Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 15:47, 4 August 2006

Tatischev's Russian History and the Ioachim Chronicle

At least one of the persons editing this article feels that the Ioachim Chronicle is not a good source for this article. What is wrong with providing the account of Rurik from the Ioachim Chronicle in addition to what is already here? Moonshiner 00:03, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

The Ioachim Chronicle was compiled during the lifetime of Tatischev's father, almost a millenium after the events described therein. In historiography, any evidence recorded a century or more after the fact should be treated with caution and considered as legendary. Here we have a span of some 850 years. Actually, the Ioachim Chronicle (if it really existed) should not be given more credit than other modern inventions, e.g., introduced by Tatischev himself. --Ghirla | talk 10:04, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

rosbyggjar

Is there anytyhing on rosbyggjar except for http://cgi.roslagsmuseet.se/roslagen.shtml ? This one looks pretty thin. If the statement "linguists usually consider this tribe to have been the Ros-byggjar" is true, there must be more evidence of research in this area. One article cannot be credited with "usually". The cited article also exclusively referes to Swedish sources. Is there any relevant, say, Harvard research? H. has a large Slavic department. If there is any substance to rosbyggjar, they must have covered it. If they did not cover it, then it's likely to be untrue. --Gene s 07:19, 26 Sep 2004 (UTC)

FYI, the inhabitants of Roslagen are still called Rospiggar a form which in Old Norse was Rosbyggjar. Then again, why don't you contribute to Rus' (people) you seem to be very knowledgeable in this field. Please enlighten me. Just why are his origins so controversial to you and some other people from the former Soviet Union? I doubt that there are many sources that contradict the Primary Chronicle. By the way, since you're searching on the Net, I'll help you out with a few texts of which the first may also explain my last question.

1)

2)

3)

4)

5)

I will let you work on this article for a month and then I'll get back and see what you have done. Cheers,--Wiglaf 09:04, 26 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Thank you very much for your kindest permission to let me work on this article for a whole month. I am really flattered with the honor. I will be awaiting with greatest anticipation the illustrous moment when you "get back and see what I have done" and bestow your fair judgement upon my humble self. --Gene s 07:12, 27 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Relax, Gene. Why don't you read this as a goodwill promise not to interfere with your work with minute picks at each and every moment, so that you could not write anything coherent without long debate. Such bickering happens all the time in wikipedia, and IMO Wiglaf is quite generous by letting you know he will not engage in this kind of silliness. Mikkalai 16:46, 27 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Wiglaf, it seems that there is a misunderstanding between you two. Gene seems to doubt in the word ""rosbyggjar", since he cannot find it by google. I suspect he thinks this is kind of the name of a tribe, while it simply means "inhabitants of Roslagen". The article must state this more clearly, with modern term added, like you did here.

BTW, the mentioned article http://cgi.roslagsmuseet.se/roslagen.shtml seems to imply that that the term Roslagen is more recent than Primary Chronicle, hence it is invalid to use it for etymology of "Rus". Mikkalai 17:25, 26 Sep 2004 (UTC)

If so, I am sorry Gene. Mikkalai, I don't know if it's invalid. The problem is that the Scandinavian system of Leidang districts (called Roslag or Rodslag in Sweden) is arguably much older than the written sources which are quite late. They were the maritime version of the hundred (division), which were described as early as A.D. 98 by Tacitus. What do you suggest?--Wiglaf 17:43, 26 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I'm not sure, I cannot read Swedish well. My reading is that "Roden" was the eralier term. All I could suggest is to try and look for original data and into serious research from time to time. I am not saying anytnig with respest to the current topic, but it is quite often that popular expositions tend to twist data slightly. But each twist may bring a further departure from truth. One should be eapecially cautious with etymology of such a short word: Rus/Ros/Rhos/whatever, read from texts in different languages. No wonder theories are in multitudes. Anyway, encyclopedia is not original research. It is not our goal to "prove" of "disprove" a theory, but only to present it, if it is widespread enough. In our case all what I wanted to say is to be careful with references to old names, not to fall into an anachronism or into a circular logic. For example, much earlier I fixed the following blunder in Rus' (people): when referring to the Annals of Saint Bertan, one wiki-contributor wrote: "In this delegation there were two men who called themselves Rus (Ruzzi)", which is stretching the facts (may be not deliberate): the original text said "Rhos". Mikkalai 18:52, 26 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I agree, we should present the theories as they are, but at the same time we should check them. It is great that you verified the St Bertain part. I will see what I can find concerning the naming of Roden/Rodslagen.--Wiglaf 19:27, 26 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Rus, Jutland and Adam of Bremen

These articles seem to a attract a lot of creative writing, so I just want to make sure: Where does Adam of Bremen write that the Rus were from Jutland?--Wiglaf 13:33, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)

The POV of this article

This article was seriously slanted. I have tried to fix the most serious problems.--Wiglaf 06:11, 6 May 2005 (UTC)

Imaginary sources

I suggest that we remove any scholarship which bases its theories on "lost sagas" and "lost chronicles". It appears to be acceptable in the former Soviet union to do so, but it is questionable whether the products of such scholarship belong in Misplaced Pages.--Wiglaf 08:33, 6 May 2005 (UTC)

Etymologies

While I find Proto-Norse fascinating and in some fields can't bolster my enthusiasm for it, there are some places it doesn't belong. For example: I can't see why there is a need for an unattested P-N form of the name Rörik in this article. Could anyone cite a good reason as to why? Otherwise, wouldn't it better be deleted as to avoid confusion? And remember always to put an asterisk before an unattested name or word. Asdfgl 23:19, 20 May 2005 (UTC)

Good point. I'll remove it then. It was there in order to show the common origin of the Old West Norse and Old East Norse forms. I thought it was highly relevant in connection with the other Germanic languages cited.--Wiglaf 06:03, 21 May 2005 (UTC)

Perfect, I hope I didn't sound too rash. As for relevancy in connection with other germanic languages, I think that rather belongs on the page on Protogermanic (which could do with some work, I'll look into it). Asdfgl 20:25, 21 May 2005 (UTC)

Rurik was a nephew of the danish king(pretender) Harald Klak

After the sons of Godfred had thrown Harald Klak out of Denmark several times, despite or perhaps because of his support from the frankish emperor, the emperor granted him a fief or desmene called Rüstringen covering Friesland and the lands between the Elbe and the Weser. After Harald´s death his nephew Rurik inherited the desmene. Perhaps the name Rus comes from Rüstringen.

Minor inaccuracies

While the article is well-written, there are some dubious passages. I tried to remove these, but the changes were reverted. The first issue that annoys me is that it describes the Novgorod mound as similar to "regal kurgans of Yngling kings" (i.e. the kurgans at Old Uppsala). First a picky comment: in what way similar to the Uppsala kurgans? Why similar to the Uppsala kurgans and not just any big kurgan? Recall that the Uppsala kurgans are from the 5th and 6th centuries and thus are not contemporary with the 9th century Novgorod kurgan.

A more serious issue is that the article should be more careful when referring to Yngling kings. The existence of the Yngling kings are by modern mainstream historians considered at best unprovable and at worst a nationalistic and romantic fairytale (if you don't believe me, please just go to Old Uppsala and read the information signs at the mounds). The article would be better if it represented (or at least mentioned) the present-day consensus. Anyway, the Ynglings are not relevant to this article and the passage could as well be removed.

Thanks for having explained that, I restore your edits immediately. --Ghirla 15:30, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

In a similar vein, the article states as follows: "likened by the chronicler to Gotlanders (Goths)". Did the chronicler refer to Gotlanders, Goths, or both? While there may possibly be an ancient connection between Gotlanders and Goths, this is based on speculation and shouldn't be stated as a fact in this (unrelated) article. Anyway, this tenuous connection can hardly have been relevant in the time of Rurik, more than half a millenium after the supposed emigration.--Kallerdis 10:55, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

You should address these concerns to User:Wiglaf, who pushed his favourite notions of identification between Goths and Gotlanders into many Wiki articles. See Geat, for instance. --Ghirla 15:30, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

I don't think it is very courageous of Ghirla to refer to a defunct user. It seems much more sensible if Ghirla checked if its Goths or Gotlanders in the Primary Chronicle instead. Why do you hate Wiglaf so much? He appears to have been a respected administrator, which you are not in spite of your considerable time on Misplaced Pages.Isse

Note. Kallerdis voices the opinions of the so-called "hypercritical school" in Scandinavian history, with proponents such as Krag.Isse