GEN-MEDIEVAL-L Archives

Archiver > GEN-MEDIEVAL > 2002-12 > 1039451604


From: "Phil Moody" <>
Subject: Re: Brusse, Rollo, Wm, et al
Date: Mon, 9 Dec 2002 10:36:31 -0600
References: <006c01c29f92$ba231c60$1652f8c1@m>


"Annie Natalelli-Waloszek" wrote:

> Anybody care to post what CP has to say on the subject, so that I can use
it? That way taf will trash CP as well, & soon there will be no source good
enough for taf -- except of course, taf himself... as usual...

PLM: Why should anyone bother? You would treat this source just as
superficially as ES and SP. You flaunt the conjecture of both sources
without citing the sources they use to support their information, and this
is not exemplary of good sholarship, or scholarship at all - for that
matter. These late sources are not unimpeachable by any stretch of the
imagination; so if you want your conjecture to be sound, you must examine
the primary evidence they cite.

Cheers,
Phil

----- Original Message -----
From: "Annie Natalelli-Waloszek" <>
To: <>
Sent: Monday, December 09, 2002 8:17 AM
Subject: Re: Brusse, Rollo, Wm, et al


> Anybody care to post what CP has to say on the subject, so that I can use
it? That way taf will trash CP as well, & soon there will be no source good
enough for taf -- except of course, taf himself... as usual...
>
> it has long been established as perfectly reliable information that there
is no point in discussing anything with taf if he takes a disliking to
you... (like most on this list, including, quite avowedly, Ken, women are
considered not only inferior, incapable of morality or integrity (i.e.
accepting the double standard as "normal")... but tolerated as excellent &
pliant scapegoats & whippingboys for all one's own real &/or imagined
evildoings (the french are good at this too; if you feel inclined to cheat,
accuse the whipping-person)
>
> --unless of course, working free for the glory of males, as underlings or
assistants... a little throwback to dark-ages mentality that shows taf has
been working this list far too long...)
>
> for which reason it is perhaps just as well that he abstain from replying
to my posts; when I say "anyone", I of course mean, "anyone but todd", just
as he treats with respect just about anyone but Annie (for no particular
reason, unless Hines told him to do that, once a long time ago...)
>
> I see no reason why one might give more credit to taf's style of bias than
to any other bias... bias is bias... & therefore unsound thinking.
>
> Nonetheless, be it said for the record:
>
> It's not ALL from Orkneyinga saga; there's parts from Morskinngasaga(sic?
I dont want to go look up the spelling again just because you refuse to
remember any ref that doesnt fit your argument) & more from 10th century
poem "Haleygjatal" cited in the text... these sagas are known to be of
*perhaps* lacunaire, but never have been accused of lying, are largely
correct & in any case, the only remanents of records for the times, so
nonetheless, NOT insignificant, reliability... doubtless as good as say, a
sycophant in Jumièges scriptorium doing what he's told by the guy who pays
the rent... there are a lot of cases where a viking's word is worth a
hundred monks trained at lying in the sure & certain guarantee of absolution
for a modic fee... or a few hail marys...
>
> That you shove ES & SP down everyone's throats everyday, then reneg them
if it's me that's quoting them (as you did earlier with Burke's, altogether
eliminating it from the list when I bought a copy, & you could no longer
treat me like a hallucinator when I quoted things... is but a proof of your
bad faith & basic unreliability because absolutely NOT impartial...
>
> Your arguments are without foundation (more's the pity, because under
different circumstances, you probably would be capable of doing something
worthwhile on the subject... but its just too easy to content yourself with
trashing Annie; What sport... poor man. Perhaps I should change my prenom...
Frank... "let me be Frank with you" "no no, you were Frank yesterday; let me
be Frank with YOU!" hmmm maybe Alex? "ok you smart Alex..." nope... hmmm,
maybe you should just grow up & rise above? simpler, more efficient, more
useful...
>
> Anybody have anything POSITIVE to contribute?
>
> Annie
>
>
> -----Message d'origine-----
> De : Todd A. Farmerie <>
> À : <>
> Date : lundi 9 décembre 2002 07:28
> Objet : Re: Brusse, Rollo, Wm, et al
>
>
> Annie Natalelli-Waloszek wrote:
> >
> > For those interested in wrestling with the ancestry & descent
> > of the Rognvalds again, there is this bit I just rediscovered
> > from ES; As you can see, this reputable source makes Eynar &
> > Rollo sons of Rognvald, Eynar being gr grandfather of Brussi,
> > alleged companion of Rollo(Hrolfr)
>
> ES is not reputable for this - the information (and all
> information on the subject) derives directly from the Orkneyinga
> Saga. Just because ES copies it from OS does not somehow
> 'launder' the OS information, making it suddenly reliable.
>
> > Comparing this line with another reputable source, Scots
> > Peerage, gives us the detail : Rognvald hin Riki (the mighty)
>
> Scots Peerage is likewise drawing this straight from OS, and is
> no more reliable than the original.
>
> > had Torf-Einar, illegitimate son, who had Throfin Hausakljuf,
> > who had Lodver, who had Sigurd the Stout, who had Jarl Brusi
> > father of Rognvald who had Ulf / reputedly became Rbt I Brus
>
> You have presented no evidence whatsoever that Rognvald had any
> children, let alone a son Ulf. Likewise, the silliness about Ulf
> becoming Robert is completely unsupportable.
>
> > The problem of time is overcomable;
>
> Only if you ignore the actual facts.
>
> > Torf Einar as half-bro
> > Rollo, means that his gr grandson Brusi travelled with a man
> > the age of at least 60-70 years old,
>
> You perhaps might want to bridge this logical chasm. The fact
> that Torf Einar and Hrolf were half brothers gives no indication
> of the relative ages of Brusi and Rollo.
>
> > which is not an unusual
> > age for a seasoned battle chief to still be active... so
> > this is a fair proof, until something better comes along...
>
> Perhaps I missed the 'proof' part in this paragraph.
>
> Sigurd the Stout, the great-great-nephew of Hrolf, died in 1013,
> still a vigorous man, 80 years after the death of Rollo (which,
> considering the number of generations, is reasonable). His son
> Brussi lived another two decades, until about 1040. How could a
> man who was still alive in the 1030s have fought with a man who
> died over 100 years earlier? The simple answer is, he couldn't have.
>
> > An alternate ancestry . . .
>
> An alternative mythology, by the looks of it.
>
> taf
>
>



This thread: