Talk:Magnus the Strong

2007 issues

I find the last paragraph strange, can anyone confirm this and remove the last sentence?

Magnus had often traveled to the Swedish province of what is now Finland in his youth. Legend has it that his last words on the battlefield were the mournful song, "Finland, Finland, Finland...the country where I quite long to be!" His story was recorded in the Epic of Magnus, a lost poem mentioned in several Swedish documents.

Actually, that part's not true.

I think old name of this article (Magnus the Strong) is better, because Magnus was only pretender to crown. In all sources he is mentioned as pretender in time of civil war for Swedish crown, who controlled Götaland, but never as king of Götaland. --Ioakinf 15:40, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

We do not take a position in Wikipedia upon who were rightful kings and who were not. The fact remains that he was an acknowledged, ruling king (of Gothenland) and is so acknowledged even today (curiously, see the king list published at the homepage of the royal court of Sweden). Contrary to the above allegation, there were and are plenty of sources which mention him as king. To name him as if he was just a pretender, will be POV. We instead mention such controversy in the article itself. Suedois 20:07, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

The line of Swedish kings in the early Middle Ages is not secure. Several of the kings are only attested in one or two sources, and if he was not acknowledged in Uppland, he did not, by definition, count as a king of Sweden. The only reason to assume that he was king of Sweden is an obscure line in Gesta Danorum book 13, where Saxo writes that Magnus was sole ruler after the death of Ragnvald Knaphövde.--Berig 20:14, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

The only source that mention the election of Magnus as king by the "Gothi" is Saxo Grammaticus and he clearly states that the election was illegal and annulled by the "Sueones".

Move to Magnus I of Sweden

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: moved by User:Anthony Appleyard on 6 March DrKiernan (talk) 17:25, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

---

Magnus I of Gothenland → Magnus I of Sweden — See proposal below. SergeWoodzing Proposal: Don't know where all the seemingly very certain POV above is from, but the fact is that this man is recognized as a king of Sweden. I have added two reliable sources to the article to that effect. There has never been such title as of Gothenland or (Sw:) av Götaland, so that fantasy alone warrants a name change. SergeWoodzing (talk) 15:43, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

I tried to make sense of the article because I could not understand much of it. It was very difficult with long sentences and parentheses, and a lot of important material was missing. I added a little, and I think I have not added anything that is wrong.

Is it known who was king of Uppland after Ragnvald was murdered? Did Magnus really become king of the whole of Sweden and recognized even in Uppland, or did Uppland stand without a king? It is peculiar that not even the Geats counted Magnus as king later in the century.

user:Berig may be an expert on early Swedish history, but I see nothing wrong in following the "official" line of the royal court, even if that line is technically incorrect. So support.

Fred-J 19:34, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Translation

Someone should translate this source and add it to the article.--The Emperor's New Spy (talk) 00:11, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

Killed battle or assassinated?

We now have 2 different editors reversing me for opposite reasons when I'm trying to do the right thing. Was King Nicholas (Niels) killed in battle or was he murdered by townspeople = assassinated? Pls let me know ! --SergeWoodzing (talk) 09:40, 20 August 2019 (UTC)

Inappropriate move from ...

Magnus I of Sweden. See above on this page. Wrote to user- --SergeWoodzing (talk) 22:41, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

I apologize for not reading the talkpage before I made the move. The name struck me as so singulary odd that I could not possibly imagine that it had been suggested and discussed by two editors on the talkpage. He is called "Magnus den Stærke" on Danish WP, "Magnus Nilsson" on Swedish WP, and "Magnus den sterke" on Norwegian WP, but you insist that English WP calls him "Magnus I of Sweden". Why do you insist on him being called "king of Sweden" if he was never accepted as king by the Swedes?--Berig (talk) 22:52, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

You apology is of no value or meaning as long as you do not reverse the inappropriate move and discuss this to seek consensus. Please do not dictate! What this man is called in Norwegian or Danish is irrelevant. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 23:14, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

I see in your discussion above, you decided on the move in spite of you two knowing that a third competent editor would be against it. That really goes against the idea of consensus on WP.--Berig (talk) 05:14, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

I looked into this and I believe Magnus the Strong is a far better title than Magnus I, which I didn't see in use anywhere. The other common thing I see him being called is Magnus Nielsen, which is meaningless to English readers besides raising the issue of modern Danish vs. modern Swedish spelling, but many sources I found in English refer to him as "King Niels and his son Magnus" and one with an emphasis on Denmark calls him "Prince Magnus". I also don't see him being referred to in English as "King Magnus". Most of the sources I found take a nuanced view on whether he can be called a king. Svenskt biografiskt lexikon, our ref 1, calls him a pretender in bold at the top and goes on to say that "according to Saxo" power passed to him after the guy the Svear elected was bumped off. Dansk Biografisk Lexikon, after saying where he was elected and where he wasn't, it seems to me quite pointedly goes on to say he never achieved power but must have got some respect from "the title of Swedish king" and his marriage alliance. Philip Line's Kingship and State Formation in Sweden: 1130–1290 (Leiden: Brill, 2007) does list him as a king of Sweden (as "Magnus Nielsen"), but in its account of him, says: "There must be some doubt whether Magnus ever had any real authority outside Västergötland, let alone in Svealand." In contrast Bengt Liljegren's Rulers of Sweden (2004, translated from Regenter i Sverige, Lund: Historiska Media) calls him "Magnus the Strong"; I can't see enough to tell whether it calls him "king of Sweden" but the context of the start of the chapter suggests another nuanced view—elected by some, rejected by others. His doubtful claim to have been king of Sweden is an additional reason not to have the article at Magnus I, in addition to its not being the common name; it implies legitimacy. We appear to have three sources for saying that he is regarded as having been king of Sweden: DBL, which unless I've missed it does not say that, Kings and Rulers of Sweden, which appears to be OCLC 845279887, a 1995 Swedish "pocket encyclopedia", and the Swedish Crown. Despite my respect for the Swedish Crown, I think the most we should be saying about his having been king of Sweden is that the Swedish Crown counts him as one. But the implications of "Magnus I" are my second reason for recommending against moving the article to any version of that title again; the stronger reason is that it appears to be a made-up name that I don't find used in any reliable sources. Yngvadottir (talk) 02:14, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

Yes, it is a made-up name, which makes it unacceptable here. SergeWoodzing has to abide by WP:NAME.--Berig (talk) 05:14, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

The only question that should be asked is: what is the name used by English-language biographies and reference introductions to Scandinavian history? Contributors should avoid making their own interpretations and rather follow WP:COMMONNAME and the majority opinion of reliable sources. Alcaios (talk) 10:08, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

A quick search of google books returns many results for Magnus the Strong [1]. An ngram also shows the name to be more common. Also, of course, the king marked as Magnus III of Sweden on Wikipedia is also counted as Magnus I in many searches, see [2]. In sum, I think that "Magnus the Strong" is the better name.--Ermenrich (talk) 14:34, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

An inportant aspect about his name and/or title, that isn't present in the English version of the article for the moment, but can be found mentioned in the Danish version of the article, is, that he wasn't merely a Swedish king (for some years) but in fact he was also co-king in Denmark upon his death. We can document this 'co-kingship' from at least the 15th of April 1134, but it's not entirely impossible, that he was reckoned as such in Denmark prior to this date. So for at least aprox. 1½ month of the year 1134 he was also a king of Denmark, therefore it would seem both unfair and inappropriate to list him merely as Magnus I of Sweden. For further documentation on his Danish kingship look at this reference (you need to copy the link directly into your browser in order to see the content): Regesta Imperii. Akademie der Wissenschaften und der Literatur, Mainz: "RI IV Lothar III. und ältere Staufer (1125-1197) - RI IV,1,1 - 1134 April 15, Halberstadt" (www.regesta-imperii.de/regesten/4-1-1-lothar-iii/nr/1134-04-15_1_0_4_1_1_392_392.html?tx_hisodat_sources[action]=show&tx_hisodat_sources[controller]=Sources&cHash=8719127f4b33fc041a031693357e7cd7#rinav) Oleryhlolsson (talk) 17:33, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

Per WP:COMMONNAME and the comments of Yngvadottir and Ermenrich, i believe Berig was justified in moving the title to Magnus the Strong. Krakkos (talk) 20:41, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

I concede and would agree 100% if it were not for what looks like that user's self-assigned carte blanche to make controversial moves without discussing them first (see h talk page). The former name was in place for many years. That, alone, even disregarding the talk page comments and previous discussed & completed move already in place, would normally warrant caution, not omnipotence. The "singuarly-odd" excuse applied above, immediately after what otherwise could have been taken as a sincere apology, does not hold water when (1) this man according to the current Swedish government was the first of 4 Swedish kings named Magnus and (2) noted historians such as Ulf Sundberg & Lars O. Lagerqvist specifically have endorsed the name form Magnus I for him. I will not be doing page moves while disregarding talk even if I see something "singularly odd" anyway. I can only hope nobody will.

Oleryhlolsson: start a separate talk section on that, or just go ahead and add it! It's interesting--SergeWoodzing (talk) 05:41, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

Alternative name

I added the name Magnus Nilsson to the first sentence per MOS:FULLNAME and MOS:BIOALTNAME. This name is actually the primary name in the English-language sources in the introduction, and as far as I know, there is no guideline against patronymics. Jähmefyysikko (talk) 08:06, 29 April 2024 (UTC)