Talk:Kingdom of Sweden (800–1521)

message: Ghirlandajo seems as though he does not like the term "Swedes" be used. I myself also think it is confusing to mix Svear with Svenskar. Wiglaf, is there no better translation for Svear?
Fred-J 15:56, August 30, 2005 (UTC)
:Unfortunately there is not a better name for svear. Swedes is the conventional name for svear in English and the name you will find in most English language books on Vikings in Russia.--Wiglaf 16:11, 30 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  revert stuff 

message: OK, I will not revert this time, but you should know that Adam of Bremen is not an authority on matters of mediaeval genealogy at all. I suspect that this long-discarded info comes from one of the much later scholias, which the reputable historians normally discredit. I will be back after checking this point. --Ghirlandajo 15:54, 31 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Adam of Bremen on the House of Hedeby

message: Ghirlandajo insists on writing Most non-Swedish scholars uphold that the princes invited by the population of Ladoga stemmed from the royal house of Haithabu. This is simply wrong and I don't understand why Ghirlandajo insists on writing this. If there is such a consensus, he should be able to give a lot of references.--Wiglaf 10:00, 1 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: The Hedeby connection

message: The text currently mentions about Birger Jarl that "His wise reforms prepared the way for the abolition of serfdom". I have never come accross this anywhere (my understanding was that there never was any serfdom, in the classical sense, in Sweden), there is no reference in this article and there is no mention of it in the Birger Jarl article on Wikipedia. KarlXII 22:35, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Birger Jarl - "His wise reforms prepared the way for the abolition of serfdom"? 

message: The article currently uses Swedes and Sweden to, as I understand it, denote both (sv.) "svear" and Geats. According to the Wikipedia:Swedish Wikipedians' notice board/Terminology the term Swedes, especially when referring to this period, refers to (sv.) "svear" and not the Swedish people. Please see the Suiones talk page for more info. 
In light of this, should Swedes and Sweden in this article be replaced by someting else?KarlXII 13:02, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Karl XII, is it really important to distinguish between the two tribes in that article? The Geats are only mentioned once, and when they are, Swedes is qualified with an of Uppland. The distinction does not seem relevant, IMHO.--Berig 13:39, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Swedes and Svear 

message: I don't understand this phrase in the intro: "when the Christianization broke through." Does that mean something like "when Sweden became thoroughly Christianized under Christian rulers"? Cynwolfe (talk) 15:08, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, you could say that. / Fred-J 21:48, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Clarification requested 

message: Did the sweones conqure the geats or was i the other way around.
Did svear meen both sweones and geats, and all the other peoples in the south from the beging?
To those who say Svearike has its origin in Uppland:
* No king from Olof Skötkonung to Gustav Wasa came from Uppland.
* Why was the kingdom ruled from Visingsö during the middleages?
* Why was Birger Jarl forced to subdue the peseantry from Uppland in 1247, before he could form his kingdom?
* Why did Birger Jarl choose to be burried in Västergötland?
* Why where almost all kings during the middleages burried in either Västergötland or Östergötland?
* Why did they all come from Västergötland or Östergötland?
* Why was the administrative system from Götaland implemented in Uppland and the old one abolished?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.210.118.119 (talk) 09:34, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Who conqured who 

message: "The period 1350 to 1523 — when king Gustav Vasa, who led the unification of Sweden, was crowned — is considered the Younger Middle Ages."
I must have missed this chapter in school. To my knowledge, Sweden was considered a singular realm before he ascended the throne, albeit under Danish rule. --94.255.146.227 (talk) 13:47, 31 January 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Gustav Vasa "uniting" Sweden 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on History of Sweden (800–1521). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110724144033/http://www.vastergotlandsmuseum.se/kulturvast_templates/Kultur_ArticlePage.aspx?id=6390 to http://www.vastergotlandsmuseum.se/kulturvast_templates/Kultur_ArticlePage.aspx?id=6390
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 23:14, 4 November 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: "The rise of Christianity in Sweden effectively ended the Viking Age since a culture of plunder and raiding was anathema to Christian doctrine. It also put a halt to one of Scandinavia's main exports: slaves"
This needs to be removed/supported by a source. Slaves was in no way a main export (export is likely the wrong word, as well). In addition, the culture of 'plunder and raiding' is an incorrect overrepresentation of the Viking Age. Even if it was a correct summary, the culture of plunder and raiding does not end here, as is demonstrated by Eric the saint's crusade(s). This whole christianization section of the article should be revised. Many important factors are left out, such as the legend of st Eskil.  
Iarlabanki (talk) 16:18, 4 May 2019 (UTC)
thread_title: Christianization

message: This article seems to have confused its Adalhards and I am not sure how to improve it. It refers to the Archbishop of Bremen who conflicted with Emund the Old as Adalhard in line with 1911 Britannica article on Sweden(https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Page:EB1911_-_Volume_26.djvu/217) however the Wikipedia List of administrators, archbishops, bishops, and prince-archbishops of Bremen and 1911 Britannica article on Adalbert (archbishop) (https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/1911_Encyclopædia_Britannica/Adalbert_(archbishop)) have Adalbert as archbishop 1043 or 1045 to 1072. 
This article also says "Adalhard had succeeded in destroying the idols in Västergötland" but this is Adalhard the younger in the 1911 Britannica article on Sweden and Adalvard the younger in the Adalvard the younger Wikipedia article.TSventon (talk) 15:35, 5 June 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bishop Adalhard 

message: I removed the infobox, since it was just full of errors:
*There was a name in runic scirpt, but it was a transcription from modern Swedish into the elder fukthark, i.e. original material.
* The map is problematic, showing a lot of well defined borders in e.g. Finland when there really were no such in 1250. Also, in 1250, Stockholm maybe did not exist (it was first mentioned in 1252; it celebrated 750 years in 2002). Also, Gullbergshed is a very odd thing to include, but not Skara or Växjö.
* Capital: Gamla Uppsala might be OK to mention in the text, but really, medieval Sweden had no capital.
* Languages: "Swedish norse" is as far as I know someone's own invention. Missing from the list is (Low) German, commonly spoken in cities.
* Government: Medieval Sweden was not a feudal state in the common sense. It was one of the few states where yeomen were common. Lands were generally not traded for services to the crown (nobles were given tax exemptions instead). 
* Minor quibble, but Eric the victorious is the first king we can be certain existed where we also have a decent idea of the line of king after him. We know of earlier Swedish kings, but not how far their rule extended.
Finally, and most damning, is that the infobox itself assumes that medieval Sweden appeared and disappeared. We know comparably little about the formation of Sweden, but the year 800 is not a particularly good guess. It's just the common starting year for the viking age. Even more problematic, however, is the idea that Sweden ceised to exist upon being "incorporated" into the Kalmar union. Sweden continued to exist, it's "riksråd" and other institutions continued to function; the act of union clearly supposed that this would be the case. Sweden did not ceise to exist any more than it did upon joining the EU.
Andejons (talk) 22:50, 23 July 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Infobox