????????
Rolf was born in 846, he was banished from Norway c862. It is conceivable that the banishment was as late as 863. Whichever date, he was old enough to skipper his own boat but be young enough for mummy to intervene and plead on his behalf. I say 16 +/-1. It is hard to say when Rollo (Rolfsson) was born, probably not before 864 almost certainly not after 870

Darrell E. Larocque

unread,
Jan 11, 2022, 2:18:55 PM1/11/22
to
On Tuesday, January 11, 2022 at 11:42:02 AM UTC-5, AC Grant wrote:
> What you forget (well I mean never took on board) is that my book is about Scottish Clans and Scottish History. My discussion of Norse History was entirely ancillary to that and Rolf and his son have no implications whatsoever to the thrust of my work. So there was nothing in it for me beyond showing that Rolf's seeking leave from a siege in France to pay Guthrum back when he was beset by Grig serves to show that the claim made by John of Fordun about the person he called "Gregory the Great" was actually a good deal more true than most historians allow (not that this has any impact elsewhere). [In this respect it was more grist to my mill refuting naysayer revisionists amongst Scottish History academics who have indeed got so much so wrong by adopting the supercilious "we know better" attitude which you clearly demonstrate in spades.]

To be fair, academics must provide proof of their conclusions through proper sourcing, and your use of "revisionists" is something I have seen far to many times. The study of history if a FLUID enterprise, and it doesn't just sit still and say "X in set in stone, this is what happened and that's that!" So your use of the term "revisionists" is utterly unnecessary and if you haven't noticed, there are a lot of those so-called "naysayer revisionists" and "academics" here that you hold so much contempt for because in order to present an argument for something, you have to provide some sort of actual logical proof from legitimate sources. When you fail to provide it and instead point to your book which conveniently is not available to view unless purchased, you get criticized, so if you can't accept that then I don't know what to tell you really... maybe if you offered the sourcing for your dates then maybe it would clear up a lot of this, right???

AC Grant

unread,
Jan 11, 2022, 2:59:55 PM1/11/22
to
Yes, Darrell, there is a lot in what you say. It may be well to go back to the start here and re-emphasise that I put the paper up on academia.edu to dichotomise Rolf and Rollo. The subsection could not stand on its own, whence the introduction. I have been pondering about how much of the book to make available eg online. But I have come to no conclusion yet. I have Hans to thank for initiating the thread here which he did with absolutely no prompting from me and the only reason I entered the lists was the utterly amateur drivel it then attracted - which I took the view needed a robust rebuttal.

As for your general point about revisionism again what you say is broadly true; it became problematic for me when I came to appreciate how little historians pay to approaching the truth and how much effort they put in to punting a political standpoint. And, as you suggest, politics ebbs and flows. At the moment there are far too many soi-disant historians who are trying to provide a narrative conducive to Scottish Independence.

There is another problem with current history academe, certainly in Scotland, but you may be able to advise me how much farther abroad: historians have a dysfunctional propensity to want to be the fount of all knowledge and this has some serious down sides.
(a) because they like to pontificate their thinking ossifies and they end up defending positions long past their sell-by dates
(b) their consequent need to be right all the time means that they fall back on saying only that which can be proved to criminal law standards.
(c) because they cannot afford to be wrong (because their careers depend on it) they become scared to fly a kite
(d) if anyone is proved wrong even in the minutest particular they become the object of ridicule to everyone else.
This is a sterile and stultifying situation which is the exact inverse of the scientific method and there are only one or two individuals who are willing to buck the trend.
I can give one pertinent example: the Zeitgeist is that if you mention Geoffrey of Monmouth your career is over and you become a laughing stock. Yet I can prove that he DID have access to now lost WRITTEN records. Because I can demonstrate this I am in a far stronger position to identify where and, perhaps more importantly WHY, he has gone seriously wrong in places.

So by the invective spewed all over the place this forum disqualified itself from serious discussion. A few members have shown one way or another that they recognise the way things have gone. But the overriding problem is that people do not play the ball (because they can't and so) they play the man - twitter pile on style. It is an unhealthy (intellectually, psychically etc.) atmosphere.

.
Message has been deleted

Will Johnson

unread,
Jan 11, 2022, 3:41:59 PM1/11/22
to
Also this entire odd bent of "academia is wrong I'm right"
Sounds suspiciously like neo-Teslaism

We already have enough crackpots who post *certainty* and then can't back it up whatsoever.

Will Johnson

unread,
Jan 11, 2022, 3:44:35 PM1/11/22
to
So your paper states that "his birth IN 846 is *secure*" (emphasis mine.
You now acknowledge that this is as far from the truth as it can possibly get.

This kind of statement serves to support your other claims, but it falls on its face when examined.
No credible contemporary, or near contemporary source gives us any indication of what year he might have been born, or even any way to determine that within say a decade either side.

You asked me to "Google it" when I questioned your analysis.
Actually if you care to try, "Googling" actual credible sources most only say something like "ca 960"

A chronicle written three hundred years after his life is not a credible source in any way.
Your paper puts aside Dudo with a wave, although he himself claims to have been in the actual court of Richard (and his sons) and so should probably be considered the *most* authoritative person on the subject (that we have extant).

AC Grant

unread,
Jan 11, 2022, 3:55:23 PM1/11/22
to
On Tuesday, January 11, 2022 at 8:44:35 PM UTC, wjhons...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Tuesday, January 11, 2022 at 12:41:59 PM UTC-8, Will Johnson wrote:
> > Also this entire odd bent of "academia is wrong I'm right"
> > Sounds suspiciously like neo-Teslaism
I don't normally do "-isms"
> >
> > We already have enough crackpots who post *certainty* and then can't back it up whatsoever.
> So your paper states that "his birth IN 846 is *secure*" (emphasis mine.
> You now acknowledge that this is as far from the truth as it can possibly get.
Not true. I might be able to cope with a year or two either way - but no more. The general date is secure because it fits into two separate patterns, In Venn terms it is A and B and C.
>
> This kind of statement serves to support your other claims, but it falls on its face when examined.
> No credible contemporary, or near contemporary source gives us any indication of what year he might have been born, or even any way to determine that within say a decade either side.
Well I don't agree. And you are not qualified to be so assertive.
>
> You asked me to "Google it" when I questioned your analysis.
> Actually if you care to try, "Googling" actual credible sources most only say something like "ca 960"
Weasel word: if you define "credible" as that which agrees with you then fair enough. But the treaty of St Clair sur Epte was 911.
>
> A chronicle written three hundred years after his life is not a credible source in any way.
Ergo anything you write has no credibility regarding anything before 1720 (oh... wait a moment.... you may have a point - at least this demolishes your 960 claim)
> Your paper puts aside Dudo with a wave, although he himself claims to have been in the actual court of Richard (and his sons) and so should probably be considered the *most* authoritative person on the subject (that we have extant).
Not true. I do not put aside Dudo - but he was a pied piper.....
You're getting exasperated now.... better call a halt before a blood vessel bursts. When you find yourself in a hole the usual advice is to stop digging.

Will Johnson

unread,
Jan 11, 2022, 4:05:24 PM1/11/22
to
I meant of course ca 860

"pied piper" a person leading rats into the water? or children into a mountain?
I have no idea what you're stating.

However should we address your claim that Harald Fairhair was born *in* 950 (or 951) at all?
Since the majority of academics do not think that Harald "fairhair" ever existed in the first place


Will Johnson

unread,
Jan 11, 2022, 4:09:48 PM1/11/22
to
On Tuesday, January 11, 2022 at 1:05:24 PM UTC-8, Will Johnson wrote:
> I meant of course ca 860
>
> "pied piper" a person leading rats into the water? or children into a mountain?
> I have no idea what you're stating.
>
> However should we address your claim that Harald Fairhair was born *in* 950 (or 951) at all?
> Since the majority of academics do not think that Harald "fairhair" ever existed in the first place

By the way I define "credible" as "evidence that's likely to be believed"
It's interesting that Stewart Baldwin, whose Henry Project you cited in your paper, called your paper "garbage"
I find that credible.

Acknowledging that Harald Fairhair is fictitious, would of course destroy your entire argument at its base.

Will Johnson

unread,
Jan 11, 2022, 4:10:47 PM1/11/22
to
I keep getting my centuries mixed. Of course I mean 850 (or 851)

AC Grant

unread,
Jan 11, 2022, 5:34:23 PM1/11/22
to
Yes indeed, you are getting confused - both here and above.
As a final piece of therapy: the pied piper reference is to the adage that he who pays the piper calls the tune. So too with historians who have sponsors and/or who write at others' behest in some other way....
The referee has now stepped in to prevent further injury...... I wish you well in recovery.

Will Johnson

unread,
Jan 11, 2022, 6:48:44 PM1/11/22
to
On Tuesday, January 11, 2022 at 2:34:23 PM UTC-8, AC Grant wrote:
> Yes indeed, you are getting confused - both here and above.
> As a final piece of therapy: the pied piper reference is to the adage that he who pays the piper calls the tune. So too with historians who have sponsors and/or who write at others' behest in some other way....
> The referee has now stepped in to prevent further injury...... I wish you well in recovery.

So you now finally admit, that when you said "the birth year of 846 is secure" you were talking out of your ass

Will Johnson

unread,
Jan 11, 2022, 6:58:35 PM1/11/22
to
On Tuesday, January 11, 2022 at 2:34:23 PM UTC-8, AC Grant wrote:
> Yes indeed, you are getting confused - both here and above.
> As a final piece of therapy: the pied piper reference is to the adage that he who pays the piper calls the tune. So too with historians who have sponsors and/or who write at others' behest in some other way....
> The referee has now stepped in to prevent further injury...... I wish you well in recovery.

By the way I did read your paper claiming that Jesus was a Hasmonean and therefore (I suppose) the the "slaughter of the innocents" was a fiction, simply designed to explain why Mary and Joseph fled Judah to go to Egypt for a while. That one or both of them, I suppose were also Hasmoeans

Of course this throws out the window the genealogies given *for* Jesus, neither of which has a claim of this sort.

Josephus, whom you quote, also stated that Herod himself was a Hasmonean, at least he implies it, if you put together various statements he makes in various parts of his work. So he wasn't just killing off the last ruling family, but his own kin. A great deal of ink has been spilled detailing the entire family and we don't find anyone who could be Joseph or Mary in those trees.

Will Johnson

unread,
Jan 11, 2022, 9:34:54 PM1/11/22
to
On Tuesday, January 11, 2022 at 3:58:35 PM UTC-8, Will Johnson wrote:

> Josephus, whom you quote, also stated that Herod himself was a Hasmonean, at least he implies it, if you put together various statements he makes in various parts of his work. So he wasn't just killing off the last ruling family, but his own kin. A great deal of ink has been spilled detailing the entire family and we don't find anyone who could be Joseph or Mary in those trees.

I have to backtrack a bit
It now seems clear that *someone* has done original research into synthesizing several statements of Josephus into a line extending from the Maccabees to Herod. This line appears to be spurious however, as many other writers state explicitly that Herod's father was an Idumaean and even the priest of a temple to Apollo. So clearly not a member of the Hasmonean family tree.

Stewart Baldwin

unread,
Jan 12, 2022, 1:35:59 AM1/12/22
to
On Tuesday, January 11, 2022 at 3:05:24 PM UTC-6, wjhons...@gmail.com wrote:

> However should we address your claim that Harald Fairhair was born *in* 950 (or 951) at all?
> Since the majority of academics do not think that Harald "fairhair" ever existed in the first place

While skepticism regarding Harald Fairhair is justified, I think that this statement goes too far in the negative direction, assuming that we wish to avoid being completely literal to the point of being misleading. Certainly, if "ever existed" is interpreted as meaning that there was a king Harald nicknamed "Fairhair" in his own lifetime who was responsible for unifying Norway in the ninth century, then the "existence" of such a king could be regarded as doubtful. However, I think that it would be widely accepted as at least plausible (if not directly proven by contemporary evidence) that there was a shadowy king Harald (called son of Halfdan in the poetic sources naming him) who may have been the father of the kings called Erik "Bloodaxe" and Hakon. Erik "Bloodaxe" can plausibly (but not certainly) be identified with the king of York of that name, who is called a son of an unidentified Harald in tenth century English sources. It seems likely that the English sources are correct in giving the nickname "Fairhair" to the king Harald (maternal half-brother of St. Olaf) who was killed at Stamford Bridge in 1066, called "Hardrada" in the Icelandic and Norwegian sources. rather than to the vague earlier Harald, but I don't think the confusion regarding the nickname is sufficient to disprove the existence of the earlier Harald. That being said, even assuming that the earlier Harald existed, it is of course ridiculous to suggest that any detailed outline to his career can be extracted, or that a supposed ninth century month and year of birth can be deduced from vague statements made hundreds of years later.

Stewart Baldwin

AC Grant

unread,
Jan 12, 2022, 3:51:26 AM1/12/22
to
Err.... no.... you need to backtrack a LOT. Someone tried to use my papers about Jesus as a slur against me, so I felt the need to respond, but there is no way the time of Jesus could be labelled "mediaeval" so I will refrain from pursuing this here Frankly you should have joined the academia discussion at the time. Also I think, Will, that posting here exacerbates your tendency to hyperbola (as pointed out passim) because you are declaiming to an audience.

Hans Vogels

unread,
Jan 12, 2022, 4:35:47 AM1/12/22
to
Op zaterdag 8 januari 2022 om 15:36:24 UTC+1 schreef Darrell E. Larocque:

> Oral history is problematic and shouldn't be trusted as gospel, only as a guide by which to conduct further research.<
[knip]
> So you see I have no trust whatsoever in oral history and to continue to use it as a trusted source without question is reckless and irresponsible. I'm not saying it shouldn't be used, but extreme caution should be used and perspective given. <
>
> Darrell E. Larocque


Darrell,

True, we are on the same line of thought. Looking back I should have better stated:
Long story short. Oral history has its shortcomings but you may never now what can be true in what not can be proven or disproven. Or better said, what can be explained better by someone who happens to trip over a detail.

In my case the story about the origins of the castellans of Montfoort goes as follows.
Something happened around 1260 and a younger son of the Lords of Rode had to flee the Dutchy of Brabant and came to the court of the count of Holland and the bishop of Utrecht. In due time he was installed as the Castellan of Montfoort, his mother being a younger daughter of a former castellan, the elder married daughter being dead without children. In 1448 a later castellan was imprisoned by his son and before he died he told what he knew about his ancestors to a servant or confidant. This person wrote the story down en the parchment with the story was handed down the family to a grandson who died c.1530. The parchment survived and became noticed in the academic world of the 16th and 17th century. The story was published in print in 1719 in a 'general work' about the diocese of Utrecht.
In 1957 it was critically reviewed in a thesis on the castellans of Montfoort.

Yes, the orally handed down story and the written down version had shortcomings: mixed-up persons and chronological events. As the castellans were prominent in the history of Utrecht and Holland these items could easily be checked.

About the ancestor (the first castellan) it became likely that his story had integrated a remarkeble event from his own father, who probably was the person who had to flee. Although these events (elder brother dying leaving two daughters who lavishly donated ecclesiastical institutions, canonical murder and mayhem) are not known in Brabant some aspects in the story ring true. Before that time there were indeed Lords of Rode and according the local custom and the right of succession the younger son would have become Lord of Rode bypassing the daughters of his deceased brother. The Lords of Rode are also attested in having a attachment to two of the three ecclesiastical institutions. As several generations of castellans are known to have short fuses it is very imaginable that the ancestor was shorttempered in his trying to revers the pious donations of his nieces.

That's what I mean with the remark, one never knows for sure if there are kernels in a oral story that hold up if you look deeper. One should be critical but also aware that something indeed could have happened. In the above example we have an event around 1260 (in Brabant) told and written down in 1448 (in Utrecht) and published in 1719 that is indeed possible and likely if we view it in a bigger historical and genealogical picture. It gave me an inside in reviewing the Brabantse family of the Lords of Rode and their junior branches and descendants. The future will tell if academic circles will accept my hypothesis.

With regards,
Hans Vogels

AC Grant

unread,
Jan 12, 2022, 5:32:23 AM1/12/22
to
Sorry.... hyperbole obviously

AC Grant

unread,
Jan 12, 2022, 10:20:54 AM1/12/22
to
On Tuesday, January 11, 2022 at 9:05:24 PM UTC, wjhons...@gmail.com wrote:.
> I meant of course ca 860
I wonder, Will, whether you ever stopped for a moment to consider where this 860 date came from?
The answer is easy and is "obvious" to any sophomore who thinks that Hrolfr and Hrollaug are interchangeable (not that I am laying that at you door). The 860 date is arrived at by starting with the death of Rollo (now called Robert) c930 and going back 70 years: kinda obvious (to any sophomore). So this date entirely depends on the conflation.
As I have shown my date not only fits the rest of the family tree, but it also conforms with the analysis of the Landnamabok. But my analysis would fail completely if Rolf=Rollo. I also show WHY Rolf called his son Rollo (and his other one Guthrum) and his daughter Caitlin. Not only that but Rollo was of the right age to marry Poppa and was still young enough to be marrying Giselle in 911 (given that this one at least was a Christian marriage we have to assume that Poppa had died in the interim, but her family remained important to the Dukes right through to the invasion of England).
Given that Rolf was so "stout" that no horse could carry him (whence "Gangu") it is not feasible to consider a long life for him (imagine the wear and tear on his hips and knees alone!). Actually 65 is doing well, considering.


Will Johnson

unread,
Jan 12, 2022, 3:43:27 PM1/12/22
to
Yes. I stand alone. On a mountainside. Preaching the Truth to the captive masses below.

Will Johnson

unread,
Jan 12, 2022, 3:48:17 PM1/12/22
to
OK and what is your basis for 'going back 70 years'
What is the source that states that he died aged 70 ?

He "was of the right age" to marry a woman who we hae no idea when she was born ?
So for neither of them, do we know within perhaps five or ten years either side when they were born, but they were of the right age to marry each other?

Will Johnson

unread,
Jan 12, 2022, 3:54:57 PM1/12/22
to
Just to catch everyone up.
Here are some sources with the text extracted....

I don't see where he was 70 when he died

https://fmg.ac/Projects/MedLands/NORMANDY.htm

AC Grant

unread,
Jan 12, 2022, 4:05:58 PM1/12/22
to
On Wednesday, January 12, 2022 at 8:48:17 PM UTC, wjhons...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Wednesday, January 12, 2022 at 7:20:54 AM UTC-8, AC Grant wrote:
> > On Tuesday, January 11, 2022 at 9:05:24 PM UTC, wjhons...@gmail.com wrote:.
> > > I meant of course ca 860
> > I wonder, Will, whether you ever stopped for a moment to consider where this 860 date came from?
> > The answer is easy and is "obvious" to any sophomore who thinks that Hrolfr and Hrollaug are interchangeable (not that I am laying that at you door). The 860 date is arrived at by starting with the death of Rollo (now called Robert) c930 and going back 70 years: kinda obvious (to any sophomore). So this date entirely depends on the conflation.
> > As I have shown my date not only fits the rest of the family tree, but it also conforms with the analysis of the Landnamabok. But my analysis would fail completely if Rolf=Rollo. I also show WHY Rolf called his son Rollo (and his other one Guthrum) and his daughter Caitlin. Not only that but Rollo was of the right age to marry Poppa and was still young enough to be marrying Giselle in 911 (given that this one at least was a Christian marriage we have to assume that Poppa had died in the interim, but her family remained important to the Dukes right through to the invasion of England).
> > Given that Rolf was so "stout" that no horse could carry him (whence "Gangu") it is not feasible to consider a long life for him (imagine the wear and tear on his hips and knees alone!). Actually 65 is doing well, considering.
> OK and what is your basis for 'going back 70 years'
> What is the source that states that he died aged 70 ?
None... that's the point.... whoever offered this date was plucking a number out of air (yet you claim whoever it may be as an authority)..
Nothing to do with me.... Don't ask me to justify the stupidity of sophomores.
By the way fmg clearly supposes that Rolf and Rollo are one person. They say "he" died c930. I accept the time window for the death of Rollo.
YOU claim people say "he" was born 960. I have explained why they say that. They are wrong (for which see my paper).

It is clear to me that it was his father's death which allowed Rollo to bend the knee to the French king - a thing Rolf would never have done.
Rolf could have died before 911 - even 900 (but I think he didn't).
>
> He "was of the right age" to marry a woman who we hae no idea when she was born ?
It does not matter beyond that (as in the case of Rolf) he would have been 65 when marrying Giselle and I think that would be a bit steep even for a king of France.
> So for neither of them, do we know within perhaps five or ten years either side when they were born, but they were of the right age to marry each other?
Broadly yes. These marriages were political.
Will
Message has been deleted

AC Grant

unread,
Jan 12, 2022, 4:26:07 PM1/12/22
to
Err... for "paper" read "book".

Will Johnson

unread,
Jan 12, 2022, 8:26:55 PM1/12/22
to
They can't be "broadly" of the right age to marry each other, without any evidence of their age.
You could say a man of 70 is broadly the right age to marry a girl of 12
It's a meaningless statement

I did not claim that people saying c860 were "authorities""
I said if you were using credible sources, this is most commonly cited birth information for Rollo

I believe personally, this sort of artifice to be a crutch used by the feeble minded
We can say well he was living in 928 and no one mentioned how incredibly aged he was, so perhaps he was only say 80 at that time. We can say well he appears to have been active as a leader in battle in 900 so he was probably at least 30

We can make statements like that based on the extant sources
What we cannot say is that he was born *in* 846 or even 860 or any other particular year, without a source stating that, or a source from which an approximation that closely, can be made. We don't have that in the case of Rollo or even Ganger-Hrolf if you think they are separate people.

We might say, he was *living* in 910.....
The only acceptable sources are actual *credible* sources

AC Grant

unread,
Jan 13, 2022, 4:48:36 AM1/13/22
to
**You are now trying to make a faux distinction between "authorities" and "credible sources" - and "acceptable" is in the eye of the beholder - adding rotational velocity. Men have not yet made a pin sharp enough to account for this attempt at dancing.
**You keep on referring to "him" when "he" is really "they" (Why do you disrespect Old Norse so much? Errr.... don't answer this; the question is rhetorical.)
**Clearly you assert that you belong to the pedant school of history which is why the discipline has stultified. A huge amount of history has no "source" of the sort you claim to require - and so if any progress is to be made, interpolation and extrapolation is required and the way that progress is made is by subjecting any such to vigorous examination (ironically your 860 date is precisely that sort of extrapolation and I have examined it and found it wanting) - but that is NOT what you are doing or even attempting to do. I will leave you in your putrid pool of unknowing.

You already have all the answers you could possibly need and anyone else who may, for some bizarre reason, be continuing to follow this "thread" knows this perfectly well. The silence from elsewhere demonstrates that for any rational person this exchange had already exceeded common sense and I will indulge you no further. So far as I can see what you want is the last word. If so go ahead and reply to this....

Will Johnson

unread,
Jan 13, 2022, 11:17:18 AM1/13/22
to
On Thursday, January 13, 2022 at 1:48:36 AM UTC-8, AC Grant wrote:
> **You are now trying to make a faux distinction between "authorities" and "credible sources" - and "acceptable" is in the eye of the beholder - adding rotational velocity. Men have not yet made a pin sharp enough to account for this attempt at dancing.
> **You keep on referring to "him" when "he" is really "they" (Why do you disrespect Old Norse so much? Errr.... don't answer this; the question is rhetorical.)
> **Clearly you assert that you belong to the pedant school of history which is why the discipline has stultified. A huge amount of history has no "source" of the sort you claim to require - and so if any progress is to be made, interpolation and extrapolation is required and the way that progress is made is by subjecting any such to vigorous examination (ironically your 860 date is precisely that sort of extrapolation and I have examined it and found it wanting) - but that is NOT what you are doing or even attempting to do. I will leave you in your putrid pool of unknowing.
>
> You already have all the answers you could possibly need and anyone else who may, for some bizarre reason, be continuing to follow this "thread" knows this perfectly well. The silence from elsewhere demonstrates that for any rational person this exchange had already exceeded common sense and I will indulge you no further. So far as I can see what you want is the last word. If so go ahead and reply to this....

You keep insisting you are going to stop relying and then keep replying.
However I'm not stating that the ca 860 date itself is "credible" or "authoritative"
I'm only stating that within more credible sources then your invisible ones you have cited and not cited, that those more credible actual sources use "ca 860".

I personally think that this "ca 860" is as meaningless as "ca 850" or "ca870" even
There is no logic to just grabbing a particular decade and claiming this *is* the decade, esp. as his "life" is subject to such a wide range of credulousness and scrutiny both

Yes thank you I am a pedant. I insist on sources for claims such as"his birth year of 846 is *secure*"

Darrell E. Larocque

unread,
Jan 13, 2022, 7:55:39 PM1/13/22
to
Hans,

No need to explain yourself... I understood where you were coming from. I have been working on my research pretty hard over the last few days and I apologize for not responding sooner!

I have no experience with records from the Netherlands as I have had no real cause to consult them, but the ancestry of the Halewijn and van der Clyte families are eventually going to have to be on my list, but only if the Robert de Joyeuse problem is explained in my ancestry from someone who actually has access to records from France. It stems from oral history of course in a 1733 notarial act, someone claiming that they were the descendant of a disinherited son, Francois. It's a mess so I have chosen not to go down that road because I cannot simply fly to France and it is unfortunate.

https://fmg.ac/Projects/MedLands/champorret.htm#FrancoisJoyeusedied1556B

Thanks again for your responses and I wish you luck on the acceptance of your work!

Darrell
0 new messages