Talk:Hrolf Ganger

Last time I checked, we called him Rollo the Gangler in English.... JHK

• 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

... 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

rewrited

This page should be a redirect to Rollo of Normandy because Hrolf Ganger is identical to Rollo. His parentage as reported in the sagas may or may not be true, but that's really not the issue here. The sagas write about the conquer of Normandy, not the son of Ragnvald. Fornadan (t) 19:31, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

And thats what the article says! Acording to the Icelandic Orkneyinga saga. Hrolf Ganger (Gange Hrolf) was a son of Ragnvald Eysteinsson and Rollo of Normandy.

So what is the problem? Comanche cph 18:27, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Comanche_cph, please sign your posts on discussion pages. You can do this by writing four tildes (~) after your post.

Also, stop calling those who disagree with you vandals. If you have good arguments for your case, write them on the discussion page, so we can discuss them, and stop trying to turn this into a Norwegians against Danes-thing. All we want is for the article to be as factually correct as possible. (Barend 16:04, 19 June 2006 (UTC))

Well, that is what i do. I make it factually, you don´t. Please tell what is wrong with this article? You can expand it, if you want. But don´t make it, like Hrolf Ganger was the Rollo of Normandy. So why don´t you take the discussion up urself? That Rollo should be from Iceland is very unrealistic and there is no proof of that. So stop change it back.

BTW. should´t "Hrolf Ganger" not be renamed to "Hrolf the Walker"? Comanche cph 18:27, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

The Norwegian Göngu-Hrólfr was the same historical character as Rollo of Normandy, I don't know what you find so implausible about that. Haukur 19:48, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

No! It´s clear that he was NOT. It´s a fairytale saga writed 300 years after (by a writer in ICELAND -not Normandy). Have you ever readed Dudo´s work? http://www.the-orb.net/orb_done/dudo/dudindex.html Comanche cph 21:39, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Heimskringla says that Hrólfr was exiled from his native land, conquered Normandy and settled it with Norsemen. His lineage down to William the Bastard is then related. This clearly shows that the Icelandic writers conceived of Hrólfr as the same person as Dudo's Rollo. Whether the Norse sources have much reliable historical information on this man is, of course, another matter but they're clearly talking about the same man. Haukur 21:52, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

No they don´t. All work from Normandy points that he is from Fakse and Skåne. And its writed Before the Snorre´s Heimskringla. There is alot of things in Snorre´s work that have been proven to be totally fiction. So why should we believe, this Saga? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Rollo_of_Normandy#Still_kicking_to_Rollo --Comanche cph 09:51, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

I would like to comment that it is not up to us to decide which parts of Heimskringla are believable. That would be original research. We are here to write articles based on work published by scholars on the field. If we believe ourselves to be scholars is irrelevant. It is obvious there are two theories on this question. The fact that you don't like one of them doesn't make it right to remove it from wikipedia. They should both be presented fairly. The readers should be able to make up their own minds, that is not your or my job. Inge 13:48, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Puplished by scholars? or published by Norwegian scholars? I think most people would rather beleive Dudo from Normandy, than a Icelandic writer, who never have been in Normandy and writed it 300 years after. But that dosent matter on this article.

But please tell, what is there wrong with the article now.

It says Rollo was Hrolf Ganger arcoding to Snorre! So whats the problem?

Wether Hemskringla is trustworthy or not is not the issue.Hrolf and Rollo are obviously the same persons. Therefore one should redirect to the other. Fornadan (t) 16:03, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

No they are not! NO ONE in Normandy, have ever mentered "Gange Hrolf" or he was to fat to ride a horse. Thats why it´s wrong just to link to the Rollo page. When there is alot evidens against it. --Comanche cph 16:44, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

I DON'T KNOW WHERE YOU GOT THE IDEA THAT HE WAS TOO FAT TO RIDE A HORSE! HE WAS A GIANT. THEY SAID THAT HE COULD LITERALLY STEP COMPLETELY OVER A HORSE. HAHAHA TOO FAT! THIS IS UTTERLY HILARIOUS!!!

Can you point to a source that claims Hrolf and Rollo are two diffrent persons? Fornadan (t) 16:58, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

LOL. What do you even know about Rollo? Maybe you should start to look at the sources before editing the pages. I can point at least 10 things different sources. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Rollo_of_Normandy#Still_kicking_to_Rollo Keep the discussion there, and stop redirect this to Rollo of Normandy!

Sorry, a misplaced word kind of mixed up my sentence. Anyway, only number 4 of those are relevant for this page. You wrote Or maybe he just wanted Rollo of Normandy to be Icelandic, and that is exactly the point here. Was "Hrolf Ganger" the same as Rollo of Normandy, but with a wrongly asserted parentage, or was he a separate Norwegian noble who was mixed up with Rollo by later writers (I'm sure you know, you're only allowed to revert a page 3 times a day?) Fornadan (t) 17:47, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

I AM HROLF —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.2.163.248 (talk) 02:14, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

this happens to be a direct descendant of mine

Honestly and truly a direct descandant so watch your tone and handling of his name regardless of his name and title for 160 years no one went by a fixed surname do your research and you would know this. Ldb — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:306:BC0F:7210:5A67:1AFF:FE58:407 (talk) 05:25, 6 June 2013 (UTC)