Talk:Lindworm

Metaphor
I don't like how the "Real Lindworms" section speaks in metaphor, with the actual meaning of the metaphor only being revealed by mousing-over the links. --220.237.67.125
 * I agree. It's very fancyfull, but not right for an encyclopedia article. Also, are there any references concerning this connection between Dragons and Romans? If so, it would be very nice to see them. Otherwise, I think this bit should be removed. It is confusing. Tom 11:17, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
 * I decided to be bold and removed the section about "Real lindworms", luckily it'll be preserved in the history. If anyone knows who the wikipedia user that has a list of funny articles is, please let me know. This should be added there. Very subtle, I like. Fabjan 08:54, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
 * I had introduced the section, which is not supposed to be a joke, and if so, it is less of a joke than stories about dragons in general. I had neglected to look up and provide sources for this interpretation, though. There are certainly elaborate theories linking the dragon-slayer Siegfried of the Nibelungenlied back to the historical figure of Arminius. Describing a marching Roman army as a giant armoured snake is not far-fetched, and there were centuries of oral tradition that could add to the picture before it was fixed in writings and drawings. It's certainly less ridiculous than comparing dragons to archetypal memories of dinosaurs, or even the possibility of a survival of some of these beasts until mankind appeared. Early humans had met mammoths, cave bears and other large fierce creatures, and were not very  much impressed, it seems, as these are now extinct. Likely, dragons represent something really big that can not be handled by mere mortals. See also Godzilla as metaphor for atom bombs. --Matthead 16:21, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
 * I think the section could very well be reintroduced, if it is a verifiable theory: it sure sounds interesting. However, I think it should be clearly mentioned what it is about and that is (still) a theory, as well as providing sources. This can of course still be done in the spirit of the original edit, which was, indeed, amusing. Tom 16:41, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Stories of dragons are funny, yes, but it doesn't prevent an encyclopedia to describe these beliefs. I don't see what your section had to do with lindworms in particular, is this section in every article about types of dragons? Are there any sources describing this? I agree that it can be reintroduced, but with more explanation. There already is an article about Arminius. You had to mouse over or follow the links to see what the section was actually about. Fabjan 12:38, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Of course it applies only to lindworm, or other germanic names that could be derived from the activities of Roman legions in northern Europe roughly 2000 years ago. The "theory" does not apply to earlier myths and sources as the bible, or other areas like China. But then, calling all these different legendary beasts "dragons" is oversimplyfing.

There are hardly any impressive or poisonous snakes in northern Europe, and why would a real tiny worm inspire a myth about a dangerous creature, if not as a metaphor for something that is much bigger and lethal? In the movie The 13th Warrior, the long line of warriors marching at night with torches is compared to a fire-breathing beast, too, if I recall correctly, so this idea is common nowadays. I have not seen a detailed discussion yet, though, but remarks about the "Arminius = dragonslayer" idea are common, see and the link above. Probably, most scientists (historians, linguists) have more serious things to do than proving/disproving a possible real core behind a myth, so it is left to a few outside academia who show interest, while those who like the legend are not at all interested in it getting spoiled by dull historic reality. Due to migration in the first millenium, the Germanic saga could have spread quite far, including Britain, Spain, and developed to include other things. A similar, yet younger and quite opposite comparison is that of Saints killing dragons, a metaphor for the often violent Christianisation of pagans. --Matthead 14:18, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Hmm, I'm new here and I don't want to upset anyone already, I'm sorry if you feel I stepped on your toes. I don't know much about historical backgrounds for legends, and never really thought about it. I just thought people made stuff like this up to tell good stories. I see now what you mean and agree it could be of interest to people reading the article, but what about No_original_research? And do other articles about mythological creatures tell anything about possible historical backgrounds? /Fabjan 16:14, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
 * I've provided some sources, so I dont think OR applies. Other mythological creatures might have their background in natural disasters or in conflicts among humans, too, I've seen remarks when browsing a few articles. --Matthead 17:13, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Go ahead and add the section again, but please make it clear that it's about romans and a possible background for the mythical beast. With all the links and such it really looked like an elaborate joke, but I liked it. --Fabjan 07:32, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
 * I think the section may be confusing to some, because it makes it seem that lindworms have been accepted as real creatures. There isn't any reference as to what the "very real serpents that threatened Germanic peoples" are. If it is referring to the activities of Roman legions, than it should clearly say so in the section.
 * Well, be bold. The last sentence of the lead gives away a lot already, IMHO. Besides, a lindworm is just this, a "bending worm", an "ensnaring serpent". The more POV view is that the term only applies to a kind of dragons. --Matthead 16:42, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Real lindworms?

 * In fact there were actual and very real "serpents" that threatened ancient Germanic peoples. It likely made a lasting impression on them which could have developed into Norse saga and myths about lindworms/dragons: these lindworms could grow much longer than any dinosaur known to modern science, and they were dwelling in dragon lairs of which remnants still can be seen today. They had small wings that did not quite enable them to fly, yet they could move quickly, leaving traces behind. The skin of the reptile was scaled and inpenetrable, and it could breath fire. Once, a huge lindworm crawling through the forests of Northern Germany was slain by a hero in an ambush. After literally bathing in its blood, the skin of the dragon made the hero's skin inpenetrable, and the dragon's treasure made him rich. Even centuries after the last dragons had been slain and their wisdom was lost, the fame of the hero was told in tales.


 * I removed the above false text. This is an encyclopedia, not a comic book. --Haldrik


 * Did you know that Lindworm is also a dutch name for a worm creature that can become 2+/- meters long, and lives in a human or other animal? I don't know the english name for it but anyone who knows, please place it here.


 * The english name would be 'tapeworm'. Verification: http://nl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lintwormen


 * Lindworm is also a surname. I have 17th century ancestors from the area around Franfurt, Germany, with the surnames Drachen (dragon) and Lindworm. They were all Jewish. 75.101.104.17 (talk) 06:38, 22 July 2017 (UTC)

Lair of the White Worm (film)
I remember seeing an image similar to that on the article page in the Lair of the White Worm (film). Would it be fair to say that Bram Stoker, who wrote the book the film was based on, may have been superficially referring to Lindworm legends in the book? Badbilltucker 18:33, 19 January 2007 (UTC)


 * In my experience large worms, large snakes, lindworms and dragons are synonyms in old North European legends.--Berig 18:53, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Editing information about Ragnar Lodbrok
Okay, I changed a couple of things.

Firstly the article said that Ragnar wore 'fur-pants', 'pants' is not an encyclopedic word, so it has been altered to 'trousers', if you'd prefer pantaloons or another synonym that's fine but the slang term 'pants' should not be used.

Secondly the article says that Ragnar recieved 'the honorary title of Lodbrok (Fur-Pants)'. My first issue with this is the translation (and the slang usage within); the best and most accepted translation is 'hairy-britches'. Another problem with this passage is that Lodbrok is not an honorific title but rather a byname. I have altered these problems. 84.68.90.133 09:54, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

WikiProject class rating
This article was automatically assessed because at least one WikiProject had rated the article as start, and the rating on other projects was brought up to start class. BetacommandBot 22:51, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

heraldic depiction
It is often shown wingless, whith a poisonous bite, like the Komodo dragon.

Er, how is a poisonous bite depicted in heraldry? —Tamfang (talk) 04:07, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Possible OR
I move a section here for discussion:
 * The English term 'lindworm' sometimes refers to the Viking Era runic depictions of a huge horned serpent with arms, which can also be called a 'lindorm' in Scandinavian languages in the sense it is a 'serpent'. However, the technical English term and the general Scandinavian term are not equal in meaning. In the Viking Era, this creature was called a 'snake' (ormr) or a 'dragon' (dreki), not a 'lindorm' (linnormr). (Note, the Völuspá mentions a dreki with wings, probably resembling the 'wyvern' in British heraldry.)

This text looks a bit too omniscient about the mindset of Viking Age Scandinavians, and I not been able to find any support for these statements on the meaning of linnormr in my etymological dictionary (Hellquist 1922).--Berig (talk) 16:57, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Lindworm. 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/20040604074721/http://sunsite.berkeley.edu/OMACL/DanishHistory/book9.html to http://sunsite.berkeley.edu/OMACL/DanishHistory/book9.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070622022752/http://www.mutopiaproject.org/cgibin/piece-info.cgi?id=883 to http://mutopiaproject.org/cgibin/piece-info.cgi?id=883

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) 08:38, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

Image in infobox
Hello : I saw that you removed the of a runestone with a lindworm that was used in the infobox of the earlier versions this article, and replaced it with a drawing that's identified as your own work. Could I ask why you made the change? I think the earlier version was better because it illustrates an actual historical use of the figure. Also tagging user who added the original image, in case they want to weigh in on this discussion. Thanks, Kbseah (talk) 17:56, 13 October 2017 (UTC)

It is a unspoken rule on websites such as Wikipedia that the article should be representative. What do I mean by that. That runestone doesn't show what a lindworm looks like. Does a lindworm look like a runestone? It is a unspoken rule on Wikipedia that each article should have a representative picture if there is one. We don't know certainly how chupacabra actually looks like because the descriptions vary drastically from story to story and because of that there is no picture of chupacabra in chupacabra wiki article. But we do know how lindworms look like, and there are different versions of lindworms, whether it looks like a classic lindworm, a wyvern or four-legged dragon. I putted the picture of a classic lindworm because it is the most common depiction of lindworm and because it is the closest to original myth.

P.S. You can put that runestone image somewhere below the table of contents if you want. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gyrkin (talk • contribs)
 * Its also preferable to not use wikipedian drawn images, when original ones (such as inscription on the rune stone) are available. Equating awell known Norse/Northern European creature to the very recent chupacabra stories is taking the analogy too far in my opinion. I have reverted to the runestone.  PS a citation is needed for your assertion that your drawing is of " the most common depiction of lindworm and because it is the closest to original myth".-- Kev  min  § 05:55, 15 October 2017 (UTC)


 * Hello Thanks for clarifying. I don't mean to deprecate the work you put into making that drawing, in case that's what you understood from my comment. I wanted to clarify why you removed the rune image, because your edits had no edit summaries. The runestone does have a picture of a worm-like creature on it, but the image caption and the article about the runestone itself don't say anything about lindworms, so I thought that you might have removed it because you thought that this constituted original research.  any thoughts?
 * If you have based your own drawing on an older published source(s) that are already in the public domain (see WP:PD), maybe it could be worthwhile to upload that instead. If you have access to such sources it also would be very helpful if you could add them as references to this article if they aren't there already. Please also remember to sign your talk-page posts with four tildes ~ and to use edit summaries. Thanks, Kbseah (talk) 07:20, 15 October 2017 (UTC)

Saxo Grammaticus says nothing about lindworms
Misunderstandings like the one I just deleted happen when you try to use translations of translations of translations. Saxo Grammaticus' Gesta Danorum 9.4.4-7 actually says (bold emphasis mine):

''Tertio item ac quarto Scanis Hallandisque felici auspicio domitis, in Thoram Herothi regis filiam nuptiarum amore converso, sibi ac Lathgerthae repudium interiecit. Damnabat enim coniugis fidem, quam olim in perniciem suam summae ferocitatis beluas admovisse meminerat. Interea rex Sueonum Herothus, silvas forte venatione complexus, repertas a comitibus angues filiae detulit nutriendas. Illa paterno ocius obsecuta praecepto, vipereum (viper) genus virgineis manibus educare sustinuit; quin etiam curae habuit, ut integrum bovis cadaver earum quotidie satietati suppeteret, ignorans se privato pabulo publicam sustentare perniciem. Quae cum adultae pestilentissimo halitu viciniam urerent, rex, inertis operae paenitens, potiturum filia, qui pestem amovisset, edixit. Quo non minori fortitudinis quam libidinis incitamento frequens iuventus adducta periculosam inaniter operam erogabat. Cuius rei summam Regnerus ab intermeantibus expertus, laneum a nutrice sagulum villosaque admodum femoralia, quibus inflictos anguium morsus (snake bite) elideret, expetivit. Procedenti inusitatae magnitudinis obvius allabitur serpens (serpent)...''

See http://wayback-01.kb.dk/wayback/20100504153455/http://www2.kb.dk/elib/lit/dan/saxo/lat/or.dsr/9/4/index.htm

--Gunnora (talk) 14:56, 7 October 2020 (UTC)

3 out of 4 lindworms have wings
The article repeatedly states that lindworms do not have wings, and their winglessness is the way to differentiate them from dragons and wyverns. Yet most pictures of lindworm given in the article show lindworms with wings. Should there be some notice that while certain sources define the lindworm as wingless, in depictions, it often has, making it indistinguishable from wyverns? 2A02:810D:840:16A3:19C9:AB2A:51C1:3871 (talk) 10:35, 21 April 2022 (UTC)
 * I have added a note that, despite the most common definition, lindworms are sometimes depicted with wings, though I would have liked a better source. You would not happen to know one? I don't quite see how you get to your "3 out of 4" opinion, though. We have six images in the article, and as far as I can tell only two of them feature wings. And those two come from the same specific instance, Klagenfurt. Daranios (talk) 14:24, 22 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Ah, I had overlooked that the image from Urnes Stave Church also features wings. Making the count half-half. Daranios (talk) 10:57, 23 April 2022 (UTC)
 * This article is a mess. The intro talks about runestone dragons which are not necessarily lindworms. We do not know what they are since lindworms and dragons more or less seems to be the same thing at times in viking mythology. Runestone lindworms/dragons/serpants/etc should be its own article (see swedish article sv:Rundrake for example). Then there are the many different mythological lindworms throughout Europe. In Scandinavia lindworms (or lindorm = "linden snake") typically dont have wings or limbs, simply giant fucking snakes with magical powers that haunts the forrest (see this depiction by John Bauer, very "on point" stereotype). Sometimes they are goodwilled, sometimes they are evil. To hunt u down they bite their tail and roll after u like a wheel. From Germany going east in Europe the lindworm typically recieves wings and limbs like a dragon. In France this is called a guivre or vouivre, in Britain, a wyvern. Then there are lindworms in heraldry, were any dragon-esc creature can be called a lindworm for some bizarre reason.--Blockhaj (talk) 02:17, 21 June 2022 (UTC)

Splitting article into Lindworm (the creature), Lindworm (heraldry) and Runic animal
So as the title says, this article should be split into Lindworm (the creature), Lindworm (heraldry) and Runic animal. Serpent creatures on runestones are not confirmed to be depictions of Lindworms. In Sweden we call these runestone dragons (rundrake) as our traditional lindworms lack limbs. Then there are lindworms in heraldry, which seems have their own set of rules. One dude told me that more or less any dragon in heraldry is called lindworm. Blockhaj (talk) 08:04, 30 June 2022 (UTC)
 * It would be strange to do this just for Lindworm. I see that Griffin is a single article for mythical and heraldic material, and there must be others.—Northernhenge (talk) 15:47, 6 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Well heraldry can be covered in this article but the runic dragon should have its own article. We should make a translation of Rundjur as "Runic animal".--Blockhaj (talk) 21:38, 6 August 2022 (UTC)