Talk:Christian II of Denmark

Untitled
Original text from 1911 EB - please update

I broke this up into paragraphs and made some links to various European royalty, etc, but someone should check. Article could use some further organization, probably someone who knows more could update it from the 1911 version. Ortolan88

C. the Good
There is a rumour in Sweden that he was in Denmark known as Christian the Good. The rumour is not true. I have reverted the insertion of it once, and it is the only reason I have to have the page on my watchlist. For an explaination of the rumour look at the page on swedish wikipedia sv:Kristian II or sepearate article sv:Kristian den gode. If anyone can find a place to add this piece of info to this article, please do so; I don't know where it would fit, as a Swedish rumour is not so intresting on English wikipedia. --Fred-Chess July 1, 2005 06:22 (UTC)


 * Right. That's a rather common myth in Sweden. Although it's kind of hard to see how anyone knowing something of Christian could believe it; He was after all dethroned and imprisoned. Hardly a common fate for a 'good' king. Swedish historian Alf Henrikson pointed out another thing which is perhaps noteworthy in this context: Christian himself probably wouldn't have minded being called a 'tyrant' at all, since that word had quite different connotations to an early 16th century ruler. It's known that he had read Machiavelli's The Prince and wanted it translated. (Henrikson doesn't say if that wish was carried out though). --BluePlatypus 16:16, 26 October 2005 (UTC)


 * The article on The Prince states that the work wasn't publicised before 1532. Since Christian was deposed already in 1523 and imprisoned in 1532, he wouldn't have been able to order anybody to do anything at all, unless somebody had been so kind to provide him with an advance copy between 1513 and 1532. :) Valentinian T / C 10:07, 29 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Fra da:wiki: I skånsk-dansk historie omtaltes han med tilnavnet den Gode eller Bondekjær, al den stund han holdt med "småkårsfolkene" mod den mægtige adel og rigsrådet. --Comanche cph 20:04, 28 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Do you have any aspirations in contributing encyclopedic and accurate contents? The Danish article says Det er dog en myte, at han i skånsk/dansk historie omtales med tilnavnet den Gode eller Bondekjær, fordi han holdt med "småkårsfolkene" mod den mægtige adel og rigsrådet. I landflygtigheden beskrev kongen sig selv som Christian den Gode i et forsøg på at vinde tilhængere, og det har forledt nogen til at tro, at det også var et reelt anvendt tilnavn.
 * Fred-Chess 20:12, 28 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Just for the record; neither Store Danske Encyklopædi or Salmonsens Konversationsleksikon even mentions this alleged byname. Valentinian T / C 09:32, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

I think that we atleast have to add his swedish nickname "Christian the Tyrant" in the beginning of the article cause that is what people in general are saying when they mention his name in Sweden(compare with Ivan the Terrible) and after all the swedish. Christian is a rather unknown king in Europe outside Scandinavia, but I would say that he is the most famous historic regent (perhaps with the exception of the Union Queen Margaret) for the common people in Sweden, much more than Christian 4, for an example. In the end Sweden with Finland was approximately half part of his kingdom and therefor it feels natural to do so.

Ok, I can agree with you that it make some sense, I just wanted it to have a little bit more nordic touch:) But another thing more important, that I think schould be mentioned, is the hostage of six swedish nobelmen(Gustav Vasa included) that Christian was taking in 1518 without fulfilling his promise to negotiate about peace. The reason I want this in the text is because it gives more information why he later in Sweden was regarded as notorious deceiver. The promise that he would forget earlier hostilities with the swedish and after that promise ordering Stockholm Bloodbath under the lame excuse that he did not have to keep promises to heretics is another example. I know that this is page about Christian, I just thought that this event was important to understand why Christian lost the throne in Sweden to a rather obscure swedish nobelman. And after all it seems we have two ways of looking at him in Sweden and Denmark, were the danish emphasize what he did for Denmark and the swedish what he did against Sweden, so its just good for the objectivity and understanding if both sides are reflected in the article also because Christian is the most wellknown danish King in swedish history eduction. Awakened82 (talk) 17:17, 28 February 2009 (UTC)


 * No need for it to appear in the intro as it is already mentioned in the article in the section called "The Stockholm Bloodbath". --Saddhiyama (talk) 12:20, 28 February 2009 (UTC)


 * (reply to the addition to talks post): You are welcome to add details about his actions in the article, but remember it is important that sources are cited. Especially as it seems your interest in the subject is the historical reception and the historiography concerning Christian II, which can very well end up with POV or original research if not properly sourced. And by the way, as noted in the old discussion under this subject heading it seems to be an old Swedish myth that he is remembered in Denmark for "what he did for Denmark and the Swedish what he did against Sweden". As far as I know he is mainly seen as a failure by Danish historians, and I have yet to hear any Dane (except for possible extremists) having the opinion that the Stockholm Bloodbath was in anyway a positive thing. Furthermore I do not think that this article (of which I think the original core is from the Encyclopedia Britannica 1911 which still shows in some areas of the text in the colourful language "his brain teeming with great designs", the frequent use of "patriotic" etc) is particularly biased towards a positive view of him, far from it in fact, which is a good thing, as no article should be biased in any way. --Saddhiyama (talk) 18:26, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Children?
Why not mention his children and link to them? They are present in en.wikipedia! //Astor Piazzolla 09:39, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

Not verified tag (Renata of Lorraine)
I've raised the not verified tag as there is a need to clarify the relation between Renata of Lorraine and Charles XV of Sweden. In the article on the mother of the latter, Josephine of Leuchtenberg, it is claimed that she is an ancestor of Renata of Lorraine, and thereby of her great-grandfather Christian II of Denmark. See also my comment on Talk:Josephine of Leuchtenberg. I have not seen this information in any other place than these two articles and I would like this information to be verified by some external source. --Astor Piazzolla 21:09, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Verified!
''I have removed the non-verified tag. I mixed to Renatas of Lorraine. My mistake! --Astor Piazzolla 10:10, 28 June 2006 (UTC)'' (For some reason, this post was deleted, I've put it back.) --Astor Piazzolla 12:44, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

POV
''As viceroy of Norway (1506 – 1512) he had already displayed a singular capacity for ruling under exceptionally difficult circumstances. Patriotism, insight, courage, statesmanship, energy -- these great qualities were indisputably his; but unfortunately they were vitiated by obstinacy, suspicion and a sulky craftiness, beneath which simmered a very volcano of vengeful cruelty.''

very culcano of cruelty is hardly NPOV. Could you please provide sources to verify this claim or is this simply another example of original research by Swedish nationalists who think Wikipedia is a propaganda tool in a 500 year old dispute. It's 500 years ago people! Let's get over it! MartinDK 10:08, 8 November 2006 (UTC)


 * I can't see how that paragraph could end up both sourced and NPOV, so I've removed it and toned down the sentence about his administration in Norway. (What are the sources that his administration in Norway was any brilliant?) It is bad historical practice to attempt a psychological analysis on dead persons unless the sources surviving are absolutely excellent. I haven't heard this to be the case with Christian II. I'd also like to see well-sourced references that Christian's rule was exceptional in a European context. Killing off 80 people you don't trust is drastic, yes, but application of massive force is not unique in European history. E.g., Italian history contains pretty brutal episodes. I also noted the discrepancy between this paragraph and the articles about certain Swedish kings that treated Scania very harshly. Let's stick to well-sourced and NPOV material and apply the same standard for both Danes and Swedes. Valentinian (talk) / (contribs) 11:27, 8 November 2006 (UTC)


 * I have added an attempt at a more neutral introduction. It is mostly based on the Great Danish Encyclopedia. The Norwegian Wikipedia article also looks pretty interesting. Valentinian (talk) / (contribs) 12:04, 8 November 2006 (UTC)


 * In this context, I tried to write an article on Christians admiral de:Søren Norby in the German Wikipedia, and found that both, the Danish as well as the Swedish article - unsourced - as they are, were not of great help. I didn't find really good English or German sources on the topic.--Kresspahl 15:27, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Title in infobox
Shouldn't his whole title be included in the infobox? I mean the title used in official documents: "Christiern med Gudz Naade, Danmarckis, Suerrigis, Norrigis, Vendis, och Gottis Koninng, Hertug i Slesuig, Holsten, Staarmaaren, och Dyttmersken, Greffue vdj Oldenborg, och Delmenhorst" (Christian by the grace of God, king of Denmark, Sweden, Norway, the Vends and the Goths, Duke of Schleswig, Holstein, Stormarn and Dithmarschen, Count of Oldenburg and Delmenhorst). The question also applies for all the other monarchs as well of course: Is the intention of the "title" in the infobox to give the full formal title they used, or just a bland listing of the realms they were monarch of? I would prefer the former.--Barend 16:34, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

NPOV
I have removed the worst Dane bashing from the article but it still needs sources and substantial rewriting before it represents a decent article. Large parts of the article is written as if it was copied from a narrative history book and has no sources despite making some pretty substantial claims. It's been 500 years... isn't it time to bury the hatchet and work together? EconomicsGuy (talk) 08:36, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Heh, these nationalist swedes won't ever forget what Christian did, its a black mark on their feeble and vain national pride. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.165.156.236 (talk) 15:21, 8 September 2008 (UTC)


 * The man has gone down in history of course, but I wouldn't say most Swedes today are this vengeful about the age-old conflicts with Denmark. To me it reads like something out of an early 20th century schoolbook (some edition of Odhner's "The History of our Fatherland" for instance, a title that incidentally was given many decades before the word'fatherland' became vitiated by Nazi associations).

There are more balanced assessments of Christian and the strain he was under as a king from modern Swedish historians; the danish nobles opposed him too, as well as the german Hansa. Gustav Vasa, who won out and whose father was beheaded at the Stockholm bloodbath, could certainly be just as Machiavellian as Christian II. Vilhelm Moberg, one of the greatest and most loved writers of modern Sweden, and an unabashed king-basher, once wrote a book on medieval history which included two chapters titled "Tyrant 1: Christian II" and "Tyrant 2: Gustav I" - I'll take a look at this article and try to recast and source it from sensible Swedish, Danish and English-speaking writers. (I'm fluent in both Swedish and Danish and know my way around serious historical research) Strausszek 26 November 2008, 21:56 (CET)


 * OK, I edited the biography section of the article for POV, and more work is required. See my edit notes in the history; I did lots of chopping for things I couldn't fix. I don't know enough to fix this article without substantial research, and the writing is too heavily influenced by POV for a simple fix. There seem to be lots of awkward constructions, too, like "the delegates could not be prevailed upon." What does that mean? Try to write at a fifth-grade level. Clarity could use some work in this article. --Jp07 (talk) 07:15, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

Christian II and Machiavelli
Regarding the discussion above about Christian wanting a translation of The Prince. I have found a passage in Frederik Schiern Historiske Studier, volume 2 (1857) p. 4 that kind of supports the claim (the essay is found on Danish wikisource here). Apparently the theory was started by the Danish church historian Christen Olivarius (1710-45) in his work De vita et scriptis Pauli Eliæ Carmelitæ (1741) p. 48, 159 which is a biography of Poul Helgesen. Helgesen was the person Christian II wanted to translate the book. Olivarius' work is based on Helgesens written works and it is from this work that the mention of a book being sent to Helgesen by Christian II with an order to translate it comes from. It is not mentioned which book but Helgesen refused to translate the book on account of "she teaches more to sin than to improve and denounce". Unfortunately Schiern does not mention if it is Olivarius that proposes the book to be The Prince or if it is Schiern himself, but Schiern at least mentions this theory. The Prince was written in 1514 and was circulating in royal circles in manuscript long before it was printed. Of course there are several problems with this in regard to wikipedia, most importantly that it is only some (older) historians theory that the book in question was Machiavellis The Prince, and I do not know if it is a theory that is still accepted amongst contemporary historians (Alf Henrikson seems to subscribe to it). --Saddhiyama (talk) 01:05, 5 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Interesting. Alf Åberg, a well-known Swedish historian, called the Stockholm Bloodbath "a typical renaissance drama" (in Vår svenska historia, 1978) and it certainly feels more italian than reminiscent of earlier party fighting in Scandinavia. Michael Roberts, an English historian who specialized in Scandinavia, points out hat it must have seemed shockingly unusual because of the severity and bluntness of the vengeance. So Christian could have found inspiration in Machiavelli - but is there any indication that the king knew Italian? Whichever the book, it was not translated, so he wouldn't be able to read it unless he could read Italian anyway.Strausszek 6 December 2008, 05:20 (CET)

Encyclopedias!!
(Imagine a sharp tone of irritation and disgust directed towards "professional" encyclopedias) The origin of this POVvy and a weird article seems to be Encyclopædia Britannica 11ed/1911, and aside from having a pathological amateurish attitude worse than peacock wordings, it makes me giggle for the fool formulations. About his mistress mom Sigbrit Willoms:
 * Dyveke's mother Sigbrit, a born administrator and a commercial genius of the first order 

(Hihihihi! So geniuses have orders! Sure!)
 * She soon became the soul of a middle-class inner council

(Hehehehe! They lacked a soul, and she was incorporeal! Sure!)

And C2 had a heritage from Sverker, Eric and all Swedish kings, while Gustav I Wasa had only one line, in the section Reconquest of Sweden. How much do we care?

Other samples: Never had King Christian seemed so powerful as upon[Citation needed!], Unfortunately these reforms, excellent in themselves, suggested [Says who?]. In a way the article is quite hilarious! Rursus dixit. ( m bork3 !) 07:45, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Nonsential discourse
The poor 1911 anonymous author (may he/she forever be anonymous for this deed) didn't succeed to reflect the real history very well: the alleged Swedish competitor at the Reconquest of Sweden, Gustav Vasa was a sole internal Swedish refugee belonging to the Sture party at the time of reconquest. It is generally believed that he had no intention of becoming a king at that time, and so he was not a competing candidate for kingship, at that specific historical event. However, when the reconquest resulted in a general uprising, led by Gustav Vasa, some among Gustavs adherents/financers forced(?)/convinced(?) him to be a candidate for the Swedish throne. The article text is confusing about these details, listing heritage lines instead of political considerations, attending to irrelevant details instead of presenting a clear chain of events.

Similarly the downfall section attends to a lot of details of "laudable" reasons of "evil" this-or-that for C2 acting this-and-that way, but suddenly, in one very short paragraph, he is deposed! The reason is that despite his general heroism and laudability, surrounded by first order incorporeal geniuses, he had alienated each and every power around him!!?? The writing style is really confusing because of the nonsential discourse that ascribes him this and that glorious purpose. The text s*ckxs! Rursus dixit. ( m bork3 !) 08:12, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Weird sentence in section "Downfall"
"Unfortunately these reforms, excellent in themselves, suggested the standpoint not of an elected ruler, but of a monarch by divine right"

While i of course agree that slavery and is wrong and while i agree that "divine right" doesn't hold any weight, the "unfortunately these reforms, excellent in themselves"-part seem a tad bit strong, but i'm not well versed in this particular person of history, so maybe it is just me. Swedra (talk) 18:21, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Christian II of Denmark. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070211034546/http://www.ambstockholm.um.dk/da/menu/OmSverige/Historie/ to http://www.ambstockholm.um.dk/da/menu/OmSverige/Historie/

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

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 07:56, 6 August 2017 (UTC)

Background - the note about sources on the article can be deleted
I think the note about sources on the article can be deleted. Perhaps it can be noted that older descriptions of history had other starting points, mainly the winners' political propaganda activities at the time of the deeds and what suits the successors.

Frankly, without this background description, the article completely lacks logic and then becomes very difficult to understand (money made the political turns possible). The Swedish War of Liberation, the Count's Feud and the Reformation will be very difficult to understand otherwise.

The source for Margareta Skantze is enough. It is a summary of a modern generally accepted view in university research in Sweden as a reaction to a previously older strongly politically described development largely based on the victorious kings of the time (Gustav Vasa and Christian III) who have a bit character of a saga.

Margareta Skantze's description is the one that constitutes descriptions in the history of Swedish Radio Science, where for instance professor Dick Harrison describes Stockholm bloodbath from this point of view. Where, for example, everything is carefully planned in advance and not a result of Didrik Slagheck's improvisations, but not least the fight for the money. Corresponding actions but on a much smaller scale also took place earlier in Norway.

The perception is now that power and money drive history and a long accepted view is the downfall of the Hanseatic League after the Count's Feud, but here Jacob Fugger, the pope's and emperor's part, highlights, not least the money, a lot of money, the reason why Christian II took his wife. What distinguishes the period is the enormous influx of resources, mercenaries (Christian II rises) and the enormous fluctuation of resources (Christian II fall) through Fuggers and the Hansa's funding initiatives. But also the pope's lack of adaptation in the changed situation as the direct reason why northern Europe became Lutheran through 15 years of interdict. We are talking about a package view of a process that ends with Count's Feud, and starts a new era.

This changed view suddenly makes Christian II's regime, Gustav Vasa's elevation to king, Christian III's successes and the Reformation in Sweden/Reformation in Denmark completely logical. The old version is logical as a fairy tale.

--Zzalpha (talk) 15:27, 24 May 2022 (UTC)

Move discussion in progress
There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Christian I of Denmark which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 21:16, 26 November 2023 (UTC)