Talk:Rollo

Copied from Talk: Hrolf Ganger

Last time I checked, we called him Rollo the Brave in English.... JHK

Gange Hrolf was not the Rollo of Normandy

• Back to the old nomenclature question. I personally favor the Anglicized-Scandanavian version - Hrolf Ganger or Hrolf the Walker, whichever - because Rollo is ambiguous with other persons. I haven't seen "Rollo the Gangler" in any of my references, but it could certainly be added to the many variants on this name. -- April

Were we to use consensus nomenclature, the article would be entitled Rollo I, Duke of Normandy -- do you mind? Got the R the G from Hollister, BTW JHK

• Hm... I suppose I hadn't really thought of him in that context, but by all means let's go with the consensus nomenclature. I can get to it this weekend if someone doesn't move it first. -- April

---

Was there a Rollo II? If not, he's plain "Rollo, Duke of Normandy". Except on conversion he aparently adopted the name Robert and is given in some lists as Robert I (which means renumbering all the later Roberts). Aaaaargh! User:David Parker

David -- where did you get that? I know William's father was Robert, but I've NEVER heard that Rolf or Rollo was Robert. And NO ONE was called Robert then anyway -- was he Rodbertus, Ruadpertus (unlikely, that's more east of the Rhine), Rupertus (also more eastern, but where the Rupertiner was eastern, their distant cousins were the Robertians, i.e., Capetians...)? Don't suppose you've got a nice source we couold check? Annales Bertiniani? Vedastini? I'm pretty sure it's not in Annales Fuldensis, which is a drag, since I have that at home... ugh. JHK

I wasn't too happy with it myself: I certainly don't want to end up adding a I to every subsequent Robert. If he's the only Rollo we're likely to have, we could just title him "Rollo", or leave the title as is: the "of Normandy" is only really necessary when the regnal name occurs in other contexts. User:David Parker

• • Alas, it seems that there's more than one Rollo around... besides Hrolf, there's a character in a book and also a musical Rollo whose full name escapes me at the moment. -- April

PS. Is Rollo really French, or just their rendition of his original name?

I always thought (on no grounds at all) that Rollo is a Latinization from the chronicles of a name like Hrolf. MichaelTinkler

I think it's Francification Latinized. Really. No Joke. They did that. It's what makes my research so interesting. Can't spell a name the same way twice in a document. Really. AAARRRGGHH!!! JHK

---

I have to second the AAAARRRRGGHHH... I just found a source that questions whether Hrolf/Rollo can actually be fairly called a "duke" at all! Excerpts from Rosamond McKitterick's, "The Frankish Kingdom under the Carolingians, 751-987", (Longman) 1983:

"Rollo is thought to have been Norwegian rather than Danish, and later Icelandic sources identify him with Hrolf the Ganger (Walker), son of Ragnvald Earl of Moer, who had a career as a Viking before settling in Francia.... Flodoard adds the information that Rollo received baptism and the Frankish name Robert with the cession of this territory. ... Rollo seems to have been made a count in 911, with the traditional duties assigned to a Carolingian count, namely, protection and the administration of justice. He was certainly subordinate to the Frankish King. With the proliferation of titles accorded the leader of the Normandy Vikings in later sources, some historians hace suggested that Rollo was made a duke, but Werner has argued that there was no Norman 'marchio' before 950-6, and no duke before 987-1006 ... Rollo appears to have received his territory on similar terms as the Bretons had received the Cotentin, except that the bishoprics were also ceded. ..... In exchange, Rollo was to defend the Seine from other Vikings, accept baptism and become the 'fidelis' of the Frankish King."

Ack! Does this mean he is, in consensus nomenclature,

• Rollo I, Duke of Normandy
• Rollo, Duke of Normandy
• Robert I, Duke of Normandy
• Rollo, Count of Normandy
• Robert I, Count of Normandy''''''''''

         NO          signed Stalker

... or what?? Anyone know where current thinking is on this? -- April

AHA! This is an example of an excellent source! It's a tough call, because McKitterick seems to be implying that Werner thinks that R. could not have been a duke if there were no marchio. That's very silly, because Werner is very clear that there are both comites marchionis and duces marchionis. Normally speaking, I trust Werner, because he's been doing this stuff forever. But Carolingian sources are notorious for the interchangeability of titles and name spellings. My guess is that somebody found a reference to Rollo as dux and pieced it together with a much later duchy. I think that we should go with 'Count (some authors say Duke)...'. And I'm pretty sure we call him Rollo -- the best way to check is to find someone like Robert Curthose, get his number, and count backward. Me, I'm off to write a lecture on the English revolution.JHK

I do not follow JHK's logic here: McKitterick implies that there can be no duke without a marchio; Werner says that there can be marchiones without dukes. These two are perfectly compatible; where's the contradiction? Septentrionalis PMAnderson 18:34, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Timeline - Dukes of Normandy

(in reply to above)

The title "Duke of Normandy" was first officially used in 1006 by Richard II. Before this, the rulers of Normandy were typically referred to as "Count of Normandy" or "Count of the Normans" or "Count of Rouen" or "chieftains". That is, Rollo, William Longsword and Richard I were not styled as "Duke of Normandy" by any record. According to the American Society of Genealogists, Richard II was the first of his family to be unambiguously referred to as Duke of Normandy. This information is supported by various historical records and documents, including the "Ex Obituario Gemmeticensi" and the "Notae Monasterii Montis Sancti Micaelis". (fasg.org)

So, the first person to be styled as "Duke of Normandy" was Richard II. However, Richard II is considered the fourth Duke of Normandy. Rollo is considered to be the first Duke of Normandy, but was not styled so before 1006 - long after his death. It appears that any claim that Rollo, while alive, was known as Robert I, Duke of Normandy or Rollo I, Duke of Normandy, is a false claim.

The Chronological line of the Dukes of Normandy:

Rollo, first Duke of Normandy, from A. D. 912 to A. D. 917.

William I, second Duke of Normandy, from 917 to 942.

Richard I, third Duke of Normandy, from 942 to 996.

Richard II, fourth Duke of Normandy, from 996 to 1026. Styled Duke of Normandy, 1006.

Richard III, fifth Duke of Normandy, from 1026 to 1028

Robert I, sixth Duke of Normandy, from 1028 to 1035.

William II, seventh Duke of Normandy, from 1035 to 1087. He became William I of England in 1066.

Robert II, eighth Duke of Normandy - Robert Curthose (french: Courteheuse), from 1087 to 1106.

As show on the page Dukes of Normandy

I hope this is helpful to your considerations. Posted by Stiofan Ó, 10 Nov. 2024.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:8003:1443:400:400f:a21b:563e:292a (talk) 05:27, 10 November 2024 (UTC)

New Talk

Does anybody know if Rollo's size (height / weight) was ever documented? To earn the nickname 'the walker' he must have been rather large.

I'm confused. I got here from Battle of Soissons where it says that Rollo died in the battle. However June 15 says that Robert I of France died in that battle and his article seems to confirm that. Where these two different men who died on the same day at the same battle or are they the same person? Please fix all the articles I cited accordingly. --mav 03:58, 15 Jun 2004 (UTC)

They are not the same person. It is not known exactly when or where Rollo died but it was after 928 and therefore after the Battle of Soissons. (see Rollo's Henry Project page). Part of the confusion is genealogical; part is the anachronistic application of the title of Count to Rollo; part is the expectation of an orderly series of French kings. I think only the Battle of Sossoins article needs fixing: it was Robert I who was killed there, and Charles III who was captured there, and Rollo who wasn't there. - Nunh-huh 04:26, 15 Jun 2004 (UTC)

P.S. the article here somewhat naïvely accepts the identification of "Hrolf" with "Rollo": there's little basis for this and it ought not to be propounded as fact. I'm not up to straightening it up right now, though. Maybe someone will beat me to it! -- Nunh-huh 04:30, 15 Jun 2004 (UTC)

When it comes Rollo's height, and if he was the Norwegian Gange-Rolv, remember that the old Norwegian horses wasn't very big. He might have been a tall man, but certainly no gigant. --FinnWiki 01:23, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Who was Rollo ?

The Article confuses several stories about Rollo and tries to entwine them into one story.

This mixing of stories has been happening now for maybe 1000 years, so you are not the first to venture down this road.

If you take a look at the online version of "The first Dukes of Normandy by Dudo Saint-Quentin, new Edition published by Jules LAIR, 1865" you will find at the end of the book an Appendix - written in French - which describes the debate up to 1865, its origins, and the main players, and the authors opinion as to why Dudo's book was challenged. The reasons are mostly political.

Dudo was working as a family historian, with access to the grandson of Rollo, and with access to, and knowledge of, family records.

Dudo's Historia Normannorum in 994 relates that a cheiftain of Denmark was hostile to Rollo's family, including his father, a Danish nobleman who is not named and to Rollo's brother Gurim.

If you look at the political situation in Denmark at the time you will see the turmoil of the times. History records that Gorm "The Old" ruled from 936 until his death around 958 and his son Harald Bluetooth succeeded him. They unified Denmark under one ruler.

Before Gorm things are not so clear. Gorms father is likely Harthacnut I, but he is considered a semi-legendary Danish king. Harthacnut I's father was Sigurd Snake-in-the-Eye (reigned 877-891), a semi-mythic Viking chieftain. According to the saga Ragnarssona Þáttr, Sigurd Snake-in-the-Eye was one of the sons of the legendary Viking hero Ragnar Lodbrok.

The chronicler Flodoard (c.893-966 CE) describes viking raids in France, c. 876 which devestated the region of Rouen. The seige of Paris took place in circa 885-886. These stories suggest Rollo was in France around the time of Sigurd, but at this time there was no one ruler of Denmark. Exactly who Rollo's family conflicted with is therefore unclear.

There is little reason to disbelieve Dudo's story. He wrote his Historia Normannorum between 996 and 1015. If he was trying to falsely glorify Rollo, he could have easily made more elaborate claims. And if the Normandy family knew for certain that there were more elaborate claims to be made, surely these would have been recorded. Instead, Dudo simply wrote the family got caught up in the power struggle that was happening in Denmark, Gurim was killed and Rollo left - or was exiled.

Much later, historians in the 11th and 12th century began to discredit Dudo's story and suggest an alternative. Both to glorify Rollo and to claim him as one of their own. They did not have the same first hand information Dudo had. Read Jules Lair's appendix to see the full story.

Snorri Sturluson' sagas are the least believable account. They appear in the 13th century and are designed to enhance the Norse side of the debate. None of those claims are substantiated anywhere else. Therefore, the claim the Rollo was known as Hrólfr or by the epithet, Rollo "the Walker" are simply nonsense. There is no evidence that these were used prior to the 13th century sagas.

There is NO circumstantial evidence that Rollo was related to Ketill Flatnose, King of the Isles. The tenth century chronicler Richer of Reims, claims that Rollo was the son of Ketill, whom he refers to as the leader of subsequent Viking raids on the coast in 888. Ketill "Flatnose" was born around 815 and died around 880 and there is no direct evidence that Ketill "Flatnose" led Viking raids in France. Ketill is a common name, it is a complete leap into speculation that the Ketill referred to was Ketill "Flatnose". Wikipedia should not repeat these claims without proof.

Reconciling Richer of Reims with Dudo. Dudo does not give a date for Rollo's expulsion from Denmark, or the death of his father and brother. 888 is well before the treaty of 911. The two stories may overlap without disproving each other.

This is just information to hopefully assist. Posted by Stiofan Ó, 10 Nov. 2024. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:8003:1443:400:400f:a21b:563e:292a (talk) 04:36, 10 November 2024 (UTC)

Weird excusing language in the "Descendants"

The paragraph that starts with "Rollo is the great-great-great-grandfather ... " seems to have weird edits.

I was editing a clarification of the text, as Empress Matilda (related to Rollo) is a woman and therefore the House of Plantagenet has maternal influence from her. It was removed due to claims of missing sources, even when the text itself says empress Matilda sired Henry II. Either remove the entire Paragraph or rewrite the "Descendants" text stating that Rollo only had descendants through Matilda. ZaneHistory (talk) 18:20, 12 November 2022 (UTC)

Does not seem like an issue when the text makes it obvious where the influence is from, so replacing "roots" with "maternal influence" is not necessary. TylerBurden (talk) 15:12, 17 November 2022 (UTC)

So you prefer non-explicit rather than explicit? But why did you say my edit had missing sources then?

If you write "roots" and constantly after referring to the fathers ancestry in the article then it could be presumed that Rollo fathered members of house Plantagenet which isn't the case (and never will be). ZaneHistory (talk) 19:21, 30 November 2022 (UTC)

patrilinear members ZaneHistory (talk) 19:37, 30 November 2022 (UTC)

Because you presented no source using your preferred wording or indeed even an edit summary. Either way, no idea why you included that Empress Matilda married her son, but that has been fixed by another person. TylerBurden (talk) 16:14, 13 December 2022 (UTC)

Anyone mention Thorfinn Rollo ?

Thofinn is fist name , Robert I was taken at conversion . Retired to Orkney in " retirement " 2600:1002:B054:9D47:0:2A:BB6A:8301 (talk) 19:34, 15 January 2023 (UTC)

Could you clarify what you mean by this? TylerBurden (talk) 02:52, 16 January 2023 (UTC)

Name - needs to be rewritten.

The Heimskringla (written in the 13th century) records that Rolf the Ganger went to Normandy and ruled it, so Rollo is generally presumed to be a Latinisation of the Old Norse name Hrólfr, a theory that is supported by the rendition of Hrólfr as Roluo in the Gesta Danorum by Saxo Grammaticus. It is also sometimes suggested that Rollo may be a Latinised version of another Norse name, Hrollaugr.

This paragraph might need to be rewritten/revisited, because it is generally accepted that Snorri Sturluson's manipulated the Heimskringla to create false history. The claim that Ragnvald is Rollo’s father is a myth (or more bluntly, a lie). In the Heimskringla, Sturluson identifies Rollo as Hrólfr, son of Rognvaldr, and includes him in the lineage of Norse kings. Any paragraph about this should mention that it is widely consider false history.

I don't know if anyone reads this talk or has any interest in revising or reconsidering this page.

I know the question - who was Rollo - has haulted historians for 1000 years. But I think wikepedia should make an effort to NOT repeat myths or distorted history without acknowledging current consensus about the accuracy of the passage. SeanStiofanÓ (talk) 17:58, 11 November 2024 (UTC)