Talk:Consolidation of Sweden

Untitled

If you click on the link to the swedish language wikipedia you'll come to: "Sverige under Kalmarunionen", but that article is about the period from the end of the 14:th century to the beginning of 16:th. Shouldn't this article be directed to a more appropriate entry in the swedish wiki, and if such an article couldn't be found, shouldn't the link to the swedish wikipeda be entirely deleted? /15.09, 2005 Sept 16 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.238.5.7 (talk) 13:10, 16 September 2005 (UTC)

Explain "ill-ruler"!

Syd1435 09:34, 2004 Dec 4 (UTC)

I don't understand it myself, and I agree that it's not Neutral, so I've tagged it NPOV for it to be reviewed. Bo-Lingua — Preceding undated comment added 16:27, 21 March 2005 (UTC)

I have renamed this article "consolidation of Sweden" because the idea that Sweden was "unified" at a certain time is inherently POV and will probably always be a matter of dispute.--Wiglaf 19:25, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)

If you ask me Sweden existed as some kind of lose federation in the late 10th century. Olof Skötkonung was at least formally king of both Svealand and Götaland. (How much power he had outside the province where he was is an other issue.) During the following 3 – 4 centuries Sweden gradually grow together to form an unitary state. Consequently, it is very hard to say a definite year when the kingdom was “unified”.

2007-02-21 Lena Synnerholm, Märsta, Sweden. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.208.93.34 (talk) 18:29, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

A while ago, I moved a substantial section to Early Swedish History, because I don't think this problematic article should represent so much of Swedish history as it previously did.--Wiglaf 30 June 2005 22:16 (UTC)

Åboland missing from map

I posted this on the image talk page Image talk:Scandinavia-12th century.png

This image gives a false view of the distribution on the Swedish speaking populations. On of the largest consentrations of Finland-Swedes is in Åboland, the archipelago connecting Åland to mainland Finland. The base map only shows a large gapping sea, where there are in fact are closely linked communities of Swedish speaking farmers and fishermen.

Few of the islands are more then one kilometres from their neighbours. In preindustrial times the archipelago has the main traffic route between Finland and Sweden. Now the island communities are connected by the Archipelago Ring Road. In the 12th century this was one of the most densely populated parts of Finland. These people most likely spoke Swedish. -- Petri Krohn 01:29, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

Consolidation of Denmark

This article states that there is no date for Sweden, but there is for Norway and Denmark. I'd like to know those dates. Cause even the article for Denmark states that the Consolidation of Denmark is prehistoric. --[Svippong - Talk] 15:54, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

I think Harald Bluetooth consolidated Denmark, as he wrote so himself in public on the Jelling stones. Also, a system of Viking ring fortress was built in Denmark during his reign. /Pieter Kuiper 15:59, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Debate on sources

User:Fred J submitted this page to the Wikipedia:WikiProject League of Copyeditors. The debate over sources that followed its completion requires a separate section on the talk page. --Kenneth M Burke 13:42, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Your efforts are appreciated, but this article is a bit of a problem. Nothing is known about petty kingdoms in Sweden. Still, some people have strong opinions. /Pieter Kuiper 16:50, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Yes, some people have so strong opinions that they manage to get themselves blocked for edit-warring on the subject. If you believe that "nothing is known about petty kingdoms in Sweden", I suggest books by the archaeologist Mats G. Larsson (e.g. Götarnas riken, 2002).--Berig 20:00, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

That book by Larsson has had exceedingly negative reviews by historians. Some archelogists find a petty king in every other grave with a sword in it. /Pieter Kuiper 20:50, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Please, provide links or references to these "exceedingly negative reviews". They sound interesting.--Berig 10:32, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Historisk tidskrift had a review of Göternas riken (page 140-142) by Lars Hermanson. (In Swedish). /Pieter Kuiper 12:24, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

It does not sound very critical. Lars Hermanson merely says that he prefers a different approach where the commonality and the networking of medieval aristocracy is the centre of attention rather than tribal warfare.--Berig 13:36, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

In the introduction Hermanson is ironic about Larsson's "trained eye" of an archeologist. Futher on he says that Larsson gives a rehash of Birger Nerman's nationalistic way of writing history. Hermanson says that Larsson reminds of history writing in terms of Herrenvolk that spread culture by conquest. He says that Larsson emphasizes cultural differences between the Svea-people and the Göta-people, and that he tends to interpret everything in terms of conflict. He states that Larsson's methods do not differ much from that of Västgötaskolan, that he seems to respond to it by constructing (or restoring) an equally chauvinistic Svea-school.

Hermanson's review, published in a scholarly journal, suggests that Larsson is hopelessly old-fashioned, stuck in a 1930's semi-fascist way of thinking. /Pieter Kuiper 14:03, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

He does not express himself in as harsh words as you do (rehash, chauvinistic, etc.), but it is true that Lars Hermanson seems to position himself in a different ideological camp from Larsson. Since Iron Age northern Europe hardly was a permanent haven of "peace and harmony", I do not see the problem in Mats Larsson writing about tribal warfare, which should have taken place occasionally.--Berig 14:10, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

But historians do, Berig. For what it is worth, rehash is hardly harsher than "dammat av", neither is chauvinistic any more damning than what Hermanson alludes to when he writes words like "Storsvitjod" and "herrefolk". Mats G. Larsson represents right wing provincialism and not what main stream historians are saying. It is as simple as that.

mvh, Marcus — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.224.199.253 (talk) 17:07, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

https://www.eupedia.com/europe/Haplogroup_I1_Y-DNA.shtml Scandinavian invasion of Great Britain and Rome can still be seen in the genes. The goths probably had 45 ish percent Scandinavian genes before the conquered Rome and mixed with the local population. Which can bee seen Haplogroup I1 (Y-DNA) spread. Clearly if the goths had been from the Germanic south the frequency would probably be lower due to genetic mixing and the gene getting spread out. Rather the strong presence around Rome suggest North Germanic/Scandinavian origins for the Goths. I love that modern Swedish historians refuse the fact that Goths were originally from Scandinavia when even the DNA points to that conclusion. Why is it so important to disprove the obviously Scandinavian origins of the Goths? It is because many Swedish historians have a political agenda to disregard all sources. Lets ignore the fact that Norway united with war. Somehow the unification went peaceful in Seden — Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.227.81.54 (talk) 09:03, 18 April 2021 (UTC)

Genetics provides evidence of strong Scandinavian ancestry in modern Romans. This shows that a population with strong Scandinavian genes invaded with a high percentage of DNA from Norway, Sweden and Denmark or similar. It is Nazism to suggest that the East Germanic people that lived in Southern Scandinavia go either assimilated by conquest. Or moved to the Roman empire. War was very common among Germanic peoples. They even sacrificed human beings to the gods. Ibn Fadlan reports in his only eye witness account. Romans also describes East Germanic peoples in Eastern Scandinavia. DNA evidence and a strong presence of Scandinavian DNA in Rome suggest that a group with Scandinavian DNA came and took over Rome. According to genetic analysis the idea of goths originating in Scandinavia is true. But of course modern day Swedish historians will disregard DNA analysis that supports the thesis of Goths originating in Scandinavia. Gothia was the Roman name for Geatland. https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-019-43183-w — Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.227.81.54 (talk) 18:51, 17 April 2021 (UTC)

Svithiod

While an article on this subject definitely could and should include a discussion of the term Svithiod, what it should not have is a long paragraph that identifies it with the modern concept of Sweden (it is etymologically equivalent of the modern English "Sweden", but that's another matter). "Svithiod" means "land of the Swedes", but its extent vary between sources (see Nationalencyklopedin). It has even been argued that one of the signs that modern Sweden was born was when "Svitjod" was replaced by "Sverige". Thus, the fact that it appears as distinct from areas in modern Götaland doesn't have to mean anything.

The removed paragraph also suffered from other problems - Swedish sources from 9th-11th century? Really? I'm sure historians would love to hear what those would be.

Andejons (talk) 13:35, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

"scholars differ in characterizing early Sweden as a country, state or kingdom by definition"

Isn't any kingdom a state, and any state a country? СЛУЖБА (talk) 02:21, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

First king of Sweden

Allow me to clarify the issue of who's the first known king of Sweden. Eric the Victorious is the first reasonably historically documented person who was king of some part of modern Sweden. Specifically, he was king of Svealand, the part where the Svear tribe lived. However, modern Sweden is unthinkable without the adjacent Götaland area, and Eric was never king there. His son Olof Skötkonung is the first historically attested person who achieved rulership of both Svealand and Götaland. As Andejons has been pointing out. Martin Rundkvist (talk) 20:13, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

I was under the impression that we don't really know what, if any, sway Eric had in Götaland, but otherwise I agree.

Andejons (talk) 20:47, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

Your impression is the correct one. We do not know, and there is not one reliable source that gives us anything definite to cite. Eric, today, is universally usually considered the first king of Sweden, for better or for worse, that's a fact. Once, popularly/politically, it was Gustav Vasa, then Birger Jarl's sons, today Eric. Let's not confuse readers with too much conjecture, proclaimed as facts, on Swealand and Gothenland - please! --SergeWoodzing (talk) 04:52, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

No Serge, Eric is not universally considered the first king of Sweden. Lars Gahrn, for instance, doesn't think so. Martin Rundkvist (talk) 14:40, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

I have no idea who Lars Gahm is and find nothing on him here or or svWP. In any case, Eric is usually (changed my entry above; "universally" not many people care or cover the subject at all) considered the first king of Sweden, and changing that (to suit your own POV) to of the Swedes isn't going to provide less confusion, and more clarity, which is what we need. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 02:41, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

Also, when writing Wikipedia text, try to avoid using words like "reasonably" when they do not coincide with cited sources. Reflecting our own personal POV with that kind of judgemental wording really isn't what we're here for. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 02:47, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

Serge, your opinions here would be fully relevant if we were discussing an overview of the history of Sweden. We're not. We are discussing a specific argument made by some historians, one that claims that "Sweden" was formed when Svear and Götar were united in one kingdom. In this context, Olof is important because it is during his reign we can say for sure that Götar and Svear had a common king. Eric is mostly irrelevant when discussing this particular aspect of history, because there is nothing explicit in the sources about how big his realm was. If he must be mentioned in this context, it is better to call him "Swedish king" than "King of Sweden", because the argument claims that "Sweden" possibly did not even exist during his reign.

Andejons (talk) 08:13, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

Your latest edit is fine. Eric does not need to be mentioned, especially not tendentiously. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 04:40, 15 January 2016 (UTC)