Talk:Gorm the Old

Dates?
So: did he reign c. 900 - c. 940, or 934-58? Both are quoted multiple times in the article, but they can't both be right! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.10.100.97 (talk) 21:21, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Cleanup? Citations?
This article makes a lot of unsourced claims, some of them expressing opinions about King Gorm's rule and character.

It would be a big help to readers and other editors to source as many of these claims as possible--we shouldn't make claims about Gorm's personality directly, but should instead credit them to reasonably authoritative sources. Emk 13:33, 14 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Then you should add {unsourced} template rather than {cleanup}, which is somewhat misleading. -- Ghirla -трёп-  17:55, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

OK, since this article is actively watched, I'll just point stuff out here. Here are four relatively uncontroversial assertions which should nonetheless be cited under Verifiability:


 * Gorm was born in the late 800s, and died in 958 according to dendrochronological studies of the wood in his burial chamber.
 * earlier historians often confused him with his father who supposedly withstood the coming of Christianity for as long as he lived.
 * Claims that he took it by force, or that he only ruled part of the peninsula of Jutland are almost certainly erroneous…
 * Gorm's great-great-grandson king Sweyn Estridsson referred to both Gorm and his father as kings of (all of) Denmark, not just parts of the country.

In particular, the dendrochronological stuff is just plain cool, and definitely worth referencing.

Two other bits are more problematic, IMO, which I why I used the "cleanup" template. These are outright expressions of opinion, which NPOV generally requires to be sourced:


 * Often maligned as a cruel old dotard and a staunch heathen,
 * Gorm was neither old nor unwise; when correctly interpreted, early sources point to him as being open-minded and pragmatic

I'm going to add an {unsourced} template, per your recommendation. I'd fix these issues myself, but without references, I'm at a bit of a loss. :-( Thank you! emk 18:37, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

While I'm sure he wasn't old all of his life, I am equally sure that if he was born in the 800s and died in 958 he was at least 59, and thus old. Highlandlord 05:15, 27 October 2006 (UTC) Many genealogies insert another generation and list him as Gorm Frothasson son of Frotho (Frodo) Knudsson one of the disputed Kings of DENMARK and grandson of Knud I (Canute) "Hardeknut" King of DENMARK. A representative sample: http://wc.rootsweb.com/cgi-bin/igm.cgi?op=GET&db=lorenfamily&id=I02249 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.170.88.97 (talk) 02:44, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

It is certainly worth noting that the issue of Gorm's ancestry is widely debated and far from resolved. Many believe that Hardecnute Vurm is a single individual (ie, Gorm "Hard Knott") and not father and son. An excellent reference in this regard is The Foundation for Medieval Genealogy and the page concerning DENMARK, Kings:

http://fmg.ac/Projects/MedLands/DENMARK.htm#_Toc147312862

DeBailleul (talk) 00:43, 4 January 2008 (UTC)deBailleul I've added a section about Queen Thyra. I also added a section about the nicknames that might help. I also think the wording "ascended to the throne" needs explanation. Danish kings were elected at the regional assemblies (landsting). No one could just inherit without being supported by the majority of those at each of the assemblies. After reading the discussion I hesitate to add anything...Giljuna (talk) 21:42, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Lead
The lead fails to actually state why the subject is notable. Just states his nicknames, how nicknames were common, how long he lived etc.. Please fix. -- Anonymous Dissident  Talk 06:18, 23 April 2008 (UTC) England is a powerful country —Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.159.45.78 (talk) 11:53, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Gorm the Old and East-Anglia
It has been written that Gorm was the same name as Guthrum. I wonder if one has ever made a connection between the fall of the danish kingdom of East-Anglia in 916/917 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kings_of_East_Anglia) and the arrival of Gorm and his family in Denmark at the very same period. Gorm may have been a nephew or a grandson of Guthrum II the last danish king of East-Anglia. But all these ideas are just *ideas* and that's why they are submitted here in the discussion area... for discussion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.68.236.71 (talk) 22:45, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

First confirmed king of Denmark
How is he the first confirmed king of Denmark if Sigtrygg Gnupasson existent is proven by the Sigtrygg Runestones?--Queen Elizabeth II&#39;s Little Spy (talk) 06:10, 12 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Both the runestones and Adam of Bremen indicate that Denmark had multiple kings before Gorm's time. While Harald Bluetooth is recognized as the first king to rule over a region comparable to modern Denmark, Gorm is the first confirmed Danish king with no known contemporaries. 130.225.235.65 (talk) 20:05, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Gorm the Old. 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/20150706134401/http://kongehuset.dk/english/the-monarchy-in-denmark/The-Royal-Lineage/the-royal-lineage to http://kongehuset.dk/english/the-monarchy-in-denmark/The-Royal-Lineage/the-royal-lineage

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) 12:40, 21 October 2017 (UTC)

Irish
Gorm is Irish for blue. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:8084:2163:2300:193D:3E91:C30C:53CF (talk) 01:22, 14 April 2018 (UTC)

In support of swearing
Hi, regarding the Huitfeldt quote on Knud's death, wouldn't it be sensible to explain which oath the king had sworn? Now the reader is left dangling. T88.89.217.90 (talk) 06:58, 11 July 2018 (UTC)


 * The better question regards why we are even quoting a fable from 650 years after the fact. It's not like we quote Holinshed's Chronicles in our article on the historical king Macbeth. Agricolae (talk) 07:14, 11 July 2018 (UTC)


 * Aiming for external correspondence is such a lofty goal. I'm merely calling for things to be a little more internally consistent. T88.89.217.90 (talk) 08:17, 11 July 2018 (UTC)


 * It has nothing to do with external correspondence, which is not a lofty goal anyhow seeing as two pages can correspond very nicely by both sucking in the same manner. We want to emulate the approach on the other page that does not feature the 16th century fables of pseudo-historians, not because it will make the two more similar, but because it will make this page less bad.  When the true problem is that the 'imaginative tales' have no business being in our biographical account, the solution is not to add even more detail on these 16th century myths to help clarify material that shouldn't be there to begin with.  Agricolae (talk) 15:44, 11 July 2018 (UTC)


 * I have no dog in this race, and I'm no historian. Mine was the contribtor of an editor/spellchecker.
 * You say quoting Huitfeldt is a bad thing; I say it was even badly done.
 * Out of curiosity, though ... there go Herodotus, Plutarch, Livy, Suetonius out with the bathwater, no?
 * Given that non-pseudo-historical theory wasn't really invented yet, they were all ... compilers of sundry, rather; but our litterary heritage would be a lot poorer for not having them. I'm a layman, and freely admit: it's the tall tales that attracted me to reading history in the first place. More so than potshards and crop stattistics; which are, of course, more the real history. But they're not really ... the story.
 * 's not to pick a fight, just musings eines lesenden Arbeiters. T 88.89.217.90 (talk) 19:13, 11 July 2018 (UTC)


 * A historical article does not need to be stripped of these legends, as they indicate how a person was viewed over time, but they should not be presented in an interwoven fashion, as history. This is a 21st century encyclopedia, not a 16th century one, and the fields of historical analysis have progressed to the point that we can look a at the 16th century accounts and determine which parts are safe to use, as likely representations of authentic history, and what ones are just mythology.  In some cases, legend is all we have, but then we want to present it as legend, probably in a different section, but a work from the 16th century would not be considered a reliable source for authentic history since as you rightly point out, all history from that time was what would today be called 'pseudo-history'.  Hence we should not be using it as a source to document Gorm's life.  If we have a modern reliable source that goes through Huitfeldt's description of Gorm and draws conclusions about what parts are historical, then it is fully legitimate for us to likewise make reference to these parts of Huitfeldt's description, but only in the context of what the modern source says about it, not as a stand-alone source. Agricolae (talk) 19:32, 11 July 2018 (UTC)


 * FWIW, I fully agree. T 88.89.217.90 (talk) 00:11, 12 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Have a look at the new version :) T 88.89.217.90 (talk) 00:15, 12 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Which, sadly, still doesn't explain the oath ... T 88.89.217.90 (talk) 00:16, 12 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Any talk page should contain more info than the article, and so: Gorm loved his son so much that at his son's 15th birthday, king Gorm swore that anyone who told him that his son was dead should lose his life. When the son died, no one dared to report it. Myth would have it that being coached to say it out loud himself, he thereby condemned himself to death, which is why he died so soon thereafter. T 84.208.86.134 (talk) 06:41, 9 December 2021 (UTC)