Jump to content

Talk:Danes (tribe)

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Daner or Danes?

[edit]

Would "Daner" be a better word than "Danes"?

I do not know, but Danes i was both in Denmark and Norway. South-danes/Sea-danes i Denmark and Scania and north-danes in Halland and further north. Haabet 23:26, 2005 Feb 1 (UTC)

Can I move this page to Dane?Haabet 20:27, 2005 Apr 29 (UTC)

This is a page about a Germanic tribe, at the time when there were both Jutes and Daner, and not about the modern nation Danes. I think it should remain. There is plenty to add about them. The etymology section for instance could need a overhaul.--Wiglaf 21:12, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Have you any reliable source who use Daner and not Dani or Dane? Have you any information when Jutes not is a subgroup of danes? Haabet 09:07, 2005 Apr 30 (UTC)

I'm maybe the wrong person to comment on this; but the fairly comprehensive Danmarks historie i grundtræk (2000), of 400 pages aimed as an introduction for (Danish) university students in Danish history, notes on page 19 that Jordanes writes about (in Danish spelling) a Herul people that was expelled by a Daner people that had originated from the Suiones. The textbook concludes (on page 21) that the Daner had migrated to Sjælland, Fyn, and South-Jutland in the 3rd–6th centuries. A natural consequence of their non-control of the rest of the Jutland Peninsula is the existence of a Jutish people there. The textbook notes (still on page 21):
What would be more close, than to perceive the booty-offerings as traces of fights in the early 6th century that took place between Daner and Jutes — two historically known peoples whos lands were within the Frankish king's sphere of interest and hence are mentioned in Frankish sources. (my quick translation)
I have no idea about what term English authors usually would use for instance for Daner.
--Johan Magnus 09:34, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)
No writer of English would use "Daner". It doesn't look like a plural to English readers, most of whom will think it looks ridiculous. A much better choice for the heading would be "Danes (ancient people)". 69.248.116.112 21:05, 30 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Im a native speaker of Danish. 'Daner' stems from the Danish word 'Danerne', meaning 'The Danes' as a plural for the entire people. An individual of Danerne is then called 'en Daner', translating as 'a Dane'. The differences of the endings, are thus explained by the differences of grammatics and Dane and Danes, are therefore the correct spelling in English. RhinoMind (talk) 14:14, 25 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]


Why call the "Dani" an exticnt North Germanic group? Weren't they our forebears and as such, they just evolved into modern Danes? Possible together with the Jutes. --Per 07:58, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Anglo-Saxons and the Scandinavians

[edit]

Comanche seems to object to the fact that the Anglo-Saxons during some parts of history referred to all Scandinavians as Danes, based on the fact that all Scandinavians are not Danes. Has it not occurred to you that the Anglo-Saxons were wrong? Using the wrong name for a people is not unique. Maybe the indigenous inhabitants of the British Isles met Danes first and then used the same name on other people who to them seemed to be of the same origin. Or maybe most of the Viking they encountered were Danes and so they used the name on all Vikings. Minor parts of what was called the Danelaw area was for instance sometimes ruled by Vikings of Norwegian origins. Inge 21:05, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Omg Inge. That's not true and don't talk about facts, when it's not even near to be a fact.

And btw. "Danelaw" is the english word of the Danish "Danegeld" --Comanche cph 21:17, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Oh my God..like..way! It's soo true. Come on we can sit here all night just saying true/not true to each other. Please try to be constructive. Inge 21:41, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
"Danelaw" is the english word of the Danish "Danelagen" or "Danelag". Danegeld is the english word of the Danish DanegældHåbet 09:31, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

Well it's you, who wants something to be true, right? --Comanche cph 21:50, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

I just won't let you remove valid information from Wikipedia just because you happen to disagree. Inge 22:04, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's not valid information. It's totally fiction and not wrote anywhere. --Comanche cph 22:13, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

From Britannica "Danes Invade England" "The new invaders were Scandinavians from Norway and Denmark (see Vikings). The English called them Danes." Please leave the information in. Inge 13:31, 3 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Let's get it sourced, then. The article in general needs references. Once properly referenced removal is much harder to justify. This search may help. [1] I shan't revert the removal by the recent IP, someone else can. Had it been sourced I owuld have reverted the removal as vandalism. ++Lar: t/c 14:46, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion of merge

[edit]

Upon examination of the Danelaw, specifically the fact that "Dane" and "Danish" is used extensively and that there was a documented conflict between the "Danes" and the "Norse" under Magnus I of Norway. Therefor, though they are similar, they are not the same and should not be merged. Noles1984 (talk) 21:28, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Daner vs Danes - Saxo Grammaticus wrote about "danerne" (not in Danish but in Latin, but) - it is though translated to Daner/Danerne in newer litteratur. People from Angel (Southern Jutland, part of Denmark) and Sachsen (more to the south and ome in now Germany) ( = the anglians and saxons) went to England already in the 5th century. You will find this in sources like Beda's religious history (don't have the book by hand), in the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle. And that's a fact. 87.57.199.24 (talk) 17:00, 23 December 2008 (UTC)Jan Eskildsen.[reply]

It is of course Bede's Ecclesiastical History, I am referring to. 87.57.199.24 (talk) 17:07, 23 December 2008 (UTC)Jan Eskildsen[reply]

I have now found the sentence in Bede's Ecclesiastical history, where he writes/wrote: "Those who came over were of the thee most powerful nations of Germany - Saxons, Angles, and Jutes." In Chapter XV.19:06, 23 December 2008 (UTC)Jan Eskildsen

Tilsted hoax?

[edit]

Has anyone done a fact check on the Tilsted character mentioned? Something smells fishy to me.. 85.81.40.95 (talk) 18:23, 31 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I could not find any mention of the Tilsted person or tribe on internet, so maybe your suspicions are right. Iselilja (talk) 18:38, 31 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Well... you could try borrow the book that was referenced in the text. I don't know if the Tilsted clan ever existed, but just because you (as in you) cannot find anything on the internet, doesn't mean it is wrong. Write back when you have fact-checked on the Tilsted in the book, please. If not, I will reinstall the text you erased later. RhinoMind (talk) 18:46, 31 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Feel free to reinsert the text if you think it right. Iselilja (talk) 18:52, 31 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Vikings did not have "clans". Tilsted is a place in Denmark, and does not even look like a personal name "sted" means place. There is a family with the surname Tilsted, but that is derived from the placename. There is no Chronica Sialandie that source is clearly a hoax. And in google books I can see page 376 and 378 of Stenton's book, though not the page 377 that is cited. The context does speak about Danelagen and the Danegeld, but does not seem to go into details on any Danish vikings. I will keep removing this content untill positive support from reliable sources is found. That includes if you reinsert it without having checked the book. There are no mentions of the alleged "Tilsted" in either google scholar or google books. User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 19:10, 31 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Hi. I agree that it indeed sounds fishy, but this is not about personal opinions. See my explanation below. RhinoMind (talk) 11:28, 1 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I might have expressed myself a bit sharp, but I am occasionally fed up with lazy editors deleting this and that and acting like irresponsible teenagers with an ego problem. I should not automatically put you guys in that dumpster-category of course, so sorry if you find my first post a bit rude. However, the point I was stressing is still relevant, so let me be more precise about it: There was given a ref on this info. If you do not check up on a given ref, you have no right to remove anything. If you distrust the info, you can (at best) put up a citation needed-tag. Wikipedia is not an image of what you can find or not find on the internet. Sometimes you need to frequent a physical library. I suggest you do that, if you find the issue interesting enough. I am not judging whether the info is right or wrong, I am just explaining the proper procedure to you, because you have violated that procedure. What I think is right or wrong, has no relevance at all.

PS. Manus already did half of the job, by explaining (and documenting here on talk-page) that the Chronica Sialandie does not exist. Now you just have to check the Stenton source.

PPS. I am taking this serious because you must realize that this deletion is at the same time a quite serious accusation of the user that put this up in the first place. We must be sure if this user was hoaxing or just being sloppy. Perhaps he/she was even right? RhinoMind (talk) 11:24, 1 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Nah, it was a hoax. Hoaxes happen all the time on wikipedia. The only online references to "Tilsted the Viking" were to this page. Even if it turns out that Stenton mentions it and it is real, including it this prominent in an article that is not about "Tilsted" and his alleged role in the Viking conquest of England would be a serious amount of undue weight. The article is supposed to be about the tribe of Danes, and its coverage of any individual should be proportionate to the coverage in the literature on that topic. User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 15:31, 1 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Orgins

[edit]

The Danes also invaded the area we now know as Denmark, which was previously occupied by the Jutes (hence the name Jutland). I think we need some info about where the Danes came from originally and how they settled in Denmark also. I can perhaps supply some info on this later on, but hope to inspire other editors to engage as well.

RhinoMind (talk) 11:43, 1 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That depends on which historical sources you read. Also a different interpretation is that Jutes are also Danes and that they still live in Jutland. There is no reliable information about how "Danes" arrived in Denmark. I think it is very important that this article describe historical sources critically, without making it out as if they provide factual objective information.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 20:18, 1 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Sure. I will provide proper and reliable sources. It was not a forewarning of a hoax :-)

Larger settlements

[edit]

In the hope that others might contribute or as a to-do for myself, I have initiated a section on the settlements in France by the Danes in the Viking Age. I am of course thinking about Normandy in particular. Other areas of interest are present day Germany and Poland, in particular Wolin and Rügen. Jomsborg might be a legend (although I doubt that), but Danish royalty had close ties to the slavs of this region and there were larger settlements by Danes there, including graveyards, that later dissappeared. It would also be interesting to include some mention of the extent of the Danes settlements in Scania and what we now call southern Sweden. Perhaps also the Jutlandic parts of present day northern Germany. RhinoMind (talk) 17:32, 2 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Danes (Germanic tribe). 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:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 05:01, 14 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

"mark" =/= "field" ?

[edit]

Hi, considering "https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/March_(territory)", perhaps the lede could be untangled a bit? T 85.166.161.28 (talk) 03:12, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Danes_(tribe)&oldid=1195681813"