GEN-MEDIEVAL-L Archives

Archiver > GEN-MEDIEVAL > 2001-06 > 0991495162


From: "Kristian Andersen Nyrup" <>
Subject: Re: Sv: Guthrum II
Date: Sat, 2 Jun 2001 17:19:22 +0200
References: <3b12c656.103165533@news.mindspring.com>, <f9dR6.245$Hg6.48747609@news.mobilixnet.dk>, <3b15e2ff.27808163@news.mindspring.com>



Stewart Baldwin <> skrev i en
nyhedsmeddelelse:...


>
> >Imagine that Guillaume of Jumiges wrote this:
> >
> >""When the bravery and piety of this great prince (William I) had become
> >known through his reputation, King Harald of Denmark arrived in Normandy
> >expelled from his kingdom by his son, Gorm, ...
>
> The problem, of course, is that he didn't write that, so it is
> completely irrelevant.

The only purpose, showing why "does not even look remotely
plausible" ought to be explained a little, was relevant.

>
> But the chronological blunder scenario is BY FAR the simplest
> explanation of the evidence at hand. Your attempts to argue against
> it by putting hypothetical circular arguments in my mouth which I
> never said simply are not valid.
>

I just tried to clarify what might be the point of dispute in the Platonic
way, I didn't think of it as actually putting words in your mouth, sorry. My
self-ironical final remark was supposed to neutralize any possible offensive
undertone.

>
> To look at your example from another perspective, suppose an author
> writing today mentioned an American President named Harry Truman as a
> contemporary of Napolean III. I claim that the natural assumption
> would be that the said author made a blunder regarding the chronology
> of Harry Truman. Do you claim differently,

NO! Most people c.2001, especially older people, would not just assume the
same thing, they would know for sure. And so would I ...

> ... and if not, why does the
> same not apply to Guillaume?

It most certainly does!
Most people in Normandy c.1070, especially older people, would not just
assume that he made a blunder, they would know for sure.
That is why I don't believe that he could have made it!
So this is MY very best argument!?

>
> I'm sorry, but I find your suggestion FAR to unbelievable to take
> seriously. If we accept the scenario given by you over the past
> several postings, then Gorm, who was also called Svend, was the son of
> Cnut, who was also called Harald, etc., ... I just don't see that as
> a reasonable possibility.

I guess that this makes it even in the game of putting words in mouths :-).
I better summarize:
"Knut was king of the Danes in the Danelaw 904-918. When he was killed, his
son Gorm was his successor for a short while. Because he was a boy people
called him Gorm Svend. Later c.930 he returned to Denmark directly from
England or from somewhere on the continental coast of the Channel. With base
in Jelling he first establish a kingdom in Northern Jutland, then he
defeated the other kings of the divided kingdom, so that he eventually could
move eastwards and settle at the old center on Selandia."

That is the scenario. I really don't see how this can justify your use of
capital letters.
You are of course entitled to your oppinion, and please don't feel obliged
to pursue this any further. It is not important to me to know the degree of
some individual unbelief, but I would still like to discuss the quality of
my arguments.

The arguments of my last posting were not very convincing, I guess, but why
not?

Kristian Nyrup







This thread: