Talk:Petty kingdoms of Norway
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
This whole article is very dubious. I would be curious to know what is the source. Many of the names of the "kingdoms" are rendered in an old-fashioned, Dano-Norwegian version. The claim about the title of the rulers being Konge is obviously wrong, as the word in old norse would be konungr, but I would also question which sources exist to tell us the titles of Norwegian chieftains of the 9th century. The number 29 seems entirely random, though I suspect it is taken from the number of administrative units at a much later stage in Norwegian history. The names of the "kings" are also entirely unsourced. (Barend 08:52, 11 July 2006 (UTC))
- I am sorry for not providing sources, but the ovewhelming majority of the information is from english wikipedia and I don't usually provide separate links when the relevant articles are linked to in the text. I will try to find external sources when I get more time. The article is in dire need of improvement, I started it mainly because I found a lot of information on the subject spread around different articles here. It is just a base for expantion. The names are however not old fashioned dano-norwegian versions. The names of these areas are in use today (they have changed somewhat togeather with the rest of Norwegian language) and I have used the current Norwegian forms with the exception of Raumarike which is called Romerike today (For some reason it seems common to use the older form when the petty kingdom is in mind). You are right that they were probably called konungr, but that is the same word as konge (and king), just in a different form. That was what I unsuccessfully tried to explain anyway. Some of these might have been called herser and some jarls. But they were all petty kings (småkonger). As with all history of this age information might be duboius, and some of these might have been commonwealths, puppet kingdoms, and part of other kingdoms at points. Let's explore togeather :) Inge 17:41, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
- Whoops, my bad. I didn't remember those. I just looked at the ones in the list. :) Inge 13:29, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
-
- Yes, the intention is good, there is the potential for a good article here. What is taken from semi-mythological sources will have to be pointed out as such. On the other hand, I suspect there could much interesting material from archaeologists on this issue. Step by step, I'm sure the article will improve in time!--Barend 14:42, 12 July 2006 (UTC)