Talk:Sweyn Forkbeard

Untitled

There is an entry Sven of Denmark. I think this needs a redirect to Sweyn.

Anonymous edits

An anonymous editor considers the Swedish conquest of Denmark to be "propaganda" against Denmark. However, his addition had factual errors so it is better discussed here:

12th century historian Saxo Grammaticus claims that Sweyn was deposed by Swedish king Eric the Victorious who proclaimed himself king of Denmark and ruled it until his death in 994 or 995. This is obviously erronoeus; contemporary sources have Sweyn ruling Denmark in 991 and 994 when he claimed "Danegeld" from king Ethelred the Unready of England, and he also had coins made with his likeness, being the first Danish king to do so.

Besides, Sweden was not yet united into a single kingdom, and the Gothian kings had nowhere near the military power that it would have taken to overthrow the king of Denmark...the were often busy warring with each other, and only in the 13th century did modern Sweden begin to take shape. Contemporary Danish historians (Benito Scocozza, Grethe Jensen, Bent Østergaard etc.) disregard the idea, which is not a serious topic of discussion in neither Danish nor Swedish historical research.

The supposed "Swedish" conquest may have been based on an ealier event when the Danish king Helge was deposed by a warlord who probably came from modern-day Sweden in the 890s. It may also be a case of conscious propaganda by the writers of the catholic church who rather disliked Sweyn Forkbeards attempt to bring English rather than German priests to Denmark. They would have wanted to show his reign as being unsuccesful, as does Saxo who claims (albeit erroneously) that Sweyn was a heathen.

It was the 11th century chronicler Adam of Bremen who said that Eric conquered Denmark, so I strongly doubt the veracity of this addition. Moreover, the description of Sweden is highly POV and even if it was correct, I do not see its relevance. And what is Gothian? I'd also like to know which contemporary sources, the anon refers to.--Wiglaf 5 July 2005 09:03 (UTC)

Now the anonymous Dane has removed the reference to Nationalencyklopedin's statement in this issue and asserts that Sigrid the Haughty is completely fictive.--Wiglaf 16:30, 29 July 2005 (UTC)

Do we seriously have a Danish nationalist POV warrior here? Where do these people come from? john k 17:47, 29 July 2005 (UTC)

Apparently :(.--Wiglaf 18:56, 29 July 2005 (UTC)

Ahm, not knowing exactly the history in question, however there seems to be some truth in some of those analyses. For example, I know that most historians today agree that it most probably was a Polish/Vendic princess whom first Eric then Sweyn married. Eric's marriage with a Norse Sigrid is possibly a distorted info, or an earlier marriage, or a bigamity, or even fiction. This all should be treaded carefully and objective analysis presented balancingboth views. Perhaps even the "nationalist" would be satisfied in the end. 217.140.193.123 19:46, 29 July 2005 (UTC)

Well, yes. I have written about the problems of defining Sigrid the Haughty as a historical character in her own article, but this person asserts her fictiveness which is a different matter all-together. He has already shown that he does not respond when I try to make contact with him (on a slightly different IP address), and he completely ignores this discussion.--Wiglaf 20:52, 29 July 2005 (UTC)

One thing I know for sure, no swedish king has ever ruled Denmark.

This is an encyclopedia. If you want to present your own certainties and opinions, you should make a webpage about it.--Wiglaf 15:51, 6 August 2005 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure I would have known if another nation had ever ruled my country, only one has ever done so, and that was Germany in WW2. Besides, I'm not your so-called "POV-pusher".

It is very interesting that when I state that Canute the Great ruled Sweden for some time, it gets removed by Swedes. When I state that Eric the Victorious probably ruled Denmark for some time, it gets removed by Danes. I frankly think that it is distressing. This is an encyclopedia, where we state what primary and secondary sources say. If Swedes and Danes can't accept that their kings may sometimes have ruled the other country as well, what hope is there for Wikipedia?--Wiglaf 11:47, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

Well I don't see any sort of questioned neutrality on the Canute the Great article, nor any talks about Swedes removing stuff.

Can we put to rest the Neutrality dispute? I'll leave it up until sept 1st, unless someone says otherwise. (Opes 08:12, 27 August 2005 (UTC))

Well, I suggest that it remains until someone has solved the neutrality problems with the article.--Wiglaf 14:39, 2 September 2005 (UTC)

I made a try, but the anonymous POV-pusher reappeared. I guess we'll have to live with these tags on the article.--Wiglaf 15:54, 10 September 2005 (UTC)

Hows this?

I'm not an expert on the subject, so bear with me here... The article as-is has an obvious pov that Sweyn wasn't overthrown... most of the content of the article is about this. Could we say something like (My facts are sketchy at best, I dont' really know the history):

Sweyn I "Forkbeard" (Sven Otto Haraldsson; Danish: Svend Tveskæg, originally Tjugeskæg or Tyvskæg, Norwegian: Svein Tjugeskjegg) (c. 960 – February 3, 1014). Sveyn succeeded his father Harold I as king of Denmark, probably in late 986 or early 987... (blah blah blah) ... Adam of Bremen says in his history Saxo Grammaticus claims that Sweyn was deposed by Swedish king Eric the Victorious. Some historians disagree with this, however (put cites to case against Adam here)..."

Admittedly a loose framework, but I think what we need to do is put in that some people *do* disagree with the history, but not state an opinion (ie "This is highly doubtful"). I'd do a draft of the whole article, but I'll leave that to someone who has more knowledge of the history. Windsagio 23:55, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

made what i hope will be some improvements to what i consider a bit of a ramshackle...his name is totally different throughout...I couldn't decide on which name to use, I haven't yet finished, i decided on Sven..alot of the British history books do give Sweyn, but throughout my studies and books i have always decided on Sven...it is an English name which seems to correspond best with scandinvian equivalents...any suggestions?Ciriii 02:58, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

Ciriii - Regardless if some facts can be disputed, changing an article to your POV isnt really a good idea. Granted I agree with some of your edits, sven, sweyn or svend, you are always going to run into differences in spelling. But if the article is being disputed, making major changes to the article usually is not advised. Hence why I reverted back to the last bot edit.(Opes 19:54, 15 December 2005 (UTC))

Well, actually it's not my POV per se. I do not see that it makes sense to revert completely back to the former article...only to add the NPOV etc..back and whatever you think necessary. Not only does it say at the start that Sven carried other names in different nations, but this being the English article, then the English name should be given. Sweyn is rather Whiggish, so Sven seems to fit in nicely. Since i feel i keep a neutral, none English, dane, or Swede POV then i have reverted again, however I will keep the NPOV, POV etc at the start, i perhaps went too far deleting those. Since you feel you agreed with some aspects, it would be great for you to add something to the article. Sven is not my favourite part of history, and so much discussion over a ver small and , not so significant reign, i find it quite amusing! I rather felt that there were edits within edits in the article...i just wanted to attendCiriii 20:53, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

And for your information Opes, it certainly is not my first day..please do your resaerch before being so offensive, i was BOLD, something Wikipedia advocates, you are so protective of what was a bad article...Why?

This article has been disputed for months. Its been constantly argued about. I'm not to going to agrue about this article. Plus I'm not in the mood today. If you are so offended, you need to grow a tougher hide. I just find it ridiculous that someone would come in and start making major changes to an article that is being disputed of POV, its just adding to the agruement, which we are currently doing right now. I'm done. I dont give a shit. Edit it anyway you want. Someone else can agrue with you about it.Opes 21:31, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

The fact that it is has a disputed POV is one reason i created what i see as a wholly more neutral article. I built upon what was already there and made it more consistent, icluding a few more generally agreed upon historical accuracies. As for my hide...it's fine thanks....purt, tough....lovely! Ciriii 16:37, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

Edit, not revert

Okay i do understand where people are coming from. Name changed to Sweyn, in all cases; that being the article nbame. But rather thanj just reverting EVERY time to something that must be an inferior article judjing by the lack of consensus on it it...can you not all make something better? Istead of arguing over who invaded who and what his name is! An edit would be more productive then a revert. What i created is by no means perfect, but I was trying to create a neutral objective solution that was just history...I hope you guys will edit, and not revert!Ciriii 19:05, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

Correct name: Sweyn? Svein? Sven?

Which name should be used do there is at least some consensus? In all my studiesw I have never seen Svend in an English book. I dodn't think we should give local names to rulers in the English encyclopaedia either. Mostly i see Sweyn, but when i added this it was edited away to Svend....could others please add comments.Ciriii 18:29, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

I would go with Sweyn. I would state his fathers name.

for example:

Sweyn Haroldson (Forkbeard) Son of King Harold Gormsson, and father of Knut the Great.

Opes 21:53, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

The way you have it now is good. Opes 21:55, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Have changed all the Sven/svend entries to Sweyn as this not only creates a consensus but also agrees with the name of the article! seems sensible!

I made a search of recent books on Google Books:

• 573 pages on King Svein Denmark date:1980-2006
• 441 pages on King Sven Denmark date:1980-2006
• 382 pages on King Swein Denmark date:1980-2006
• 349 pages on King Sweyn Denmark date:1980-2006
• 197 pages on King Sveinn Denmark date:1980-2006
• 152 pages on King Svend Denmark date:1980-2006

I suspect the form Sweyn is a bit outdated. What do you think? Haukur 15:54, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

yes, dated, but still relevant. What is the predilection to keep updating things? Most sources I use, use Sweyn or Swein, I do not see why a google search is the definitive answer? Whatever his name may have been anywhere else. Quite simply it couldn't have been any of the names with "v" as this letter was not introduced into the English alphabet until the mid-eighteenth century at the earliest.--Ciriii 17:52, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

You have that precisely backwards. U/V has been in use since before the Romans. It's w that's the anachronism here. — LlywelynII 02:58, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

Out of interest, which sources do you have that mention this king? Haukur 18:31, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

well they are secondary, no primary. I am not listing every book on anglo-saxon history I own. Though I would say the e ango saxon chronicle uses Swein, but sometimes Suein intermittently, of the published historians: F.Stenton uses Swein (Anglo saxon England), Roy Strong=Sweyn (Story of Britain), Alison Weir=Sweyn British Monarchs).I think there is a definite case for changing ot to Swein?? any thoughts? --Ciriii 17:04, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

after doing a google search (not just books, though, didnt want to resrtict to just recent publications found on Google) sweyn+forkbeard=14,600 , swein+forkbeard=505 and svend+forkbeard=657 so I reckon that's maybe not so dated as we reckoned, and in English it is convention to call him that. so...--Ciriii 17:48, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Interesting, but you've got to be careful because the Wikipedia name has been Sweyn for a good while now and Wikipedia content is mirrored all over the net. It's possible to counteract this to some extent by using "-Wikipedia" in the Google search. Doing that this is what I got:

• 4.100 pages for Svend Forkbeard -Wikipedia
• 1.330 pages for Swein Forkbeard -Wikipedia
• 952 pages for Sweyn Forkbeard -Wikipedia
• 572 pages for Svein Forkbeard -Wikipedia
• 512 pages for Sven Forkbeard -Wikipedia
• 111 pages for Sveinn Forkbeard -Wikipedia

This is clearly still a bit bonkers, you and I both know that "Svend" is not the most common form in English. In fact I don't have a single English language book which spells his name like that. I agree with you that Swein has some attraction; Sweyn looks rather quaint to me. I'm still rather partial to Svein based on the books search, which has often served me well in the past. I'll try a Forkbeard search there and let's see what we get. Haukur 19:44, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

• 270 pages on Svein Forkbeard
• 233 pages on Sweyn Forkbeard
• 203 pages on Swein Forkbeard
• 120 pages on Sven Forkbeard
• 33 pages on Svend Forkbeard
• 17 pages on Sveinn Forkbeard

This time I didn't specify a time-period; though I still think that recent books are more relevant for questions like this than old books. Haukur 19:51, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

ah yes I see what you mean. I thought my numbers were a bit strange! I agree with you, Sweyn is definitely getting a bit..whiggish, and Svend is not right here. Swein is definitely what i would go with. Though I would like to hear what other people think, too. --Ciriii 23:28, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

The historical name is Zven (i.e., Sven) — w (and not v) was the late addition to the alphabet.

The odd results above are probably from poor searches. Svend is a fairly common modern name (albeit much better known as Sven in English) and searching without quotes'll leave you too many results. For the general Google search, you shouldn't just use -wikipedia but also -wiki. Also, limit the language to English. That leaves us with:

• 42800 for "Sweyn Forkbeard,"
• 11600 for "Svein Forkbeard,"
• 14200 for "Svend Forkbeard,"
• 10300 for "Swein Forkbeard,"
• 3860 for "Sven Forkbeard,"
• 363 for "Sveinn Forkbeard,"
• 143 for "Swend Forkbeard,"
• 91 for "Swen Forkbeard," and
• 5 for "Sweinn Forkbeard"

from the general search. Google Books (English from 2000) gives 2060, 1390, 194, 1780, 688, 118, 108, 8, and 4. Google Scholar (English from 2000) gives 62, 70 (Svein), 12, 97 (Swein), 39, 18, 2, and 0 and 0. So "Svend" (which started this off) is definitely a popular anachronism and the movement of scholars is towards "Swein," but there's no real consensus except for the popular one supported by the fact Wiki's article is under that name. ;)

I'll patch up the intro to reflect that. — LlywelynII 03:25, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

Hm. Checking up on the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle and these English translations give Sweyne. At 392/0/1, it mightn't go in the lede, but the first sentence should be rewritten. I'll see if I can't find the Latin original. — LlywelynII 03:34, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

Found it. It was (appropriately enough) in Old English instead of Latin, but its version is Swegen (MSS C, D, & E; presumably originally "sƿeᵹen", /sweɣen/; "Swegen" 753/6/3). — LlywelynII 03:40, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

See also: the amusing #name section of his grandson's talk page. — LlywelynII 05:09, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

Death date

On Kingdom of England is the death date February 2, 1014 is listed. Here it is February 3, 1014. Please find the correct. Can't find sources. None are listed. ARRRRRRGH!!! HELP MEEEE IM DYING!!!1!!!11!!11111 --80.63.213.182 13:43, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Beard/nickname

I'm not a linguist but I am suspicious of the given etymology of "tjugeskaeg", "tveskeg", etc. It sounds to me like the Dutch "tve" (two) added to the ON "skegg" (Beard? Or I would guess the root of "shag" or "shaggy" in English, after "skip/ship", "skyv/shove", etc.) and numerous bynames (Kolskegg, Skeggi, Skeggjason, etc), i.e. literally "dual-beard", "split-beard", or something like that. Is there a speaker of ON in the house?

The Old Norse form is definitely Tjúguskegg; formed from tjúga and skegg. Tjúga means "pitch-fork", skegg means "beard". [1] [2] Haukur 20:55, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

About the roots of Sveyns, or whatever you want to call him, petname; "Tveskeg", "Tjugeskaeg" and so on it should probably best be translated to English as Twobeard. Skegg means beard and tve is a older form of two. A "Tjuga" looks like an upsidedown U. Two sharp ends. He probably had a beard that looked something like it. And a thought; shouldn,t take you the most common english form of the name be used since you are writing for, mostly, english readers. In Sweden he is always called Sven but is not likely in England. Kurt

Sven is the original Latin and also a much more common name in English than Sweyn, but (see below) it's apparently the scholarly consensus on rendering this guy. Anyway, the trick OP missed is that English "fork" isn't necessarily three-pronged or an eating utensil. It also shows up in things like "fork in the road" and "fork-tongued" where it simply means 'split.' That's what they're talking about here. — LlywelynII 04:57, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

I changed the paragraph. We're not talking about his moustache here, but about dividing his full beard on the middle. This fashion can be seen on numerous English coins from this period, and England is undoubtedly where he picked it up. --dllu 15:29, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Harraldsson

Hi, somebody added Harraldsson as a surname and i removed it as i wanted it confirming..I never heard of him referred to as this and it could just be an easy Scandinavian guess, i mean I could be Michaelsson..but I am not...if you get me?? So could someone find me a csource?Ciriii 15:32, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Hi Ciriii, well, technically, it's correct: he was Harald's son. But I don't know how frequently or by whom he is referred to like that. Since name issues seem to have rocked this article before, I think it's best if some of the original contributors are given a chance to comment before new names are added. Seems like most Wiki articles refer to him as Forkbeard only; with the exception of German Wikipedia, most have not bothered with a -son name for him. See for example Danish, Icelandic, Norwegian, Norwegian, and Swedish Wikipedia. Best (and thanks so much for keeping an eye on vandalism to this article too! Your work here, as elsewhere, is much appreciated Cirii!), Pia 00:17, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

You've got to remember it isn't a surname, but rather a patronym. So your patronym, Cirii, would be Michaelsson whether you acknowledge it or not and regardless of official usage or legal standing. As his father is called 'Harald' he IS Sveinn Haraldsson whether he used it or not. BodvarBjarki (talk) 16:14, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Possible Descendants

Sweyn de Eiton who had possession of a "Town on the River Eye" in Scotland. He was a viking invader who was given the area after invading and taking control. Does anyone know if there is a relation? Sbfenian1916 22:51, 8 July 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 09:31, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Wales

What about a mention of this fine chappys visits to wales? Swansea is named after him afterall (but thats as much as I know..) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.232.237.213 (talk) 20:56, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Family Tree

The family tree given in the article seems to have more to do with the succession to the English throne, rather than having all that much to do with Sweyn. This causes it to be cluttered with irrelevant material, and to lack important connections, such as Sweyn Estridson. If no one can justify it's retention as it is, I am going to either delete it or significantly pare it down. Agricolae (talk) 18:55, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

OK, don't say I didn't warn you. Agricolae (talk) 03:18, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Debate on the inclusion of family trees and the like has taken place extensively elsewhere, notable Talk:Louis V of France. Just so you know. I certainly am happy to see another one of these things go. Srnec (talk) 18:36, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

New file File:Sweyn drawing.jpg

Recently the file File:Sweyn drawing.jpg (right) was uploaded and it appears to be relevant to this article and not currently used by it. If you're interested and think it would be a useful addition, please feel free to include it. Dcoetzee 09:49, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Previously the main picture for Sweyn Forkbeared was a stone relief. Whether it should return to being the main picture or not I recommend that the original stone relief picture be included in this article. [[3]] --Acefox (talk) 22:33, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

Svein redirects here, why not a name article?

Names like Soren & Severin has articles just for the first given name, why not Svein / Sveinn as well? 4.242.174.159 (talk) 20:53, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Because nobody's written one yet. Feel free to turn the redirect into a name article. Dcoetzee 23:54, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Actually it is the same as Sven (at least according to that article), so I am redirecting it there instead. --Saddhiyama (talk) 09:22, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Unopposed King of England?

This claim is unsourced; since Edmund Ironside was still in England, it seems doubtful. How active opposition to a major army was likely to be in mid-winter is an entirely different question. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 16:38, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

Swansea

This invisible text was left in the article:

< ! - - Swyen Forkbeard is the founder of the town Swansea, in Wales. Swansea is a corruption of Sweyn's Ey, which means "Sweyn's Island". Why exactly he settled in modern day Swansea is unknown, but it is generally accepted that the Vikings and Celtic nations were allies against the Anglo-Saxons. NOTE: Making this invisible until we locate a source - - - >

Leaving aside the typos, remember to leave the text here outside of the main body of the article. First, it's not cluttering it; second and more important, other editors can help look for a cite for you. — LlywelynII 04:51, 18 August 2011 (UTC)