Talk:Götaland

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	The article on Götaland is supported by WikiProject Sweden, which is an attempt to improve the quality and coverage of Sweden-related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can visit the project page; if you have any questions about the project or the article ratings below, please consult the FAQ.
B	This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale.
Mid	This article has been rated as mid-importance on the importance scale.

The idea that Götaland or any part of it has ever been a "kingdom" is a matter based solely on myth - though I'm not too keen on formulating this part of the article myself, as the dispute of the relationship between Götaland and Svealand during pre-history is still very much alive today. Recent worthy (Swedish popular) literature would include Maja Hagerman's "Spåren efter kungens män" and Mats G. Larsson's very recent book (2003) on the Götalands. There are recent similar books belonging in the Västgötaskolan camp as well, but none of them in my opinion/to my knowledge worthy of mention. The outline Larsson hints at for the unification of the two regions, based mainly on place-names (distribution and chronology), makes sense (again, imo) and is very much a rebuttal of the Västgötaskolan claims. OlofE 13:22 May 4, 2003 (UTC)

---

Giving the image that Västra Götaland has ever been a kingdom is downright falsary, neither is there any proof or even implication of warfare for prolonged periods between the two regions. Implying that Västgötar==Visigoths and Östgötar==Ostrogoths is laughable and ridiculous, apart from the claim made by same IP that all goths come from Gotland. So I reversed that junk. OlofE 19:03, 8 Aug 2003 (UTC)

---

Well OlofE, you react strongly against traditional theories. What about giving any "proof" for your point of view?

Actually it isn't needed. Things like claims of Ostrogoths equaling Östgötar is what needs proof. Not saying anything about it doesn't need any proof at all, and that's what I'm proposing. Other than saying that, just say what specific points you disagree with me on, and we can discuss that. OlofE 07:48, 25 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Were there not wars over royal succession and land between the north and south, swedes and geats? That's what I gather from the all prime sources I read; that later on they unite under one king in the Middle Ages. How is that contrived and erroneous? The same with the Jutes of Jutland, Geats from Goetaland, Goths from Gotland, how are those so hard to accept? Lord Kenneð Alansson 08:51, 10 Aug 2004 (UTC)

You mention sources - before we can discuss anything else, let's check those sources. Without that, I can't even know what you claim. Wars of succession - what timeframe are you talking about, what kings, what sources mention them? You speak of the 11th-13th century conflicts? In that case we can get back to that - but do bring a geatish "king" to the discussion. However, that is centuries after the period when it is assumed that Swedish influence in Geatish areas increased. The situation here is not that anyone is trying to prove anything - it is that the overwhelming consensus is that the scarcity of data does not allow us to draw much conclusions regarding the period and events that ultimately led up to the christening of what is today Sweden. When we have no firm knowledge, it is our duty to state this. (I don't understand what point you are trying to make in that final statement so I'll let that pass.) // OlofE 11:37, 10 Aug 2004 (UTC)

I believe I meant to reiterate the previous person's statement, is all. With the only data we have, we shouldn't be tearing down what much of the foundation of Sweden et al, was based upon. Do you see that with the studies on Egypt, Athens, Rome, etc? No, they do not and will not refute their evidence but instead use it all to their advantage. We should be doing the same here, to present our own history just as well, to no exaggeration.

We are merely going upon the best knowledge we have. There is no such thing as perfect knowledge, so we must use only what we know so far. Always refuting everything that comes our way is not proper by any means; it leads a sad and sorrowful life without acceptance. You are almost indulging and encouraging those classical workers their arrogance in their field of study about the Mediterranean, because nobody else in "Europe" is fully willing to stand up to them with their own histories and backgrounds. It is a real disservice to always fall back merely because we do not approve of the Southern European style and back away from the Tall Poppies.

Listen to me; do you want to forever be barraged with films and documentaries about Troy, Attica, Alexandria, Jerusalem, etc, but not nearly the acceptance of positive treatment to our own northern(aah, barbarians!), kind? I, for one, do not intend to let them ruin things for us to get these projects off the ground by perpetually arguing against those with the same goals of finding truth in our heritage. I simply will not allow them to insult me or us for their twisted chauvinism over who has the "best" past, so that takes resolute action to solve the issues in which we happen to be polarised. We must overcome our own egos to deal with those always shoving us out of the way like they are the only people that exist. I was a really big fan of treasure hunter stories like Indiana Jones, so I know the deal with how people try to blot out others' truths for their own fortune. Lord Kenneð Alansson 13:07, 10 Aug 2004 (UTC)

The situation on sources regarding Rome and Götaland are - I sincerely hope you agree on this - slightly different. Understatement of the ages. The agenda you describe sounds perfectly viable in a soapbox medium - Wikipedia is not such a thing. My considered opinion is that the regard for nordic history is best served by reverence for two things, knowledge and truth. What you describe amounts in my eyes to speculation, which is downright harmful. // OlofE 14:17, 10 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Ahem, no, that could not be my intent. I do, however, challenge the so-called "difference" to the matter. That's what they want their opponents to believe(reverse psychology) and so you do. This, despite my attempt to open your eyes to hope and the recognizance of abundance you are seemingly doubtful of ever being found or figured out from the present evidence. It takes very deep analysis that spreads widely over the data. I press for the discovery of truth and application of whatever knowledge we do have as opposed to forever doubting ourselves and lamenting our historical legacies while the Roman praisers laud their own efforts and their own findings and shove them in everybody's faces. Lord Kenneð Alansson 15:32, 10 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Thousands of pages of contemporary eyewitness stories of Rome, dated centuries before the first authentic nordic author - you saying there is no difference? I'm sorry but ... I'll refrain from further comment. There is no need for conspiracy theories, it is easily seen that the situation is fundamentally different - and that's without the difference in archaeology. By all means carry on your research, but don't confuse it with establishing the consensus or undebated view - which is what encyclopedic effort is about. Original research belongs elsewhere. // OlofE 16:54, 10 Aug 2004 (UTC)

I suppose I mean to say that our research is no less important to achieve and deserves greater treatment so that is doesn't end up in obscurity to placate the students of Rome who would love to shove this matter aside for their own supposed facts even when they are just hearsay. Most programmes I watch by occasion regarding the viking age(like the Making Of Britain tv documentary film) are just a blip, while they'll go on and on for hours speculating the circumstances revolving around what could have been in Roman Britain(while other programmes dream about an Empire that never fell). They will still dress the vikings up in horned helms when fighting and this pisses me off to no end how they disrespect our ancestors' memories.

The only long treatment I saw was in a "nonfiction" TV film about Attila the Hun which showed the Visigoths in battle with and against the Romans. Although they were ridiculously shown wearing horns, much character development was not explored either. The recent film King Arthur, painted Saxons as proto-Nazis when in fact they had no official leadership policies to not breed with Celts, as did not the Swedes which settled in Finland.

I do not believe I am missing anything here. There is some Illuminati or Mafia attempt to write our ancestors out of memory, although I do remember there was a movie a few decades ago called The Vikings that I haven't seen(It doesn't star a Scandinavian or British actor in it's lead). The Thirteenth Warrior notoriously defies the intent of Eaters of the Dead and seems to be more about Hollywood PC righteousness as much as Robin Hood: Prince Of Thieves included Azeem, the Muslim Moor as an overriding and prime character.

Our history is being subtly destroyed and neglected once again, as in Church days, no matter that we are finding more of the truth as of current. I just want to turn back the flow of ignorance and despair on this matter. There is nothing by my intent to cloud what happened and I simply wish to give it equal treatment as it is too often denied when it comes to the feelings and beliefs of those in favour of Mediaeval Christendom.

Those people don't realise that by continually getting most people to see our folks as barbarians or calling us Nazis if we have blonde hair and blue eyes, they are not helping Europe's unity. They uphold fantasy perceptions that we are just some backwards hicks without anything going for us, which means slandering all the advancements of our lands because none of it is valid in their eyes, as if it ever was. When it comes to solidarity against the invading forces of immigrants(who bring terrorists), it has been us mopping up their problems and they sadistically see us as a tool whenever it comes to conflict because they don't have the balls to deal with it themselves-which has been true since Roman and Catholic times.

All I hope is that we solve our quarrels quickly before any interest in piecing together our past is no longer an interesting, worthwhile effort. It is my belief that those contrary to our pursuit have made it their mission to disrupt that process so that they can ostentatiously brag about themselves. Please don't give up hope that we'll solve those apparent mysteries regarding the truth of our past. Lord Kenneð Alansson 00:22, 11 Aug 2004 (UTC)

The relationship between Geats and Swedes is a very infected part of Swedish history with modern Geats questioning whether the Geats were conquered by the Swedes. There are also newer definitions of Sweden, where Sweden was "unified" like Norway and Denmark, and where Sweden did not exist prior to the event when the Geats and the Swedes shared the same king. Moreover, the theory that Götaland consisted of petty kingdoms is the mainstream version of Swedish history, since it is assumed that the traditional provinces were once independent (i.e. petty kingdoms in the sens of Norwegian petty kingdoms prior to the unification by Harald Fairhair) and so it can't be said that it was one independent kingdom. I have tried to make the introduction more neutral by writing that it once consisted of petty kingdoms.--Wiglaf 08:37, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)

The history section contained variuous erroneous or dubious claims. It struck me that the whole topic isn't of crucial importance, so I juist deleted the whole thing rather than rewriting it. I suppose it will be reverted. No matter. Davidweman 11:25, 10 July 2005 (UTC)

Well, so far you are the one who's provided most erroneous and dubious claims. Moreover, since you'd rather remove paragraphs than actually point out what's wrong, I can only revert you.--Wiglaf 16:49, 10 July 2005 (UTC)

Actually, that's entirely fair. I apologise. I'm not sure there are any historians who think there were any stable territorial units pre-unification. Political power gradually became territirial instead of personal. Some historians would say that to speculate at all about the political situation pre-unification.

Davidweman 19:16, 14 July 2005 (UTC)

I am sorry, but I have to revert your changes. You claim that Sweden was the creation of some kind of union between Svealand and Götaland and that this union was called Sweden. I am also afraid that your theory is not only pure speculation, it is unfortunately also a bit too anachronistic, since the modern Swedish name for Sweden originally only referred to Svealand, and this was well before the 10th century. I also suggest that you make yourself up to date with the international consensus on the identity on the Geats. I suspect that you belong to Västgötaskolan and so I suggest that you expend your efforts on fixing the article called Götaland theory.--Wiglaf 22:44, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

"You claim that Sweden was the creation of some kind of union between Svealand and Götaland"

No. I suspect Peter Sawyer is right that there were no stable territorial units before unification, and that that happened during Knut Eriksson's reign, not earlier. How the process of unification really played out can only be guessed at though, so any definitive claims should be avoided. Translating Svithiod as Sweden is misleading though not exactly wrong.Davidweman

Frankly, the definition of Sweden that you present is extremely narrow and would not have been recognized by the people of the time. Peter Sawyer is a scholar who represents an anachronistic and narrow definition of Sweden without any conceptual basis in medieval sources. For instance it is completely different from Bo Jonsson Grip's understanding of Sweden who defined it as a different country from Götaland. I suggest that you also read Mats G. Larsson's book "Götarnas riken" instead of taking Peter Sawyer's hypotheses as the truth.--Wiglaf 14:35, 16 July 2005 (UTC)

'Geats' may be jutes rather than götar, and götar shouldn't be called geats in English. I'd guess it is götar, but it is unknowable, and not generally agreed.Davidweman

I am sorry but you are wrong. As a matter of fact, Götar corresponds perfectly to English Geats, and the identity is widely agreed upon internationally. The connection with the Jutes is simply no longer an issue.--Wiglaf 14:35, 16 July 2005 (UTC)

Btw, why no references to Tacitus or Jordanes?

You'll find those references under Geats and Suiones.--Wiglaf 14:35, 16 July 2005 (UTC)

"I suspect that you belong to Västgötaskolan" Most certainly not!Davidweman

You sure seem to defend the point of view that there was no Sweden without Götaland.--Wiglaf 14:35, 16 July 2005 (UTC)

I'd say Larsson's point of view is in the minority. But that's not the issue. Unknowable and/or contested claims should not be stated as fact in wikipedia. If your aware of Sawyer, you're aware that in fact thee's not an "internationa consensus" for your various claims.

Well, I suggest that you do your homework on the identity of the Geats. The fact that you feel uncertainty in the matter is not an excuse to make claims of uncertainty. There are plenty of scholarly sites on Beowulf on the Internet, where you can become familiar with the international consensus on the Geats. Good luck!--Wiglaf 15:44, 16 July 2005 (UTC)

Why do I bother?

Davidweman 17:09, 16 July 2005 (UTC)

I don't know. If you want to introduce the hypotheses of Sawyer and likes, you'll have to define their specific definition of "stat" in Swedish history lingo in relation to the English concept of "state". Their definition of "stat" is even different from that of Swedish dictionaries. You'll also have to show the medieval sources they use as basis for their definition of Sweden in respect Götaland. I don't envy you.--Wiglaf 17:14, 16 July 2005 (UTC)

[edit] We need to make a historical Götaland map or article to

This map shows modern Götaland. There is a confusion in how we should describe Götaland and Skåneland in the "East Danes" article. --Comanche cph 17:27, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Petty kingdoms

The article states that Götaland once consisted of pettty kingdoms, and that Västergötland and Östergötland were once rival kingdoms themselves. That's just a theory, a theory few or no historians believe in, at that. So the article should be changed. I should have made a note on the talk page, but I didn't anticipate controversy. I don't actually 'believe that Svealand and Götaland agreed to enter some kind of union by the name "Sweden"', btw.

Davidweman 08:08, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

You write just a theory, a theory few or no historians believe in. I'd rather you cite a scholar who actually says so, otherwise it is *your* interpretation. If you want to push the POV that Götaland did not consist of petty kingdoms, you imply that it was either *one kingdom of Götaland* or total anarchy, and you should cite sources for one of these theories, or both. If you write It was only late in the Middle Ages that Götaland and Svealand began to be perceived as parts of parts of the same country, Sweden, it sounds like Sweden was born out of a late medieval union of the "kingdom of Götaland" and the "kingdom of Svealand", which is original research and which is forbidden here. It is also ironic considering the fact that Götaland's identity as a part of Sweden varied a great deal. In the medieval mindset "Sweden" in its narrow sense excluded Götaland. If we exclude all the foreign examples, you have a good example in the will of Bo Jonsson Grip, where he stated that he had properties both in Sweden (Swerighe) and in Götaland (Göthaland). However, the possessions of the Swedish kings, the "kingdom of Sweden" included Götaland. There you have a good example in the law of Christopher of Bavaria who declared that the merging of Götaland into the Swedish kingdom took place in the distant past (Swerikis rike är af hedna värld samman kommit, af swea och gotha land meaning "The kingdom of Sweden is from pagan times a union of Swedish and Gothic lands"). So you will have to be specific with what you mean with "Sweden" if your prose is going to work with quotations from primary sources.--Berig 09:25, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

You sound upset, dude. Why? I don't imply any of that. Have you had a lot of arguments with västgötaskolan-type cranks, and let that flavor your response, perhaps? But I agree it's a problematic sentence, too vague and confusing without us saying more.

This is a factual dispute, not a POV dispute. No scholar would argue we can *know* if there were petty kindoms, and I assume you don't either. There are no contemporary sources. Some names I can think of: Peter Sawyer and Lars Gahrn, who don't agree on much, would agree on this. Birgit Sawyer too, of course. Henrik Jansson. Thomas Lindqvist (though, erm, I might confuse him w someone else. I haven't studied this stuff in five years.)

Looking at your edits, you seem knowleadgeble about this stuff, so maybe I'm mistaken about the scholarly consensus, but not about the fact that no one really knows. We can't just write it as fact. I'd be interested in your sources though. Would be fun to read about this stuff again.

I don't really care about the Sweden/svealand question that much. I liked my version better, but the old one is fine.

Davidweman 10:30, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I have had my share of listening to Västgötaskolan. The main problem with the concept of "petty kingdom", which I guess is what you are aiming at is that Götaland surely consisted of petty kingdoms in the same sense as Norway and Denmark once did, being both North Germanic areas ruled by assemblies and powerful men who were little more than warlords. However, historians may have different ideas of what constituted a "kingdom" or what was a "chiefdom". Surely, if we dispute that Götaland consisted of petty kingdoms and only of minor chiefdoms, we write articles about Iron Age Scandinavia that don't work with primary sources, such as the Sagas. You also find yourself having to rewrite all the Norwegian articles ;-)--Berig 10:44, 17 November 2006 (UTC)