Talk:Rollo

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Copied from Talk: Hrolf Ganger 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  New Talk 

message: Someone (maybe me when I can find time) needs to do a section on his wife and kiddies. William is mentioned, but not Gerloc/Adele, who married William III of Aquitaine. --Michael K. Smith 01:52, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Family

message: I remember seeing in a tour guide some years ago that Hrolf was supposed to have been interred at Notre-Dame in Rouen. Anybody know? --Michael K. Smith 01:32, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Burial

message: Does it strike anyone that the list of refs is a hodge-podge? It looks like the original author (or someone) just threw in every book they could find that had "viking" in the title. I would not feel comfortable deleting any of these -- since they're not "wrong," just pointless -- but this method dilutes the untility of the list. --Michael K. Smith 01:40, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: References

message: re the last bit on the house of windsor & descent from rollo - thought the windsorites were formally of hanover & prior to that a distinct break w/ the house of orange from holland & prior to that other distinct houses ie tudors, plantangents and finally william I's family? how could eliza ii be directly related? royal lines die out etc etc etc
: (comment moved to new section) See Direct descent from William I to Elizabeth II. Man vyi 08:57, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You're confused by the term 'die out', I think. None of the families you listed died out, they simply married into other families (and other members went on with the same name). William the Conquerer (and Rollo here) ARE direct ancestors of Elizabeth II. William is the great great great great (and so on) grandfather of Elizabeth, in other words. I don't see why you think that just because the family/house name changes, the family dies out. If I have say, one and only one child, a daughter, and she marries some guy named Bob Smith, her children (and thus, all of my descendants) will be named Smith. They won't share my family name but I will still be their direct ancestor. --24.131.9.50 22:09, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

text: Hi! Can you please tell your surname and haplotype? СЛУЖБА (talk) 21:28, 6 November 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Descent

message: As a vote is one of the steps on Wikipedias policy on resolving disputes I would like to suggest one. Add your four~ under the solution you support.
===Include both the theory that Rollo was Rolf the Ganger and the theory that he was a Danish person.===
#Inge 13:24, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Let's try a vote 

message: #Inge 13:24, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Include both the theory that Rollo was Rolf the Ganger and the theory that he was a Danish person.

message: Comanche: If you agree that Rollo could have been Rolf the Ganger then why are you still contesting it in other articles? Inge 15:35, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Comments

message: Article says: "Danelaw inhabitants were in no way, shape or form, partial to the Normans". What does it mean? Friends, or enemies?
:The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. 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 proposal was move Rollo of Normandy -> Rollo. Andrewa (talk) 06:30, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Confused 

message: --Mattamatikk (talk) 02:08, 5 September 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: the reality is that nobody knows where the guy came from. personally, i don't think the arguments against snorri are conclusive (dudo's account is just as easily readily read as corroboration of snorri's than a contradiction of it) and think deriving him in some way out of the great heathen army is entirely rational, but, even if i had some letters beside my name, it would be a guess like anybody else's. barring the discovery of some early source, there's no resolution to this. so, wiki has a choice: provide no information or provide all theories. i'd really vote for a collection of sections that runs through all of the major theories, throwing all the information out there. as a reference tool, that would be the most useful thing to have here - given that there aren't relevant facts.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.48.181.93 (talk) 01:17, 29 January 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Danish town of Faxe, fakse, fasge or fauske 

message: i've added the malaterra reference to rollo as a norwegian because it is interesting, but i'm a little unclear as to why it's been ignored. malaterra's history is wonky, no doubt. however, he was writing from italy at roughly the same time as the norman invasion of england, which makes him a relatively early source. he would have lacked any of the political motivations that dudo or jumierges may have had to connect the norman dukes to denmark. dudo is certainly known to have fabricated a few things here and there. further, 'dane' is an ambiguous term, in context. with malaterra, there's no reason to think he would have been expressing anything other than the understood knowledge of the time. as far as i can see, he's the best source we've got.
certainly, the malaterra reference is older than the sagas (as they exist in written form).
what i'm a little iffy about is if the translation is accurate. i suppose it could have merely been overlooked, it is after all an italo-norman history rather than a franco-norman history. but i'd have to collectively slap all historians of the period for missing this, if that's the case. so, could we get an expert check the translation? if the translation is accurate, i think this answers the question.
it doesn't, however, corroborate the sagas. not exactly, anyways. it simply fixes rollo's background as norwegian. i'll let the experts take it from there and get back to me on it.
: actually, i checked the latin and it says "sea norvegia". that was translated as norwegian in the translation i've provided, but it seems to reference the orkneys and rolf ganger. can we get an expert here? is malaterra providing a latin corroboration of the saga narrative from far away italy c. 1099?
::I reworded the addition to a more neutral statement about Geoffreys claims. As it is a primary source we can only use it to give a neutrally worded summary of the claims of Geoffrey of Malaterra, interpretations of the text needs to come from reliable secondary sources, that is the interpretations of scholars on the subject. --Saddhiyama (talk) 13:41, 31 January 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  added malaterra reference 

message: I think this section is biased towards danish origin:
"Rollo was a powerful Viking leader of contested origin. Dudo of Saint-Quentin, in his De moribus et actis primorum Normannorum ducum,[3] tells of a powerful Danish nobleman at loggerheads with the king of Denmark, who had two sons, Gurim and Rollo; upon his death, Rollo was expelled and Gurim killed. William of Jumièges also mentions Rollo's prehistory in his Gesta Normannorum Ducum, but states that he was from the Danish town of Fakse. Wace, writing some 300 years after the event in his Roman de Rou, also mentions the two brothers (as Rou and Garin), as does the Orkneyinga Saga.
Norwegian and Icelandic historians identified Rollo instead with Ganger Hrolf (Hrolf, the Walker), a son of Rognvald Eysteinsson, Earl of Møre, in Western Norway, based on medieval Norwegian and Icelandic sagas. The oldest source of this version is the Latin Historia Norvegiae, written in Norway at the end of the 12th century. This Hrolf fell foul of the Norwegian king Harald Fairhair, and became a Jarl in Normandy. The nickname "the Walker", "Ganger" in Norse, came from being so big that no horse could carry him.
Geoffrey of Malaterra, in his The Deeds of Count Roger of Calabria & Sicily & of Duke Robert Guiscard his brother claims Rollo "sailed boldly from Norway".[4]
The question of Rollo's origins was a matter of heated dispute between Norwegian and Danish historians of the 19th and early 20th centuries, particularly in the run-up to Normandy's millennium anniversary in 1911. Today, the debate continues."
The author make it seem like the general consensus amongst historians is that of Rollos Danish origin, while only Icelandic and Norwegian historians tend to dispute this. Acording to http://snl.no/Gange-Rolv (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Store_norske_leksikon) Swedish, Danish and German historians tend to favour the Danish origin, while English, French and Norwegian historians tend to favour the norwegian origin.
I wote for a rewrite.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mattamatikk (talk • contribs) 03:12, 14 March 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: This part "(as Rou and Garin), as does the Orkneyinga Saga" is also incorrect. The Saga actually says Rollo is Hrolf, son of Rognvald Eysteinsson & Rgnhilda Hrolfsdatter, with brothers Ivar and Thorir. "Heiti, Gorr’s son, was father of Sveiði the sea-king, the father of Halfdan the old, the father of Ivar the Uplanders’ earl, the father of Eystein the noisy, the father of earl Rognvald the mighty and the wise in council. Earl Rognvald joined Harold fair-hair when he seized the land, but he (Harold) gave him lordship over both the Mæren and Romsdale; (7) he had to wife Ragnhilda the daughter of Hrolf nosy;  their son was Hrolf who won Normandy, he was so tall that horses could not carry him;  for that he was called Ganging-Hrolf;  from him are come the Rouen Jarls and the English Kings;  their son was also Ivar, and Thorir the silent."  Nothinheavy (talk) 19:27, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

text: Wace's Roman de Rou also doesn't seem to tell the tale of Rolo, or Rou, or Garin. All he says, in his prologue, is that he's already told Rolo's tale, and William "Longspear"'s tale. So, if it is in writing, it's in some other work. Nothinheavy (talk) 21:43, 14 June 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Highly biased  

message: I removed the 2013 in reference to the television series. Since it is on-going as of 2015, I thought referencing the History Channel would be more appropriate and wear better as time goes on. Hamaxides (talk)   — Preceding undated comment added 19:37, 20 March 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  In fiction (History Channel series) 

message: The intro to this article says that Rollo/Robert was sometimes known as Robert I, but later the article refers to a clearly separate person Robert I assuming the throne of France.  It would be helpful if this potential confusion could be clarified?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.174.62.30 (talk) 08:45, 20 April 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Robert 1 confusion 

message: can one with working knowledge of latin provide a translation of the dais of rollo's grave? google translator only gives partial translation, and is not useful. Esnertofidel (talk) 18:29, 17 August 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  request for people who speak latin 

message: So I deleted some statement in the Origin section that claimed Western Norway to be under danish hegemony during Rollos time. This is not historical correct, and was not backed up by sources. Viken however was a disputed erea between Danes and Norwegians during Rollos time. Viken is located in Eastern Norway, not western.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mattamatikk (talk • contribs) 00:51, 4 September 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Deleted 

message: I noticed inside the Name section. 
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rollo#Name
His first name Hrólfr -> Rollo -> Robert has been explained.
His nickname Göngu -> Ganger -> Walker has not been explained. So maybe we should add it?
FYI, Icelandic to English translation for Göngu 
https://translate.google.com/?#auto/en/g%C3%B6ngu
Additional Source:
https://books.google.com/books?id=5xHntaYOYncC&pg=PA106&lpg=PA106&dq=carolingian+king+too+big+to+ride+a+horse&source=bl&ots=sSi9Qv83zC&sig=MjuONsy-WAEYNoC98-kW9kithiM&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwix6JD8-v3NAhXFVh4KHSnWBYsQ6AEIKzAC#v=onepage&q=carolingian%20king%20too%20big%20to%20ride%20a%20horse&f=false  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tigerleapgorge (talk • contribs) 21:49, 18 July 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Add an explanation for Göngu / Ganger / Walker in the Name section? 

message: You are both close to breaching WP:3RR, so please hash out a consensus here on the talk page. Saying "see talk page" in an edit summary is unproductive if neither of you have participated on the talk page (though I see Genie at least commented today). clpo13(talk) 16:58, 24 August 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: The onus is on the editor of disputed content to make their case on the talk page. I have just responded to Genie's edit. Malik047 (talk) 17:04, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

text: I'm glad that someone has noticed the problem here. A review of the talk page will make clear that the origins of Rollo have been endlessly disputed. Norway and Denmark both claim him. It is therefore crucial that the Wikipedia page should navigate carefully through these choppy waters. It should not tacitly accept the Norwegian position from the start by accepting the disputed identification with Ganger Rolf in the opening sentence. Nor should the article in general rely heavily on references to a single secondary source, dating to 1942 and heavily biased in favour of the identification with Ganger Rolf. It should refer directly to primary sources as far as possible, and for interpretation of them to recent scholarship, as unbiased as can be found. I have therefore overhauled the article along these lines. I am not sure which other Wikipedia editors have published on the Vikings (as I have), and should therefore be consulted on the matter. But if you know of some, by all means draw them here for discussion. Genie (talk) 17:17, 24 August 2016 (UTC)
replies: text:  The content of Wikipedia articles should be based on reliable, published secondary sources. There are three secondary sources cited that explicitly refer to the figure of Rollo under the byname "Ganger-Rolf". Your contention that but one secondary source is being cited in support of the byname's inclusion (that of an historian by the name of Douglas) is puzzling, as this clearly isn't the case. Also, you have yet to provide any rationale for your attempted removal of other content from the article, which made no mention of the Ganger-Rolf byname. Malik047 (talk) 17:41, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

text:  I feel sure that you could find more than three modern sources which conflate Rollo, the first Duke of Normandy, with "Ganger-Rolf", a character in Snorri Sturluson's Saga of Harald Fairhair. That is not at all surprising, because Snorri made that identification himself. Later historians were by and large delighted to find a detailed account of Rollo by Snorri, which one cannot find in the Norman history of the dukes of Normandy. They lapped it up. The discrepancies between the two were argued away by the most enthusiastic of them, such as Douglas 1942. It was the repeated citing of Douglas and Douglas alone on these discrepancies that was disturbing. I don't think that Wikipedia should be using a biased source right the way through the article, with no balance provided. Genie (talk) 19:16, 24 August 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dispute 

message: I had read the article last month and found little of substance about the subject "Rollo", there was a lot about opinions of different historians and many comments about items that could not be confirmed, which is hardly surprising considering how long ago he lived. I added a number of items from an 1839 book about the life of Rollo (). User:Genie has since deleted all but one reference to the book I had posted and the article has again reverted to little of substance about the subject. No explanation has been given for the deletion of cited information.
The Biography section has almost nothing about his time before France and almost nothing about his time in France. There is almost more about Rollo in the article Charles the Simple. 20% of current "Biography" section says - "Modern analyses of the region's place names reveal Scandinavian settlements stretching from the Seine valley to the coast, and from Rouen to Dieppe. However, compared to settlements along eastern England (especially East Anglia and Yorkshire), the appearance of Norse elements in place names was far from widespread or entrenched. The occurrence of the Gallo-Roman suffix "-ville" after Norse names is evidence for this." - what has this got to do with the biography of Rollo ?
Can we please have something about Rollo and his life in the article, with suitable short comments by various historians if the disagree and with just a covering brief statement that almost nothing can be verified.  Ânes-pur-sàng (talk) 14:24, 7 September 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: I am quite happy with using more modern scholars works, provided there is actually something in the article about Rollo, rather than about the scholars and their disputes/speculation, because at the moment it is very uninformative and boring to read. Ânes-pur-sàng (talk) 15:22, 7 September 2016 (UTC)
replies: text:  I understand that readers would prefer a detailed and colourful biography to the few reliable facts we actually have. But where are we to get a detailed and colourful story? Make it up? Use the delightfully colourful story written in Iceland 300 years after the death of Rollo? The most reliable sources will be those closest in time and place to the life of Rollo. They are few. Genie (talk) 22:34, 7 September 2016 (UTC)
replies: text:  Are you saying that every writer makes up the stories, if so, I would agree with you, the victor normally writes the history, the same applies to last weeks events, however even if two people agree, it does not mean it is the truth. Something about Rollo has to be written and I think it is better to say something with comments from historians that agree, suggest an alternative, or disagree, than nothing at all, so please add what modern historians believe is his biography if you do not like the 1839 suggestion. Ânes-pur-sàng (talk) 23:10, 7 September 2016 (UTC)
replies: text:  I have written what modern historians believe is his biography. You may not like the way that I write history, but it is the way that historians like myself write i.e. giving sources. And it is the the way that Wikipedia wants us to write i.e. giving sources. I have to explain that different sources give different origins for Rollo, because that is the truth. I cite the new history of the Vikings by Ferguson for the fact that many modern historians have preferred the later sources.Genie (talk) 09:39, 8 September 2016 (UTC)
thread_title: Style of article

message: Someone keeps adding irrelevant, unsourced information about a Swiss castle. 219.77.82.21 (talk) 12:36, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
thread_title: Irrelevant information

message: Mainly a comment. The quote "Old Norse: Hrólfr;" isn't really correct, the Vikings used a different alphabet, known as Runes. Hence is "Rolf" just as good as "Hrólfr". "Rolf" is also a name carried by quite a few men in Sweden, Denmark and Norway still today. I also can see that someone else have stated that "Rollo" wasn't "Gaange Rolf", but according to Scandinavian sources are these two names referring to one and the same person. "Gå" or "Gaa" means "walk" and the reason he didn't ride , appears to be that he was too heavy. Boeing720 (talk) 00:47, 7 September 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree on all of this, but I should add that while "gaa" (or "gå") means walk, but "gange" still (if old-fashioned) means "[a] stride" (still used when talking about horses). It is believed, as with Olaf II of Norway, that he was too tall, rather than to fat, to ride. Horses during the Viking age were said to have been smaller than those we are used to now. Famously, Olaf II approved of the Olaf the large nickname - and he was not known to be lenient or approve of things for a joke.Andreas Kolle (talk) 07:30, 3 January 2018 (UTC)
replies: text:  Is anyone suggesting that Snorre wrote Heimskringla in runes ...? I hope not. T 88.89.217.49 (talk) 02:59, 2 September 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Old Norse & names, Gaange Rolf 

message: Danish:
Andui furent Daneis, mais mult furent di[uers]
Rou fist alkes a dreit, Hasteins fist a envers (Andresen edition, page 36, available on Internet Archive)
I assume the 'di[uers]' is because of manuscript damage. Hasteins is Hastein. Rough translation is 'they were both Danish, but they were very different ... what Rollo did the right way up, Hasteins did upside down' (this is of course a metaphor, and I can't find a better way to express it). Renard Migrant (talk) 13:56, 9 February 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  In the ''[[Roman de Rou]]'' 

message: Britannica is a tertiary source. The content that is being repeatedly restored is sourced to Britannica, is repetitious and somewhat off-topic, and has some overlinking and grammar issues. Nor is the History Channel a good source either. Also, as an aside, it isn't "Robert 1 of France" .... Please self-revert and actually discuss the concerns here on the talk page. --Ealdgyth (talk) 14:50, 28 February 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: thanks for your reply. however, i must tell you that britannica encyclopaedia is a set of reference books recommended by most univerisities in the uk. even new york university recommends it. so it's a reliable source.Berserk Kerberos (talk) 18:48, 10 March 2020 (UTC)
replies: text:  Please read the links that have been shown to you - especially WP:TERTIARY, which explains why tertiary sources such as Britannica are not the best sources. And please learn how to indent properly. --Ealdgyth (talk) 19:00, 10 March 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Berserk Kerberos has been indefinitely blocked. Mike Christie (talk - contribs -  library) 22:33, 10 March 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Britannica ... 

message: Oh?! Where is picture of the statue of Rollo? 
I think there had been the photo in this page , and we should get it back to this Wikipedia page!—TRAMPJP (talk) 07:57, 9 May 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Picture? 

message: Alright, why is this considered unnoteworthy? He shows up in the base game for a fabricated sequence but is then completely cut from the actual historical event he is known for even though he did actually appear in early concept art for it. 144.51.12.38 (talk) 01:47, 20 September 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: First of all, you're not even including a source to support your statement. If you're going to make a claim, you need to support it with a reference per WP:VERIFY. We don't need excess detail about video games on the article, which him not appearing in DLC's absolutely is. It's not a big deal, and if it were, you would find reliable sources reporting on it. Stop adding this back in using different IP addresses. TylerBurden (talk) 10:13, 20 September 2022 (UTC)
replies: text:  http://www.accesstheanimus.com/Interview_with_SOP_DevTeam.html and https://www.pcinvasion.com/assassins-creed-valhalla-siege-of-paris-review/ Alright send the next set of hoops. 144.51.12.18 (talk) 01:37, 27 September 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: The second reference seems valid on first glance, but that doesn't change the fact that it's excess detail about a video game appearance. This is an article about the historical figure, and while the appearance deserves the brief mention it has, it really doesn't need more than that. Perhaps editing https://assassinscreed.fandom.com/wiki/Rollo?so=search would be more suitable for your fascination with this omission. TylerBurden (talk) 01:47, 27 September 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: Welp I had hoped more people would chime in on this. Is there a guide on what constitutes excess detail that I can read up upon? Also this tidbit is already noted on the AC wiki Rollo page. 144.51.12.10 (talk) 01:00, 2 October 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Exclusion from Valhalla's Siege of Paris DLC 

message: 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)
replies: text: Could you clarify what you mean by this? TylerBurden (talk) 02:52, 16 January 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Anyone mention Thorfinn Rollo ?