This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
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 kingâs 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 VÀstergötland where he spend the rest of his life. Dan Koehl 16:31 23 Jun 2003 (UTC)
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)
To all these who speak Nordic languages, what does "Hardrada" mean? Nothing at all? Either the king should be named with his original nickname (harðråði), his Norwegian nickname (HÄrdrÄde?) or an English translation. "Hardrada" is an abomination. 130.208.193.99 17:50, 27 August 2005 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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 RiksförestÄndare, 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)
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)
The article currently uses Swedes and Sweden to, as I understand it, denote both (sv.) " svear" and Geats. According to the Wikipedia: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)
What do we mean by "Sweden" in this article? Does "Sweden" equal Svealand + Götaland, but exclude SkÄneland 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):
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 SvĂĂŸjóð and its population svĂar 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)
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)
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 kÀlla is important [20]. You, on the other hand have repetedly removed information from this article without explanation: [21], [22], [23], [24], and [25]. 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 kÀlla 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 kÀlla?-- Berig 11:07, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
Under the King Olof of Sweden (surnamed Skötkonung; late 960s â circa 1020) Christianity was established in Sweden. The story as told â there are no concrete evidence of it taking place, and the year is also disputed â was that Olof was baptized in 1008 by the Saint Sigfrid of Sweden, at Husaby well in West Sweden.
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)
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)
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 ĂslendingabĂłk, Ynglinga saga and Historia NorwegiĂŠ 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)
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, VĂ€stergötland. 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 MĂ€laren with VĂ€ster- and Ăstergötland. The simplest solution is to just replace the word with, with the word and.
Mvh, Marcus â Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.224.196.6 ( talk) 15:25, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
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)
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 HĂ€kkinen ( talk) 14:48, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
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:
"The period 1350 to 1523 â when king Gustav Vasa, who led the unification of Sweden, was crowned â 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)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on History of Sweden (800â1521). 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:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 18 January 2022).
Cheers.â InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 23:14, 4 November 2017 (UTC)
"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)
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_EncyclopÊdia_Britannica/Adalbert_(archbishop)) have Adalbert as archbishop 1043 or 1045 to 1072. This article also says "Adalhard had succeeded in destroying the idols in VÀstergötland" 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)
I removed the infobox, since it was just full of errors:
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 "riksrÄd" 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.
This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
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 kingâs 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 VÀstergötland where he spend the rest of his life. Dan Koehl 16:31 23 Jun 2003 (UTC)
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)
To all these who speak Nordic languages, what does "Hardrada" mean? Nothing at all? Either the king should be named with his original nickname (harðråði), his Norwegian nickname (HÄrdrÄde?) or an English translation. "Hardrada" is an abomination. 130.208.193.99 17:50, 27 August 2005 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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 RiksförestÄndare, 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)
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)
The article currently uses Swedes and Sweden to, as I understand it, denote both (sv.) " svear" and Geats. According to the Wikipedia: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)
What do we mean by "Sweden" in this article? Does "Sweden" equal Svealand + Götaland, but exclude SkÄneland 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):
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 SvĂĂŸjóð and its population svĂar 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)
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)
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 kÀlla is important [20]. You, on the other hand have repetedly removed information from this article without explanation: [21], [22], [23], [24], and [25]. 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 kÀlla 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 kÀlla?-- Berig 11:07, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
Under the King Olof of Sweden (surnamed Skötkonung; late 960s â circa 1020) Christianity was established in Sweden. The story as told â there are no concrete evidence of it taking place, and the year is also disputed â was that Olof was baptized in 1008 by the Saint Sigfrid of Sweden, at Husaby well in West Sweden.
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)
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)
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 ĂslendingabĂłk, Ynglinga saga and Historia NorwegiĂŠ 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)
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, VĂ€stergötland. 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 MĂ€laren with VĂ€ster- and Ăstergötland. The simplest solution is to just replace the word with, with the word and.
Mvh, Marcus â Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.224.196.6 ( talk) 15:25, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
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)
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 HĂ€kkinen ( talk) 14:48, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
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:
"The period 1350 to 1523 â when king Gustav Vasa, who led the unification of Sweden, was crowned â 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)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on History of Sweden (800â1521). 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:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 18 January 2022).
Cheers.â InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 23:14, 4 November 2017 (UTC)
"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)
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_EncyclopÊdia_Britannica/Adalbert_(archbishop)) have Adalbert as archbishop 1043 or 1045 to 1072. This article also says "Adalhard had succeeded in destroying the idols in VÀstergötland" 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)
I removed the infobox, since it was just full of errors:
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 "riksrÄd" 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.