Talk:Lagertha

Name

Lathgertha is an odd way of spelling her name.

--Sparviere (talk) 20:11, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

confusing edit

This was edited (17 Jan 2009 Anthroproffs) to "Frodo, a Swyddian (Swithian) chieftain" from the original (3 Oct 2008 Drifter bob) "Frey, ‘king’ of Sweden" when a Frey is mentioned later in the paragraph but a Frodo is not; so, is "Frodo Swyddian chieftain" same as "Frey 'king' of Sweden"? The first impression of an edit like this is vandalism, second is an incompleted edit, either should be cleared up by someone who knows Viking history.Naaman Brown (talk) 20:17, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Lagertha - Ladgerd - Ladgerda - Hladgerd

If one scrutinize the old Norse name Ladgerd in modern Swedish / Norwegian / Danish / Icelandic terms, it might be consistuated of words in now modern Swedish such as "lada" and "gärde".

"lada" means barn and "gärde" means enclosed pasture. It might be the name of a woman who manages the barn and the enclosed pastures. A farmers wife, or their daughter. Or a woman who work for them and is held high for her work. Or a single woman, perhaps a widow, owning her own land. It is not uncommon that people get new names in old Norse history.

I can refer to several names wich are supposed to have a meaning somehow, but i choose one: Modern "Bodil" - Bothildr. It means remendy of war. Bot - remendy. Hildr - war.

This name is only used in Denmark and Sweden, wich have incidentially world record of wars against oneanother :(

This style of building a name would be quite typical for northern Europe. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.112.122.59 (talk) 00:20, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

I agree that the name of this fictional women in modern Swedish would be Ladugård which means farmyard or Ladugärd which means fence around a barn area. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 08:35, 11 December 2019 (UTC)

husband

It says that upon returning to Norway she killed her husband, but there's no mention of who that was, and it currentl;y reads as if it were Ragnar Lodbrok, despite them not being married at the time. --Stevehim (talk) 05:42, 20 June 2017 (UTC)

That's what the chronicle says. We don't know who her husband was at the time.  Sandstein  06:37, 20 June 2017 (UTC)

Legendary vs. fictional

I do not believe that this reversal was constructive. It must be well clarified in the lead that this person never existed. We do not need to source such things. If anyone has a source that even in the slighttest way infers that she existed (there are none) that could change things. Since the TV series became so popular more and more input has been added to all related articles which apparently is meant to portray these people as real. The clean-up effort is a big task. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 01:05, 12 December 2019 (UTC)

@SergeWoodzing: I appreciate what you are trying to do, but I think your approach lacks nuance. The Lagertha from the TV series is a fictional character, but Saxo's Lagertha, which we cover here, is a character of legend. Fiction is something that somebody made up for entertainment, and we as the audience know that. Legend overlaps with fiction only insofar that legendary people (probably) did not exist, or at least not in the way legend portrays them. But they were believed, at least at one time, to be real, and were written about as real people.

Lagertha is such a case. She is portrayed as a real Viking warrior in Saxo's chronicle, and only later scholarship has determined that the chronicle is, at least in this case, of very doubtful historicity. But we can't be sure about her nonexistence in the same way we can be sure that fictional characters such as Harry Potter do not exist. That's the distinction between fiction and legend, and to gloss over it would be to do our readers a disservice.

For this reason, I think your addition "As with Ragnar, there is no reliable evidence that she actually existed outside of the stories." is not helpful. That's what her description as a person of legend already implies, and spelling it out that way appears patronizing and insulting to our audience. Sandstein 07:54, 12 December 2019 (UTC)

I've attempted to convey this more clearly in the lead as follows: "According to modern scholarship, it is likely that Lagertha was not a historical figure, but a reflection of tales about Viking warrior women or about the Norse deity Thorgerd (Þorgerðr Hölgabrúðr)." Sandstein 08:26, 12 December 2019 (UTC)

Please reverse your change until we (and others who might wich to opine) have finished discussing this! That's what we do: discuss, reach consensus then change.

"But they were believed, at least at one time, to be real, and were written about as real people." is personal conjecture and is not helpful in finding a solution to the serious problem (for Wikipedia) that I described. Some people have believed that Tom Sawyer, Alice in Wonderland, Sherlock Holmes, Draculas' Daughter & Johnny Appleseed existed. Nobody knows what Saxo or Snorri or Adam of Bremen or Saint Bridget actually believed, and conjecture about that isn't going to help either. I have dealt with legends, myths, semi-legendary figures, fiction and historical facts since 1966. Historical novels (which I own about 300) are often called fiction and legitimate biographies (which I own about 600) are about people that existed. "Lagertha" did not exist and that is not in any way patronizing and insulting, but it may hurt a few feelings where a few people in varying degrees of desparation want her to be maybe real (because she's so fine on TV) and insist on wording these articles that way. To be constructive, this wording would be acceptable: "According to modern scholarship, Lagertha was not a historical figure, but a reflection of tales about Viking warrior women or about the Norse deity Thorgerd." I will yield if any reliable source can be given to support the speculative wording "it is likely that Lagertha was not a historical figure". --SergeWoodzing (talk) 09:50, 12 December 2019 (UTC)

OK, so our disagreement is only about the qualifier "it is likely that" in the sentence "According to modern scholarship, [it is likely that] Lagertha was not a historical figure, but a reflection of tales about Viking warrior women or about the Norse deity Thorgerd"?

I believe that this qualifier is appropriate. In the body of the article, we write: "According to Judith Jesch, the rich variety of tales in the first nine books of Saxo's Gesta, which include the tale of Lagertha, are 'generally considered to be largely fictional'", and "Davidson deems it possible, as Nora K. Chadwick considered very probable, that Lagertha is identical with Thorgerd". These scholars make qualified statements; they do not assert that Lagertha is not historical. It remains therefore possible (if less likely) that Saxo's chronicle does describe a historical Lagertha. We should reflect this in the lead. Sandstein 11:12, 12 December 2019 (UTC)

I would be OK with " According to modern scholarship, there is no reliable evidence that Lagertha was a historical figure, but a reflection of ...". That's what should be made clear to readers, not conjecture & interpretations. The current construed wording is cumbersome and does not accurately reflect what sources actually say.

I am still not OK with your reversing without discusson first. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 08:37, 13 December 2019 (UTC)

Actually, per WP:BRD, the normal course of action is just what happened here: you edit, I revert, we discuss.

I think your wording with "no reliable evidence" somewhat misses the point. The issue is not one of evidence, and the scholars mentioned above do not discuss evidence. Rather, they make assumptions in terms of probabilities based on their judgment and their assessment of Saxo's chronicle and his sources. A probability-based statement, as I proposed, therefore seems more appropriate. Sandstein 09:15, 13 December 2019 (UTC)

I think you should have a close look at WP:EW which is more important that acting bold (doing as one pleases regardless of important guidelines). You reversed without discussing. We do not do that. If you' like to keep arguing that point, we can do it elsewhere & get some administrators involved.

I also think stressing Saxo as vital here is rather silly. He actually claimed that Lagertha flew around in the air. In any way a reliable source worth quoting? The cumbersome wording "it is likely that Lagertha was not a historical figure" is not encyclopedic and not acceptable. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 09:36, 13 December 2019 (UTC)

OK. I'll ask for a third opinion (WP:3O). Sandstein 11:15, 13 December 2019 (UTC)

I see you already did that, thanks. Saxo's Gesta Danorum is a primary source for our purposes, and apparently neither a work of pure fiction, nor a work of history that meets modern academic standards, but something in between, a mixture of fact and fiction, as is not unusual for chronicles and the like. That's why we rely on modern secondary sources to assess its reliability. Sandstein 11:20, 13 December 2019 (UTC)

WP:3O request

In light of the above, which version of the following sentence in the lead is preferable? Sandstein 11:15, 13 December 2019 (UTC)

1. "According to modern scholarship, it is likely that Lagertha was not a historical figure, but a reflection of tales about Viking warrior women or about the Norse deity Thorgerd."
2. "According to modern scholarship, there is no reliable evidence that Lagertha was a historical figure, but a reflection of tales about Viking warrior women or about the Norse deity Thorgerd."

I'd go for the first, shorter version. It says all that is required, and the second version begs the question of what would be reliable evidence in this context. We have a good wording, based on reliable sources, and I suggest that we stay with it. I hope this helps. Richard Keatinge (talk) 12:58, 13 December 2019 (UTC)

@Richard Keatinge: Thanks. I agree. Sandstein 13:14, 13 December 2019 (UTC)

Thank you! Obviously, I do not agree. How the opinionated word "likely" can be included in "good wording" is beyond me. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 14:45, 14 December 2019 (UTC)

Evidence of existence?

What specific evidence is there (book & page number? not TV-series, not fans' adoring desires, not Wikipedians' personal PsOV) which suggests that this woman has existed, probably existed or might have existed? I cannot find anything other than very loose interpretations of the general type of stories told about her by certain specific story-tellers who have told fictional, semi-fictional and true stories. Anything else more substantial? Disney stores have been about fantasy characters, about real people portrayed with poetic license and also about real people depicted factually. Can we say that Donald Duck might have existed because he's mentioned by Disney? I think it's normal for Wikipedia to be very clear in explaining why some people of questionable historicity have been deemed probably to have existed. What's different here? --SergeWoodzing (talk) 15:20, 5 September 2021 (UTC)

Categorized as historical person

I will be removing Category:Viking Age women and Category:Germanic women warriors and Category:Viking warriors again unless someone can explain how a person whose very existence never has been substantiated in any way whatsoever can be considered an actual Germanic warrior etc etc. The other categories are perfectly sufficient and do not mislead anyone. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 12:12, 31 August 2021 (UTC)

SergeWoodzing, as per my talk page: it's in the nature of legends that they are in the grey area between history and fiction. In the case of Lagertha, she's a character in the Gesta Danorum, a medieval work that apparently mixes fact and fiction in the typical manner of medieval chronicles, so it's difficult to say whether she is pure fiction, an amalgam of real warrior women, or a historical person. Also, these categories do not necessarily apply only to persons of proven historicity, so I think they are appropriate here. Sandstein 15:53, 31 August 2021 (UTC)

Surprised to see something like that from an English Wikipedia administrator. "these categories do not necessarily apply only to persons of proven historicity, so I think they are appropriate here." Is that just your personal POV, an interpretation of sorts of category policy, or what do you base that on? Donald Duck is a "50th century man" or a "20th-century duck"? Some people actually do believe he exists in real life, though there is no evidence whatsoever that he does or ever did, nor that Lagertha does or ever did exist. None. Are we here to mislead people or to give our readers reasonably and reliably accurate information? --SergeWoodzing (talk) 15:22, 1 September 2021 (UTC)

PS Perhaps someone not so heavily involved in this article also should reply, preferably an administrator with a more balanced interpretation of what "Viking age women" actually were, and what they were not. Not one single Viking woman has ever actually been proven to have been a warrior. This one allegedly flew around all by herself. Is there a category for flying people, like Superman, Batman and her? --SergeWoodzing (talk) 15:28, 1 September 2021 (UTC)

I concur with Sandstein here. Personally, I don't believe Lagertha existed, but you simply cannot compare a legendary character with a fictional character like Superman or Donald Duck.--Berig (talk) 05:37, 4 September 2021 (UTC)

Thank you! I will be creating a category for personages that flew around all by themselves. Should I call it Flying humans or Flying people? Wouldn't "people" be more legendary than "humans"? I mean like humans would be more real, actual? Should I include words like "legendary" or "story-book"? Or avoid those controversial terms? Sort of depends on where I can include Lagertha, Superman and Batman, all 3, only 2 or one of the above. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 15:03, 5 September 2021 (UTC)

There is a certain difference between fictional characters and legendary characters. Fictional characters are usually not presented as real people, while legendary characters usually have been. Virtually all legendary characters have at one point been considered historical, and their historicity has usually neither been disproven nor proven. Their historicity is just generally doubted or dubious. Sometimes legendary characters are proven to have been historical, and sometimes historical people start to be considered legendary. Sometimes, they are generally assumed to have a historic basis. Please, consider the possibility that there are shades of grey here between historicity and fiction.--Berig (talk) 15:15, 5 September 2021 (UTC)

Thank you again! Who (to get back on topic) has at one point considered Lagertha to be historical, and at what specific point was that? Did (didn't) that source also say that she flew around? You could reply above if you'd like so that we don't discuss this in two places. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 15:26, 5 September 2021 (UTC)

This man presented her as such. I think we should keep the discussion here, and not split it up.--Berig (talk) 15:28, 5 September 2021 (UTC)

On second thought, I am not sure that this discussion will lead anywhere anymore, so I leave this discussion now having given my two cents.--Berig (talk) 15:37, 5 September 2021 (UTC)

Saxo told stories, just like Disney and the Brothers Grimm. No scholar has ever taken his stories to be any more factual than theirs. Our article is very clear about this being a story. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 13:31, 6 September 2021 (UTC)

Article name an invention?

"It is frequently[citation needed] rendered in English-language sources as 'Lagertha'" has been cite tagged for 10 months. Isn't this article just named for the magnificent TV heroine? Where is she "frequently" called "Lagertha", other than there? --SergeWoodzing (talk) 13:27, 6 September 2021 (UTC)

Latterday fiction

The article is now even more confusing after this reversal than it was before. As far as we know everything about the article subject is fiction. A separate section on fiction is thus misleading. Aside from being mocked for using a perfectly relevant word, I would like to know why we must have that confusion. 95% of this article is hoaxicana. The woman probably never existed at all, at least not under any such name, despite the almost hysterical desire and dogged attempts of a few Wikipedians to make her historic because they just love her on TV. Enough! --SergeWoodzing (talk) 18:51, 1 June 2022 (UTC)

It seems you and @Sandstein: have been in dispute over this for quite a while, while Sandstein makes a good point that there is a difference between legend and fiction, I do also think the article could do with some more clarity on the actual existence of this person. On the other hand if the sources we have are inconclusive about it, there is not much we can do about that other than not make a definitive statement in either direction. TylerBurden (talk) 19:40, 1 June 2022 (UTC)

@SergeWoodzing, see WP:AGF: I've no interest in "making" Lagertha "historic", and indeed the article, which I wrote, makes quite clear that historians generally think she's ahistorical. But you need to understand that legend is different from fiction: fiction is something made up that is known to be made up (such as the TV drama about Lagertha), while legend is "a genre of folklore that consists of a narrative featuring human actions, believed or perceived, both by teller and listeners, to have taken place in human history." Lagertha is a legend - a folkloristic story told about a woman once believed to be real - and that's not the same as a character in a novel. Sandstein 20:53, 1 June 2022 (UTC)

I own a historical library of over 600 volumes with many legends, many outright lies and lots of facts, so I know what's what. A lot of people believe that Donald Duck also is "based on an actual person of legend". A real person by the name of "Lagertha" is no more credible than that. OK, if you make your (?!) article much clearer on that, maybe we won't have all the over-excited TV people - Lagertha's gushing fans - constantly trying to make a real ruler of her. I think you are clever enough to do that, even if you then might piss off our most fanatic Lagerthites. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 21:21, 1 June 2022 (UTC)

@SergeWoodzing, I think you need to step back from editing this article. I've had to revert a lot of your edits that are based on your good-faith but mistaken belief that the article needs to make clearer that Lagertha is likely not a historical figure - which is already clearly set out by her characterization as legendary. Our readers are not stupid. Here you remove a source with the nonsensical reason "dead source 'page cannot be reached'", where the source is a printed book! This makes me believe you lack the skills, or critical distance, or both, to make productive edits to this article (or likely any historical article). Sandstein 15:48, 2 June 2022 (UTC)

"I do also think the article could do with some more clarity on the actual existence of this person." - Tyler Burden (above here). Why not insult him too? I am not alone in finding your (?!?) article lacking. Perhaps you should step back, if you cannot see that. Your article (?!?) is not perfect. It worries me that you cannot see that. I'm not going to attack your skills or productivity. That's not my style. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 19:25, 2 June 2022 (UTC)

Subjective Opinion Removed

"Saxo's depiction of women warriors is also colored by misogyny: Like most churchmen of the time, Saxo thought of women only as sexual beings. To him, the Viking shieldmaidens who refused this role were an example of the disorder in old heathen Denmark that was later cured by the Church and a stable monarchy."

This is a subjective statement of opinion, expressing a controversial conclusion based on contemporary gender politics. It lacks objectivity, historical factuality, and relevance to the source material. Removed. 67.221.111.164 (talk) 18:24, 8 July 2023 (UTC)

I've undone that. Per WP:V and WP:NPOV, Wikipedia articles are based on reliable secondary sources, notably peer-reviewed academic sources, as in this case. Disagreement with a source's assessment is not a sufficient basis to remove content. Instead, if you find another equally reliable sources that assesses the material differently, add that instead. The assessment is relevant because we know of Lagertha only through the "filter" of Saxo, therefore understanding Saxo's biases helps us assess the tale related by him better. Sandstein 20:29, 8 July 2023 (UTC)

"Identity with Thorgerd"

The subsection includes diverse conjecture where sources are cited re: certain content, but not for the correlation of one fact with any other. In my opinion, the whole subsection should go. This article already contains too much construed nonsense. SergeWoodzing (talk) 14:13, 27 April 2024 (UTC)