Talk:Kingdom of Sweden (800–1521)

[Untitled]
Todo list:

Break up section "Christianization and struggle for power" into smaller section. May need to polish up the wordings too.

Fred-J 16:00, September 3, 2005 (UTC)

Under the headline Chistianity, there is written that under Olof Skötkonung was christianity fully established in Sweden, which I doubt.

I you read furhter down in the text, you will find the sentence "both the Westgotar and the Upland Svear were discontented, the former on account of the breaking of the king’s promise to Olaf II of Norway and the latter on account of the introduction of the new religion".

Note: the new religion.

Especially in Eastern Sweden, christianity was by no means fully established in this time, and infact Olof Skötkonung not only had to rule Sweden with his brother, he was driven from East Sweden to Västergötland where he spend the rest of his life. Dan Koehl 16:31 23 Jun 2003 (UTC)

Name change
I wonder which kingdoms, this article refers to. Is it Sweden/Svealand and Götaland, or is to the small constituent petty kingdoms that are mentioned in the Norse sagas? I suggest this article be renamed early history of Sweden or be split into two articles, one called prehistory and one on medieaval history.--Wiglaf 12:33, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * I think the intro gives it as Svealand & Götaland? My own knowledge (small as it may be) is that Sweden was two countries / kingdoms and I think this is also considered "most" notable by the authors.
 * I have no problem with splitting them up if you want to do it.
 * --Fred-J 04:46, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Yet another question of English vs. the original
To all these who speak Nordic languages, what does "Hardrada" mean? Nothing at all? Either the king should be named with his original nickname (harðráði), his Norwegian nickname (Hårdråde?) or an English translation. "Hardrada" is an abomination. 130.208.193.99 17:50, 27 August 2005 (UTC)


 * His name is now linked in the text anyways. This text is about 100 years old (see bottom of article) and represents the English terms at that time. Improvements may be necessary to reflect the used terms today, but need proofs before changing. Fred-J 21:50, August 28, 2005 (UTC)

revert stuff
Ghirlandajo seems as though he does not like the term "Swedes" be used. I myself also think it is confusing to mix Svear with Svenskar. Wiglaf, is there no better translation for Svear?

Fred-J 15:56, August 30, 2005 (UTC)


 * Unfortunately there is not a better name for svear. Swedes is the conventional name for svear in English and the name you will find in most English language books on Vikings in Russia.--Wiglaf 16:11, 30 August 2005 (UTC)

"Swedish conquerors"??
The section alleging the Swedish conquest of Russia is ridiculous. The only source to mention Rurik, etc is the Primary Chronicle written some quarter a millenium later by a pro-Scandinavian scribe and using Scandinavian sagas as his source. He actually mistranslated two Norse words as the names of Rurik's brothers, Sineus and Truvor. But even this faulted source describes invitation of foreign princes in a way redolent of folklore of other Slavic tribes, e.g., Obodrites. The archaeological excavations of Ladoga and other Varangian sites unearthed boats, pottery, utensils, etc identical to those discovered at Haithabu. Historically, the early Rurikids maintained close ties with Norway rather than with Sweden, four Norwegian konungs having found refuge in Novgorod during the troubles at home. I fail to see how the alleged "Swedish conquerors" fit in here. --Ghirlandajo 11:51, 31 August 2005 (UTC)

Finally, Wiglaf obligingly cited a pertinent passage from the Primary Chronicle: ''There was no law among them, and tribe rose against tribe. Discord thus ensued among them, and they began to war one against the other. They said to themselves, "Let us seek a prince who may rule over us, and judge us according to custom. Thus they went overseas to the Varangians, to the Rus. These particular Varangians were known as Rus, just as some are called Swedes, and others Normans and Angles, and still others Gotlanders, for they were thus named.'' - It is clear from this passage that the Rus were different from the Suiones. --Ghirlandajo 11:51, 31 August 2005 (UTC)


 * I believe that you have misunderstood the purpose of Wikipedia. This is not the place to present your understanding of this history, it is called original research and it is verboten. You should state what the scholarly opinions are, and if you can quote a number of western scholars who consider the Rus to have come from Hedeby, go ahead and quote them. In the meanwhile you are only trying to impose your own speculations. FYI, suiones (the modern "swedes") was a generic name for several tribes and the use of the term varied according to context. The Roþs-byggjar (modern Rospiggar) were one of these Swedish tribes.--Wiglaf 12:27, 31 August 2005 (UTC)


 * Actually, I stick to the scant sources we have and you fill the Wiki with your personal speculations and wishful thinking. As Rurik's story is obscure, I vote for removing all mention of Kievan Rus from the article on Swedish history altogether. But you insist on promoting your POV nationslism and the fables about "Swedish conquest of Russia" at the time when there were neither Sweden, nor Russia, let alone conquest.
 * As for opinion of "Western scholars" on the subject, it is actually irrelevant, as they haven't been particularly interested or/and competent in early Russian history and they haven't excavated Varangian settlements in Russia. Of all western scholars, I'm aware of George Vernadsky only, who declared in favour of Rurik's identification with Rorik of Haithabu . Russian scholars discussing the subject are too numerous to mention, you may find all necessary references at, , , , , etc. --Ghirlandajo 12:56, 31 August 2005 (UTC)
 * At least try to be honest. You do NOT stick to the scant sources that exist, you claim that they are wrong.--Wiglaf 15:02, 31 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately Russia has a creative tradition when history is concerned, and so I think we should stick to Western sources. Moreover, Russian excavation methodology considers a Scandinavian grave to be of "uncertain origin" if a Slavic pin can be found in the grave, with the purpose of making the Scandinavian graves as few as possible. Interestingly, I know a Russian who told me that they had to add Slavic objects to Scandinavian finds when excavating in Gnezhdovo.--Wiglaf 15:02, 31 August 2005 (UTC)
 * You are also wrong in your claims of closer connections between the Rus' and Norway. A man from Kievan Rus' was even elected king of Sweden due to his dynastic connections (but not of Norway).--Wiglaf 12:30, 31 August 2005 (UTC)


 * It is also interesting to note that you consider the chroniclers to be lacking knowledge about Russian history whereas you consider them to be experts on Scandinavian ethnicities. This is an odd methodological inconsequence.--Wiglaf 12:50, 31 August 2005 (UTC)


 * Moreover, you are also in error in claiming that the text does not cite its sources. If you can bother to look at the bottom of the article, you'll see that it does.--Wiglaf 12:53, 31 August 2005 (UTC)

Adam of Bremen on the House of Hedeby
OK, I will not revert this time, but you should know that Adam of Bremen is not an authority on matters of mediaeval genealogy at all. I suspect that this long-discarded info comes from one of the much later scholias, which the reputable historians normally discredit. I will be back after checking this point. --Ghirlandajo 15:54, 31 August 2005 (UTC)

The Hedeby connection
Ghirlandajo insists on writing Most non-Swedish scholars uphold that the princes invited by the population of Ladoga stemmed from the royal house of Haithabu. This is simply wrong and I don't understand why Ghirlandajo insists on writing this. If there is such a consensus, he should be able to give a lot of references.--Wiglaf 10:00, 1 September 2005 (UTC)

Nationalist/old fashioned view of Swedish history
The text reads:

"Finally, on his death in 1470, the three kingdoms were reunited under Christian II of Denmark, the prelates and higher nobility of Sweden being favourable to the union, though the great majority of the Swedish people always detested it as a foreign usurpation. The national party was represented by the three great Riksföreståndare, or Viceroyalty, of the Sture family who, with brief intervals, successively defended the independence of Sweden against the Danish kings from 1470 to 1520 and thus kept the nation's spirit alive" (my emphasis added)

Was it really the case that the "Swedish people" (what was the degree of national conciousness at the time) rose up against the foreigners? That seems to be a slightly old-fashioned view of history. Wasn't it more about various power factions within the country fighting each other, with it being less important who was 'Danish' and who was 'Swedish'? Did people really think about the "independence of Sweden" at the time?

I'm not sure, I'm just raising the question.Osli73 14:49, 9 June 2006 (UTC)


 * I'd like to suggest you check the first version of this article. The first version comes from the Encyclopædia Britannica Eleventh Edition, and contains lots of such phrases. Other than that, I can't help you because I haven't written it and I don't know who did. /Fred-J 19:29, 9 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Your right, thats just complete nonsense. You wont find a living scholar that actually belives in that... I dont understand why people copy info from Encyclopedia Britannica 11:th edition into history articles. It really isnt a good idea, since a critical view on sources had just begun to emerge in Sweden at the time. Ill remove it, and see if I can improve this article some.


 * --Screensaver 11:34, 13 November 2006 (UTC)


 * It was user:Mic who inserted Encyclopedica Brittanica 11:th ed. articles as a starter, back in 2003 I think. I think it was a good initiatiative, since EB 11:th are relatively accurate and well-written to fill that purpose. That the articles haven't been improved since may be attributed to a lack of interest from writers. / Fred-J 17:48, 13 November 2006 (UTC)


 * The EB11 discussion could go on for ever... I think that its good in some cases, and bad in others. When it comes to history, espcially older history, that its generally a bad idea. Its better to have no information at all, then to have false information, as in this case. But its kind of a question of taste as well, and there really arent any clear answears. So lets not get stuck in it, and try to write some new, good stuff instead. --Screensaver 21:27, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Birger Jarl - "His wise reforms prepared the way for the abolition of serfdom"?
The text currently mentions about Birger Jarl that "His wise reforms prepared the way for the abolition of serfdom". I have never come accross this anywhere (my understanding was that there never was any serfdom, in the classical sense, in Sweden), there is no reference in this article and there is no mention of it in the Birger Jarl article on Wikipedia. KarlXII 22:35, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Swedes and Svear
The article currently uses Swedes and Sweden to, as I understand it, denote both (sv.) "svear" and Geats. According to the Swedish Wikipedians' notice board/Terminology the term Swedes, especially when referring to this period, refers to (sv.) "svear" and not the Swedish people. Please see the Suiones talk page for more info.

In light of this, should Swedes and Sweden in this article be replaced by someting else?KarlXII 13:02, 15 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Karl XII, is it really important to distinguish between the two tribes in that article? The Geats are only mentioned once, and when they are, Swedes is qualified with an of Uppland. The distinction does not seem relevant, IMHO.--Berig 13:39, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Terminology
What do we mean by "Sweden" in this article? Does "Sweden" equal Svealand + Götaland, but exclude Skåneland and Finland? Or should the article try to treat Götaland as a region that was increasingly part of Sweden, which is how medieval sources describe Götaland?--Berig 21:14, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

As an example of how different English and Swedish are, I copy a study I made at Talk:Suiones (if you do this on your own, verify that Google is set to search only for English-language sites):
 * +svear +götar 158 google hits
 * +svear +gautar 59 google hits
 * +svear +gauts 14 google hits
 * +svear +geats 133 google hits
 * +swedes +götar 201 google hits
 * +swedes +gautar 108 google hits
 * +swedes +gauts 65 google hits
 * +swedes +geats 9860 google hits

This means that we have to be clear that we cannot and should not translate from Swedish word by word, but respect that languages such as English and Icelandic do not treat the early medieval Sweden (Svea rike and svear) as a different nation from the late medieval Sweden (Sverige and svenskar). It may feel wrong for many Swedes, but modern Icelanders still call Sweden Svíþjóð and its population svíar in spite of the fact that many Swedish historians distinguish "Svitjod and svear" from "Sverige from svenskar". It is not the Icelanders who are "wrong" and some Swedish historians who are "right", but both are right. The Swedish history idiolects of some Swedish historians and the Icelandic language are just two different languages with different semantic networks. So we have to ask ourselves if we are here to write a history article in English, or POV-push to adapt the English language to Swedish preferences.--Berig 21:30, 24 November 2006 (UTC)


 * In most sources, "Sweden" and "Swedes" are described in vague terms. Most of the time, "Swedes" do only refer to the Suiones.
 * However, the Geats are part of "Swedish history", but not in the history of the "Swedes".
 * So yes, when refering the the "Swedes", the article refers to the Suiones.
 * For this reason, I today removed the image that depicted Sweden as consisting of both the Swedes and the Geats.
 * Skåneland is not dealth with in this article. I don't think that Finland will be either.
 * Fred-J 23:06, 24 November 2006 (UTC)


 * I am also worried about the NPOV-ishness of quoting Harrison, in this article. Harrison is *big*, but in Wikipedia terms, he is an agressive POV-pusher. This is a quote of Harrison where he expresses his feelings about people who think differently from him:
 * Vadan denna min upprördhet? Varför ondgör jag mig över en av vårt lands mest respekterade museiprofiler i modern tid? Svaret är att jag ser ett spöke vandra genom boken, och det är Olof Rudbecks spöke, den gammalsvenska göticismens spöke, en tjutande gast från fordom som ånyo iklätt sig ett blodfärgat lakan med rostiga kedjor. Den "sanna historien" om vandalerna tycks sprungen ur ett svenskt bygderomatiskt förflutet som jag inbillade mig att vi lämnat bakom oss för länge sedan.
 * This is a respected history professor who uses expressions such as ghost, howling fiend, blood-stained blanket with rusty chains when talking about other people's opinions and theories. Here is also a discussion where people express worries about Harrison's very personal way of presenting Swedish history. IMHO, Harrison is not a neutral source for Swedish history prior to the 13th century. In his books "Svitjod" and "Göternas riken" Mats G Larsson (a professor at the University of Lund) has expressed worries about the fact that Harrison's very personal way of treating Swedish history is uncritically accepted by many but lacks foundation in primary sources.--Berig 09:35, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Since Harrison is big, as you say, that is credible by itself to make him an appropriate source, but of course one should be careful about all controverial statements. Do you have any other reference literature to recommend? Feel free to inform me, if you know of any "neutral" historian.
 * Fred-J 10:13, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Every single historian and layman has his/her POVs, Fred. However, in my experience, Harrison represents a quite extreme Marxist interpretation of Swedish medieval history.--Berig 11:16, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
 * "In your experience"-- and who are you? / Fred-J 22:21, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
 * I won't reveal who I am. But as to Harrison's Marxist belonging, you can follow the discussion at this very knowledgeble discussion site.--Berig 23:08, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Of course, personal experience and webforums are weak references to base on article on ( I've read them though ) . But I'll look through Mats Larsson's books. / Fred-J 13:14, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
 * I also suggest that you have a look at the corresponding Swedish articles. They are much more neutral than your Harrison-inspired edits.--Berig 13:52, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Please keep your facts straight. I think I used for Harrison one section, maybe two. The texts on Swedish Wikipedia are just copyedited articles from Nordisk Familjebok; I can not do much with it.

Apart from Harrison, do you find my other reference literature acceptable?

/ Fred-J 16:35, 26 November 2006 (UTC)


 * I think primary sources are to be preferred, with comments on what secondary sources say about the events. Fred, you have expressed that you think that the use of information from primary sources is "outdated" and I strongly disagree. Primary sources are primary and secondary sources are secondary, and history is not and must not be a matter of fashion, especially if the guiding principle is NPOV.--Berig 12:18, 27 November 2006 (UTC)


 * The comment "outdated" was directed to the EB1911 text, of course. / Fred-J 12:56, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Removal of sections
Fred, you say in your summary that I removed a section when I *hid* it asking for explanation as to why the legendary information about husaby källa is important. You, on the other hand have repetedly removed information from this article without explanation:, , , , and. In the only removal, where I could find a motivation, you state that you consider the information "speculative and outdated":"rm speculative and outdated EB1911 text". However, the only thing that is wrong with this "speculative and outdated" text is the author of the Encyclopedia Britannica article based it on sources, such as Heimskringla. Can you explain to me why the myth of Husaby källa is less "speculative and outdated" than the Heimskringla? Moreoever, can you explain in what way Snorri Sturluson's information is less relevant than Harrison's? Snorri lived only 100-300 years later than the events described in this article and had access to many sources now lost, while Harrison lives 600-1000 years later. In what way is this massive removal of information more NPOV than my hiding of the myth of Husaby källa?--Berig 11:07, 25 November 2006 (UTC)


 * [[Image:Husaby kyrka källan.jpg|right|thumb|The well at [[Husaby]]]]

''Under the King Olof of Sweden (surnamed Skötkonung; late 960s – circa 1020) Christianity was established in Sweden. The story as told – there are no concrete evidence of it taking place, and the year is also disputed – was that Olof was baptized in 1008 by the Saint Sigfrid of Sweden, at Husaby well in West Sweden.''


 * It is amazing that during the whole time the article consisted of EB1911 material, and was too massive for anyone to bother reading it, and probably inaccurate (please scroll up to the comment made on November 14), neither you nor anyone else cared to improve it. The EB1911 eagerly wrote about all kinds of king from the past, usually starting with "in the time of X, we hear of a king X". Appropriate way of words?
 * Now that I am starting to improve it by rewriting it from scratch with some modern sources, you immediately jump on me and want to revise the article in progress by removing some of my text!? How does this improve anything?!
 * Surely I would like to add a lot more information to every section, even about this Lagmann I have never heard about, but do you think I have 50 arms and 100 brains that can do everything in one step? Fred-J 21:21, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
 * I am appalled by the fact that you removed a mass of text without knowing what you removed (even about this Lagmann I have never heard about). There was even a picture of him in the deleted section.--Berig 21:56, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Finally, I will probably remove anything that is solely personal interpretations of the Heimskringla and other early sagas. Be prepared to use modern literature for such analysis (even if you can also mention in which saga something comes, of course).Fred-J 21:21, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Show me exactly where I have "interpreted a saga" in a historical context. The sections you removed were not my contributions, but taken in an early stage of WP from Encyclopedia Britannica.--Berig 21:56, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
 * This especially concerns the section on early rulers, for example when you write The Hervarar saga for instance is still of value to Swedish historians in its end sections, although most of it is considered to be of legendary nature.  -- where is the source for this?Fred-J 21:21, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
 * To pick only one example that you can easily check: Nationalencyklopedin quotes Hervarar saga as a source for its information about Blot-Sweyn.--Berig 21:56, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
 * If you can't provide a source and I can't find it in my reference literature, be prepared that it might be removed.Fred-J 21:21, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
 * What kind of threat is that? Do you mean that if you lack a book that I refer to, you will remove the info? Or do you insinuate that I quote books that don't exist? You are going way too far now Fred.--Berig 22:16, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia is not a playground for interpreting sagas; I will direct you to the policy No_original_research.
 * Fred-J 21:21, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Fred. This is not a playground for interpreting sagas, I totally agree. Show me a single instance where you can accuse me of that. Summarizing literary sources is not saga interpretation. Moreover, I don't understand your referal to No_original_research since it permits referring to primary sources. In return, Fred, I direct you to NPOV, which is a guiding principle for Wikipedia. If I find that your additions are POV be prepared that it might be changed or removed. I also direct you to vandalism, if you feel like removing another huge chunk of text without giving any reason.--Berig 21:56, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

I wish that you would have spoken up about your support of the EB1911 text before I started rewriting the article. Labelling my edits vandalism is too late now. Just scroll up, and you'll see that the EB1911 text isn't considered accurate or NPOV. / Fred-J 22:24, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Fred. Since you hardly have the academic authority to deem Encyclopedia Britannica incorrect, I suggest that you cite sources, when you judge a piece of information from EB POV or incorrect. Removing huge chunks of text because you feel that it is possibly incorrect or POV, without telling why, is vandalism pure and simple.--Berig 22:39, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

Re: your question. When I said If you can't provide a source and I can't find it in my reference literature, be prepared that it might be removed. -- I mean that if you write something without providing a source (which you have done), I will be so kind and try to see if I can find it in my reference literature. If that fails, I will remove it. / Fred-J 22:28, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Fred. Please consult this: assume good faith. It is a guiding principle on WP. Moreover, you have also added information without providing sources. Since you say:
 * I will be so kind and try to see if I can find it in my reference literature. If that fails, I will remove it.
 * I will return your kindness and kindly check if your information is correct, and if it fails - remove it. --Berig 22:36, 25 November 2006 (UTC)


 * You have misunderstood WP:NPOV and Verifiability. The NPOV policy does not mean that you can remove anything you don't approve of. Fred-J 22:52, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
 * What do you mean? It is *you* who have removed huge amounts of information in this article, without explaining why. The only thing I did was to hide it with a comment requesting an explanation.--Berig 23:01, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
 * However, if you find that my contributions are incorrect, be my guest and correct it. I'm sure you won't find it hard to find a source giving the details of Olof Skötkonungs baptism.
 * Here again is the difference between NPOV and verifiability: The legend of the baptism of Olof Skötkonung is readily found in any book. It is thus verifiable, and there is no reason to remove it.
 * Unlike you -- who write about sagas -- I try to write this article based in general history, so I don't think you will find anything hard to locate in a general history book. I have even given you page number for my refereces, unlike you, who used a whole saga as a reference.
 * Fred-J 22:52, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Fred. I don't think I have *ever* quoted a saga, without providing a link to the saga, where you can, usually, find an online translation and where you can use the "search function" to find the relevant passage. I understand that you may consider sagas irrelevant for history studies. However, there is *no* consensus among historians as to where history begins and the sagas end, so I hope that you respect that historical articles such as battle of Svolder amply quotes sagas and scaldic poetry, which this article also should, when relevant.--Berig 22:59, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

Could we now please go back to writing this article?

If the article is to reach Good Article status, then it needs to have inline references. They aren't going to accept the current state of the "Early rulers" sections. It would be really helpful if you could help me add such references.

When it comes to interpreting old sources, the NE is written by experts so they are allowed to use primary sources. But the situation on Wikipedia is different because it is written by "anyone".

It is difficult for an amateur historian to verify the sentence "Some sources, such as Íslendingabók, Ynglinga saga and Historia Norwegiæ trace the foundation of the Swedish kingdom back in the last centuries BC". Do I have to read all those sagas to verify the sentence? Or could I perhaps get it verified in a modern book?

Fred-J 00:57, 26 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Fred, I am surprised that you find it controversial, as it is only a reference to Norse mythology and the understanding of Snorri Sturluson and his contemporaries. Íslendingabók, Historia Norwegiae and Snorri Sturluson's work traced the Ynglings back to a groupe of eheumerized Freyr and Odin who would have settled in Sweden in the distant past. I advise you to follow the footnote to Grottasöngr, compiled by Snorri Sturluson, where the Swedish king Fjölnir was the contemporary of Augustus. This dating is why Thor Heyerdahl in his pseudo-archaoelogical studies searched for the origins of Odin in Azov during the last centuries BC (see Jakten på Odin).--Berig 11:34, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
 * However, this mythological discussion is slightly off-topic. What is much more serious is the name of the chapter "Early rulers". The earliest Swedish ruler was recored by Tacitus, in 98 AD. He wrote that the Swedes (Suiones) had a king with a lot of power. This reference, Fred, is to take seriously. Harrison (who wants to put the birth of Sweden to the late 13th century) feels so threated by Tacitus that he even speculates about the disappearance of the Suiones and the later appearence of a new tribe with the same name (Sveriges historia - Medeltiden, 2002). The likelihood of the appearance of two North Germanic tribes by the same name, without continuity, is so extremely low that Harrison's speculations are indicative of how threatened he feels by Tacitus' account. Otherwise, he would simply ignore it. This means that the section should be renamed.--Berig 11:34, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

On consolidation of Sweden. Svealand is an anachronistic term. Olof Skötkonung was simply a king in or of Sweden. Berig who is fond of old sources should know that some of them say that he ruled from, wait for it, Västergötland. Old sources are not easy to use, and one can easily go wrong. So the word Svealand simply has to go. The text about Sverker is also wrong. With and integrated are words that establishes a rank. We cannot prove any such rank, but the orthodox view today is that the kings integrated lands around Mälaren with Väster- and Östergötland. The simplest solution is to just replace the word with, with the word and.

Mvh, Marcus — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.224.196.6 (talk) 15:25, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Clarification requested
I don't understand this phrase in the intro: "when the Christianization broke through." Does that mean something like "when Sweden became thoroughly Christianized under Christian rulers"? Cynwolfe (talk) 15:08, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes, you could say that. / Fred-J 21:48, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Erroneous map
There is everything wrong on that map, at least concerning Finland. Sweden didn't reach the Viborg (near Karelian Isthmus) before the 3. crusade in 1293, but this map claims it's the situation in 1219! --Jaakko Häkkinen (talk) 14:48, 11 February 2010 (UTC)


 * So that's only a small part to the east?
 * Fred-J 11:33, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Who conqured who
Did the sweones conqure the geats or was i the other way around. Did svear meen both sweones and geats, and all the other peoples in the south from the beging?

To those who say Svearike has its origin in Uppland:
 * No king from Olof Skötkonung to Gustav Wasa came from Uppland.
 * Why was the kingdom ruled from Visingsö during the middleages?
 * Why was Birger Jarl forced to subdue the peseantry from Uppland in 1247, before he could form his kingdom?
 * Why did Birger Jarl choose to be burried in Västergötland?
 * Why where almost all kings during the middleages burried in either Västergötland or Östergötland?
 * Why did they all come from Västergötland or Östergötland?
 * Why was the administrative system from Götaland implemented in Uppland and the old one abolished? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.210.118.119 (talk) 09:34, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Gustav Vasa "uniting" Sweden
"The period 1350 to 1523 — when king Gustav Vasa, who led the unification of Sweden, was crowned — is considered the Younger Middle Ages."

I must have missed this chapter in school. To my knowledge, Sweden was considered a singular realm before he ascended the throne, albeit under Danish rule. --94.255.146.227 (talk) 13:47, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on History of Sweden (800–1521). 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/20110724144033/http://www.vastergotlandsmuseum.se/kulturvast_templates/Kultur_ArticlePage.aspx?id=6390 to http://www.vastergotlandsmuseum.se/kulturvast_templates/Kultur_ArticlePage.aspx?id=6390

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) 23:14, 4 November 2017 (UTC)

Christianization
"The rise of Christianity in Sweden effectively ended the Viking Age since a culture of plunder and raiding was anathema to Christian doctrine. It also put a halt to one of Scandinavia's main exports: slaves" This needs to be removed/supported by a source. Slaves was in no way a main export (export is likely the wrong word, as well). In addition, the culture of 'plunder and raiding' is an incorrect overrepresentation of the Viking Age. Even if it was a correct summary, the culture of plunder and raiding does not end here, as is demonstrated by Eric the saint's crusade(s). This whole christianization section of the article should be revised. Many important factors are left out, such as the legend of st Eskil. Iarlabanki (talk) 16:18, 4 May 2019 (UTC)

Bishop Adalhard
This article seems to have confused its Adalhards and I am not sure how to improve it. It refers to the Archbishop of Bremen who conflicted with Emund the Old as Adalhard in line with 1911 Britannica article on Sweden(https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Page:EB1911_-_Volume_26.djvu/217) however the Wikipedia List of administrators, archbishops, bishops, and prince-archbishops of Bremen and 1911 Britannica article on Adalbert (archbishop) (https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/1911_Encyclopædia_Britannica/Adalbert_(archbishop)) have Adalbert as archbishop 1043 or 1045 to 1072. This article also says "Adalhard had succeeded in destroying the idols in Västergötland" but this is Adalhard the younger in the 1911 Britannica article on Sweden and Adalvard the younger in the Adalvard the younger Wikipedia article.TSventon (talk) 15:35, 5 June 2019 (UTC)

Infobox
I removed the infobox, since it was just full of errors:
 * There was a name in runic scirpt, but it was a transcription from modern Swedish into the elder fukthark, i.e. original material.
 * The map is problematic, showing a lot of well defined borders in e.g. Finland when there really were no such in 1250. Also, in 1250, Stockholm maybe did not exist (it was first mentioned in 1252; it celebrated 750 years in 2002). Also, Gullbergshed is a very odd thing to include, but not Skara or Växjö.
 * Capital: Gamla Uppsala might be OK to mention in the text, but really, medieval Sweden had no capital.
 * Languages: "Swedish norse" is as far as I know someone's own invention. Missing from the list is (Low) German, commonly spoken in cities.
 * Government: Medieval Sweden was not a feudal state in the common sense. It was one of the few states where yeomen were common. Lands were generally not traded for services to the crown (nobles were given tax exemptions instead).
 * Minor quibble, but Eric the victorious is the first king we can be certain existed where we also have a decent idea of the line of king after him. We know of earlier Swedish kings, but not how far their rule extended.

Finally, and most damning, is that the infobox itself assumes that medieval Sweden appeared and disappeared. We know comparably little about the formation of Sweden, but the year 800 is not a particularly good guess. It's just the common starting year for the viking age. Even more problematic, however, is the idea that Sweden ceised to exist upon being "incorporated" into the Kalmar union. Sweden continued to exist, it's "riksråd" and other institutions continued to function; the act of union clearly supposed that this would be the case. Sweden did not ceise to exist any more than it did upon joining the EU.

Andejons (talk) 22:50, 23 July 2023 (UTC)