Notes
Stuart's "Royalty For Commoners" (240:40), refers to a "Ragnar
Sigurdsson of Uppsala, Sweden" - not identifying him with the greater -than - life Ragnar Lodbrok. Of him Stuart says, "Danish king at Lethrasaid to have perished in a Northumbrian snake pit; b.c750; d.845 [95years old and still on the battlefield ?!] Stuart takes this line backanother 21 generations to Odin & Frigg, but I am too skeptical to includethem in this genealogy.
This is the individual most often put forth as the famous Ragnar Lodbrok.
Stewart Baldwin posted to
soc.genealogy.medieval on 13 Dec 1996 :
Subject: Ragnar Lothbrok
"Was RAGNAR LOTHBROK historical? One of the things that makes this adifficult question to discuss is that
the question "Was Ragnar Lothbrok historical?" is itself
somewhat ambiguous. Thus, before the question can be discussed, thequestion has to first be more clearly defined. To mention two oppositeextremes, a skeptic could ask whether or not everything which is saidabout the character of Ragnar Lothbrok is historically accurate, observethat the answer is certainly "no", and then claim victory. At the otherextreme, a proponent of a historical Ragnar Lothbrok could ask if aViking by the name of Ragnar ever existed, point out that a Viking havingthe correct name ("Reginheri") appears in the Frankish annals, and claimthat Ragnar Lothbrok was therefore historical. Neither of these twoextremes is acceptable in a serious argument on the subject, so I willdiscuss the subject from the following middle ground. The criteria whichI will use are that in order for Ragnar Lothbrok to be considered ashistorical, there should be a historically documented person of that namewho actually performed a significant number of the deeds attributed tothe legendary Ragnar Lothbrok. I think these are reasonable criteria, andthe remainder of this discussion is based on these principles. Now, toanswer the question: No, Ragnar Lothbrok does not appear to be a
historical figure, based on the above criteria. I will give some
comments as to why I have this opinion, and then mention some readingmaterial for those who want more.
RAGNAR
The contemporary historical records of the ninth century (when RagnarLothbrok supposedly lived) show only one Viking of the correct name, aViking named "Reginheri" (a Latin form equivalent to the name Ragnar) inFrance WHO DIED IN THE YEAR 845, according to the contemporary Frankishannals. The emphasized words in the previous sentence are oftenconveninetly overlooked by those who wish to use Reginheri as ahistorical prototype for Ragnar Lothbrok. Since Reginheri died in Francein the year 845, he cannot have participated in the later events whichform the principal part of the legendary Ragnar Lothbrok's exploits. Inaddition, there is no good evidence that Reginheri was the father of anyof the individuals who later came to be regarded as sons of RagnarLothbrok. Thus, Reginheri fails to satisfy the criterion mentioned above.No other historical Norseman named Ragnar is known for the appropriatetime period.
LOTHBROK
No contemporary record gives this name, and it is significant that whenthe name finally does make it appearance in the records 200 years later,it stands alone. (Ari, writing in the twelfth century, was the firstknown writer to make Ragnar and Lothbrok the same person.) The name firstappears (as "Lothbroc") in "Gesta Normannorum Ducum", by William
of Jumieges, writing about 1070, in which Lothbroc is called
he father of Bjorn Ironside. (A Viking named Bjorn is verified by thecontemporary chronicles, but without the nickname.) Adam of Bremen,writing soon afterward, called Ivar the son of "Lodparchus". Besides thefact that this Lothbrok is not attested in any of the contemporarysources, there seems to be another problem, and that is that the name("Lothbroka") appears to be a women's name. See the article on Ragnarssaga" by Rory McTurk in "Medieval Scandinavia: an
encyclopedia" (New York and London, 1993). If this argument based onphilology is correct, then this Lothbrok(a), if historical at all, wouldbe a woman, and clearly not identical with the legendary Ragnar Lothbrok.(I do not have the background in linguistics to comment further on thisgender argument.)
RAGNALL
The "Fragmentary Annals of Ireland" (edited and translated by Joan N.Radner, Dublin, 1978, formerly called "Three Fragments") has an item ofinterest which has frequently been pointed out as possibly relating tothe legend of Ragnar Lothbrok. In it, a certain Ragnall (Rognvald) son ofAlpdan (Halfdan), king of Norway, is mentioned, and his
exploits prior to the fall of York to the Danes are given, in a
context in which it is at least arguable that Ragnall and Ragnar
Lothbrok were the same person. There are two problem with thisinterpretation. First, Ragnar and Ragnall are not the same name, eventhough they look similar. Second, and more important, the FragmentaryAnnals are themselves not a contemporary source, and there is good reasonto be suspicious about them. However, even if we were to allow
that the events given there are historical (a concession which manyhistorians would be unwilling to make), and then concede further thatthese events form the basis of the Ragnar legend, then we would stillhave that the person on whom the legend was based did not have the rightname.
Could RAGNALL and LOTHBROK have been the same person?
We have already seen that the only historically attested Ragnar(Reginheri) cannot reasonably be regarded as a historical prototype forRagnar Lothbrok. Thus, it appears that the best attempt to argue for ahistorical Ragnar Lothbrok is to propose (as has been done on numerousoccasions) that Ragnall and Lothbrok were both the same person, and thenassume that the similar (but different) names Ragnall
and Ragnar were accidently confused. Thus, let us see what assumptionsare needed in order to assume that Ragnall and Lothbrok were the sameperson, assuming that they existed at all. In order for this to be thecase, we must make the following assumptions:
(1) We must assume that Adam of Bremen (late eleventh century) wascorrect in giving "Lodparchus" (i.e., Lothbrok) as the name of the fatherof Ivar (late ninth century).
(2) We must assume that the "Coghad Gaedhel re Gallaibh" ("The War of theGaedhil with the Gaill", ed. by Todd, London, 1867), a twelfth centuryIrish source, is correct in stating that Halfdan of Dublin (killed inIreland in 877, according to the Annals of Ulster) was the son of acertain Ragnall, and that this Ragnall was the same as the Ragnall whoappears in the Fragmentary Annals of Ireland.
(3) We must assume that the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle is correct in statingthat a brother (unnamed, but called Ubbe in later sources) of Halfdan andIvar was killed in England in 878, despite the contradictory testimony ofAethelweard which gives a very different reading for the same event (see4).
(4) We must assume that the chronicle of Aethelweard is wrong in statingthat Halfdan brother of Ivar was killed in England in 878, for otherwisethat would prove that Halfdan of Dublin (d. 877 in Ireland) was adifferent person from Halfdan brother of Ivar.
(5) In addition to assuming that Halfdan of Dublin was the same
person as Halfdan brother of Ivar, we must also assume that this Ivar wasthe same person as Adam of Bremen's Ivar, keeping in mind thatAethelweard's chronicle, if correct, would imply the existence of twoIvars in the British isles at this time.
(6) We must assume that the philological argument making Lothbrok(a) afeminine name is incorrect.
(7) If Ari, the earliest author to mention Ragnar Lothbrok, is to beconsidered a reliable source on this matter, then we must also assumethat Halfdan of Dublin was the same person as the Halfdan brother ofSigifrid who appears in the Annals of Fulda for the year 873, despite thesevere chronological problems which that would cause with Ari'sgenealogies.
Of the above assumptions, numbers (1) through (6) are crucial if onewishes to argue that Ragnall and Lothbrok were the same, and (7) isneeded also if it is to be assumed that the information given by Ari isaccurate. Given the noncontemporary nature of the first two items, alongwith the contradictions present some of the others, there is a very smallchance that all six of the crucial assumptions are correct. However, ifany one of the first six items is false, then the case for Ragnall beingthe same as Lothbrok collapses, and we must conclude that the "RagnallLothbrok" attempt for a historical Ragnar Lothbrok is unsatisfactory.[Note: See R. W. McTurk's article "Ragnarr Lothbrok in the Irish Annals?"(Proceedings of the Seventh Viking Congress, 1976, pp. 93-123), where adifferent, but much more rigid, list of the same type is given.]
CONCLUSIONS
Since all of the above attempts to find a historical Ragnar Lothbrok failto satisfy the mentioned criteria, Lothbrok and Ragnall come fromnoncontemporary sources which are themselves open to suspicion, and thehistorical records show nobody else (as far as I know) who could beplausibly identified with Ragnar Lothbrok, it must be concluded thatRagnar Lothbrok is not historical according to the terms
described above. In fact, if there is any historical basis to RagnarLothbrok legend, it is quite likely that Ragnar Lothbrok is the result ofcombining two or more distinct individuals into a single character havingthe attributes of both, in much the same way as Ragnar Lothbrok'slegendary "father" Sigurd Ring is in fact a composite of
two different men who fought against each other for the Danish throne inthe year 814, Sigifridus ("Sigurd") and Anulo (of which "Ring" is atranslation of Latin "Annulus"). However, such composite characterscannot be considered as historical, and there is no evidence which comesclose to being contemporary which shows that either Lothbrok or Ragnallexisted.
FURTHER READING
The most ambitious attempt to portray Ragnar Lothbrok as a historicalfigure is "Scandinavian Kings in the British Isles 850-880" by Alfred P.Smyth (Oxford University Press, 1977). For a very critical examination ofSmyth's views, see "High-kings, Vikings and other kings", by Donnchadh O'Corrain, in Irish Historical Review, vol 21 (1979), pp. 283-323 (veryhighly recommended). Both of these sources cite numerous other relevantsources for those who are interested in
further details."
