Talk:Ingjald

Untitled
"Ingjaldr inn illráði or Ingjald illråde ("ill-ruler")" is the header. However, my interpretation is that illråde means "ill advised".

Can anyone check this out?


 * Ráða could mean both "advise", "decide" and to "rule". The last meaning fits him best.--Wiglaf 21:05, 30 May 2005 (UTC)


 * The first thing that came to mind when I saw this was King Ethelred II of England, who was called "the Unready" ("unræd"). Could Ingjald's title mean "without council," too? --Jävligsvengelska 2 July 2005 22:00 (UTC)


 * "Unready" is not a good translation of unræd, and not even "without council". The meaning of the English word has changed too much. In fact, unræd corresponds perfectly to Swedish orådig, i.e. "indecisive". Concerning Illráði, ill means rather "bad" or "wicked".--Wiglaf 2 July 2005 22:09 (UTC)


 * Ah, thanks for clearing that up. I'd been wondering about that ill/dålig distinction. --Jävligsvengelska 2 July 2005 22:22 (UTC)

Unified Sweden?
The article currently has a sentence which says: "Ingjald has often been seen as the one who unified Sweden." This seems rather strange unless Sweden has a non-standard meaning here. Angus McLellan (Talk) 19:27, 28 August 2007 (UTC)


 * The article is dependent on a book by Birger Nerman from 1925. Chapter IX, 7th and 8th century, 50 pages with illusions of historical grandeur. I cannot bear to read the elaborate constructions. Also a century ago this went against historical scholarship. However, there still are some people who propagate this stuff via wikipedia. And as it is much harder here to delete nonsense than to write, there is a continuous accretion of imaginary history here. Nationalencyklopedin says that his historical existence is very doubtfull. Snorri tells us that he burnt the other petty kings to death at the funeral of his father, and that he became the ruler over Mälardalen. /Pieter Kuiper 20:52, 28 August 2007 (UTC)


 * I don't think that was what Angus asked about. The reason Ingjald is seen to have unified Sweden through his murderous acts is probably that he brought the small kingdoms together in their loss of their leaders. After that they all thought it was a good idea to cooperate under one king, but obviousley not that one. So they accepted Ivar Vidfamne from Skane instead, as he too was an heir of the old royal dynasty. /Leos Friend 22:12, 28 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Here is a funny image, from a monument at Vendel erected in 1937: Vendeltid - Statsbyggartid - Mannatid - "Vendel Age - Age of Nation Builders - Age of Men". /Pieter Kuiper 18:46, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Dates for legendary kings
Berig's reaction to my edits is becoming more and more predictable. I had deleted "ca 640 - ca 650" as the dates given for Ingjald's rule. This had been tagged since August as needing a reference. Berig just puts these totally speculative dates back in, without providing a source. /Pieter Kuiper 19:28, 30 November 2007 (UTC)


 * You have access to literature that contains such dates. Why don't you provide a reference yourself?--Berig 19:30, 30 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Putting dates on these characters is like putting dates on Abraham, Noah and Adam. Of course one could find a source, maybe a contemporary of Bishop Ussher. /Pieter Kuiper 19:49, 30 November 2007 (UTC)


 * One can easily find dates for the reign of Conn of the Hundred Battles. The Baile Chuinn Cétchathaigh was written five hundred-odd years after Conn's supposed floruit. That makes it more nearly contemporaneous than the Ynglingsaga is for Ingjald, and about as contemporanerous as the Historia Norwegie or the Ágrip. The only Ingjald we can write anything about is a legendary figure who appears in various works. There's no historical Ingjald, the sort of person who can have dates attached to them, that we can prise out of the stories, so we read in Jones's OUP History of the Vikings. He is completely dismissive of Ingjald and Ivar, p. 52: "...dazzle with fantasies...authors have bestowed these conquerors laurels on Ivar in precisely the same way as Geoffrey on Monmouth ascribed to our British Arthur...". And again, Arthur is as nearly Geoffrey's contemporary as Ingjald is Snorri's. Or rather, they would be, if they weren't legendary personages, whose existence is timeless. Angus McLellan  (Talk) 20:14, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
 * I disagree with your claim that legendary personages are timeless. You appear to consider legendary to be a synonym of mythological or mythical, which it is not. Events like the death of Balder or Thor's fishing trip are mythological and consequently "timeless" and I have never seen any scholar dating these events. For legendary characters it is quite different. You can see sources like the Norton Anthology of English Literature dating the feats of Beowulf to the 6th century, because he is set together with Hygelac, who is datable. King Arthur is also dated by scholars, as if he were historical, since he is set in a context which can be dated to the 5th and the 6th centuries. If scholars have given dates to these personages, there is no reason for Wikipedia to make the claim that they are "timeless", as if there were no temporal context for them. Moreover, the article already states that he was legendary, so I don't see any risks for readers to believe that he his considered to be a historically attested king of the 7th century.--Berig 22:31, 1 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Yes, but which scholars? Not Gwyn Jones I think, nor Eric Christensen ("such tales of mythical fire-eaters as the Ingjald of Ynglinga saga"), and we had the Sawyer's opinion of sagas as a source of narrative already. The National Encyclopedia snippet says "kung av Ynglingaätten, vars historiska existens är ytterst osäker". I presume that means "a king in the Ynglingsaga [whose?] historical existence is utterly uncertain". Could you provide an example of recent-ish writing that accepts Ingjald as a historical king? We're doomed to go round in circles otherwise. Angus McLellan (Talk) 01:10, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
 * I have never written that he is accepted as a historical king by any recent historians, but that is besides the point. He is a legendary king who has his position in a line of kings from several Old Norse sources. If he has received a dating relative to those kings, it is relevant and should be mentioned, so that readers can position him more easily. Moreover, this is not a history article, but an article on legendary personages, so why are you insisting on the lack of historicity aspect? Isn't that flogging a dead horse?--Berig 07:50, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Why is Berig insisting on putting unencyclopedic dates on these dead horses? /Pieter Kuiper 21:20, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Because, giving dates to legendary kings is perfectly encyclopedic and scholarly, Pieter Kuiper. The encyclopedia Nationalencyklopedin gives the estimated times of life for quite a few legendary kings starting with Egil who it declares ruled in the 6th century.--Berig 12:59, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Some kind of dating of the supposed time in which the person of the article lived, can't be wrong. Is Ingjald depicted in the sagas as living in the 1st century, or the 7th? If not stated, some readers will not have a clue. It would be as saying that we cant' set a time-frame for Robin Hood, or Ivanhoe, because we don't know if they existed. So, perhaps Robin Hood lived during the stone age? /Leos Friend 19:42, 3 December 2007 (UTC)


 * The Robin Hood of legend lives in the time of Richard I of England. We know this because the story, or at least the one everyone recognises, tells us so. That's a synchronism. Ingjald, however, is not depicted in any time. You could count generations, an average of about three-ish per century, and count back from someone whose floruit is known to a supposed contemporary of Ingjald. Or forward. Without a synchronism, what else is there? But Ingjald's world, where a Dog king ruled "Denmark" or "Norway" or both, is not our world. We can surmise that some king named or bynamed "Hound" is at the origin of those stories, and that Ingjald was probably some petty chieftain who got a name for being murderous and oppressive, but like the dates, those surmises need to be sourced. That means having sources for them and not doing the generational arithmetic on our fingers and stuffing in the answer we get, or providing our own gloss on the sagas.
 * So, does anyone have a reference that gives a floruit for Ingjald? If not, we shouldn't add one. If there is, we should. This is at the core of what we do:"'Wikipedia is an encyclopedia...[a]ll articles must follow our no original research policy and editors must strive for accuracy... . Wikipedia has a neutral point of view...[which] means citing verifiable, authoritative sources whenever possible...'."So says Five pillars. Attaching a date to a legendary figure goes beyond the acceptable obvious interpretation of a primary source like a saga. Angus McLellan (Talk) 00:57, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Angus, you appear to have missed that Svenskt biografiskt lexikon gives a date for the floruit of Ingjald, something that I added to this article with an inline reference before you wrote this comment. Attaching dates to legendary kings is both scholarly and encyclopedic something that is exemplified by the fact that Svenskt biografiskt lexikon always does so, and Nationalencyklopedin usually does so as well.--Berig 12:59, 4 December 2007 (UTC)


 * And now I am happy. Thanks for the link. Only 1000 SEK (=100 EUR) for the whole thing on CD? That's pretty reasonable. Is there a Norwegian or Danish equivalent? Angus McLellan (Talk) 13:21, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes, but the CD doesn't contain the last tome (32). You can find a Norwegian counterpart here. The Danish one hasn't been published since 1984, but you can consult a version from 1887-1905 here.--Berig 14:09, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

A possible date-setter
I think the son of Ingjald, Olof Trätälja, could serve as a date-setter for Ingjald and the nearest kings in the Ynglinga-line, and also for Ivar Vidfamne. Snorre places Olof in Värmland at the time when the landscape around the Klarälv river was first cleared. It is possible to date such events quite precise with carbon-dating, as the settlers used to burn the woods first, and then start to grow crops. There would be coal in the ground, showing when the clearings were made.

They have done this with a burnt hill-fort, and reached the period around 500-600. I can't see why they don't do it with the surrounding farming-fields too, when that would give a direct connection to the Ynglinga-saga. If the dates correspond to the approximate generation of Olof Trätälja in Ynglingasagan, Snorre would be vindicated. He couldn't have guessed that, or made it up. It would have to be based on facts. And, as I see it, provide a time-frame in which Snorre places the saga. /Leos Friend (talk) 16:09, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Funny image text!

 * Ingjald centralizing Sweden

Hillarious!!  Said: Rursus   ☻   12:01, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Ingjald. 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 http://web.archive.bibalex.org/web/20051231070651/http://www.heimskringla.no/original/heimskringla/ynglingasaga.php to http://www.heimskringla.no/original/heimskringla/ynglingasaga.php
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20061227085107/http://www.home.ix.netcom.com/~kyamazak/myth/norse/kershaw/Kershaw1s-hervor-and-heithrek.htm to http://www.home.ix.netcom.com/%7Ekyamazak/myth/norse/kershaw/Kershaw1s-hervor-and-heithrek.htm

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) 23:34, 13 November 2017 (UTC)