Talk:Stones of Mora

The comment below refer to the edits made in may 2 and 3.

There were a nobility in Sweden even before Alsnö stadga. The category of people called "stormän" in modern Swedish litterature were called "nobiles" in latin documents. Nor the Latin or the English language distinguish "stormän" from "frälse", just like they do not distinguish between "svear" and "svenskar" (Swedes). Sweden had a nobility before 1280, but just like the nobility in the mediterranean region during antiquity were they not exempt from taxes. Personally I think that "local noble families" is a better translation of "lokala stormannaätter" than the awkward sounding "local clans". The latter sounds way to Scottish for my taste.--Örjan (talk) 15:33, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

What about "the most powerful local families"?--Berig (talk) 16:09, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

It would work, although I am still inclined to a wording that makes it clear that we are in fact talking about a category of people much higher in social status than the ordinary farmer.--Örjan (talk) 21:00, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Sure, "local noble families" would work, but we are not dealing with people who were formally distinguished from a class of poor peasants. These powerful families did not have any special titles (apart from "chieftain" and "jarl"), and the only things that made them correspond to nobles was the fact that they were rich, powerful, well-connected, had their own armed men, and bragged about the warlike exploits of their ancestors. To me "noble" implies a clearcut legal difference from free farmers that probably did not exist as they were probably only one extreme of a spectrum.--Berig (talk) 21:14, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

I checked the dictionary and it seems that in a modern context "nobility" does refer to titles and legal privileges and not just high social class (although that is not the case for litterature about the antiquity and "nobleman" is an obvious translation for "ädling" of which the Icelandic poets mention many). Another word has however a wider meaning, and that is "aristocracy" (= "the most powerful members of a society" [1]). Early medieval Sweden was much closer to be an aristocracy then an a democracy. This is a point that should not be forgotten since there are romantic tendencies to portray the era as almost a democratic society.

A major clearcut differnce between classes in the Scandianvian society was by the way ownership of land. Only those who actually owned land were called "bonde", those who rented their land were called "landbor". This is worth to remember when the provincial laws states that a "lagman" must be a "bonde". "Landbor" were expected to provide military service to their "storman" who owned their land if he neeeded help in some feud. Even "bönder" had in practise this half-feudal obligation if the "storman" controlled the local thing and thus was the law. The so called democratic parliamentary assembly in Iceland, the Allthing, was composed of 39 hereditary cheiftains, each of them master of their local thing.--Örjan (talk) 21:47, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I agree on "aristocratic". That would be an appropriate term.--Berig (talk) 23:19, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Not to interrupt, but perhaps "oligarchy" should also be considered as a possible alternative here. I don't know about recent work, or much about the early history of Sweden, but older material on Iceland freqently uses "oligarchy" to describe the political situation at the time. —Aryaman (Enlist!) 00:18, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Yes, Oligarchy would work too. The chieftain Jarlabanke even declared that he *owned* the hundred and he decided where the assembly location would be, see the Jarlabanke Runestones.--Berig (talk) 16:07, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

It works for Iceland but it is not so good for the Scandinavian mainland. The one and only definition of oligarchy is "a political system governed by a few people" [2]. Sweden was governed by one person, i.e. a monarchy. The highest social class had considerable influence but they were in no way the king's equals like the 38 Icelandic "godar" were to the one "gode" who was the Lawspeaker. Aristocracy, referring to the elite socio-economic class (numbering several hundreds) rather than a political system, is a better word.--Örjan (talk) 11:24, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Yes, but I think "oligarch" would work on the local level, such as a hundred or a former petty kingdom like Västergötland. That said, I have no preference for any particular terminology as long as the text conveys the general situation.--Berig (talk) 13:32, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

But there were not any national institutions at the time, other than the king himself, and thus not really a "national level" above the provincial assemblies. The king was just as much king of Västergötland as he was king of Sweden. Even if the local "stormän" organised Västergötland in a way similar to Iceland, they were not oligarchs who could do what they pleased so long they got along with their peers. Iceland stopped being an oligarchy in 1262 just like Västergötland had done several centuries ago (if they ever had been one).

Oligarch, meaning "one of the few who rule", is just not a good translation for "storman" ("great man" in Swedish) as aristocrat, meaning "one of the most powerful members of the society" (with the root aristos meaning "best" or "prominent") . Even the historic use of the word nobleman is a lot closer to "storman" than oligarch.

An example of how the sentence could be phrased is: "customary hostage from the local aristocratic families". The only difference from the current text being that prominent is replaced with aristocratic and clans with families. However, "local aristocracy" would make the sentence shorter and essentially have the same meaning.--Örjan (talk) 17:17, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

[outdent] I think "magnate" is the term used on WP to translate "storman". What about "hostages from the families of the local magnates"?--Berig (talk) 18:22, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Prince Magnus Birgersson († 1320) not elected king at the stones of Mora in 1319, nor at all

It is high time to refute this disturbing factoid. On the other hand, it is well known that his cousin, Magnus IV, was elected at the stones on July 8, 1319.

The author of the factoid must have confused Magnus Birgersson with his cousin, or with his grandfather, Magnus III "Barnlock", who was also called Magnus Birgersson. Prince Magnus Birgersson was in fact in prison during 1319. He was captured at Stegeborg Castle in 1318, and held prisoner in Stockholm Castle until his execution in June, 1320.

In 1304, at a council with the Swedish and Danish kings present, he was indeed elected heir apparent and given the title king, but the council was held in Fagradal (now Fagerdala) in Småland. I will get back and add some references.

Accusativen hos Olsson (talk) 18:18, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

Svear probably includes Geats in the Westrogothic law

This is a comment regarding: "The Westrogothic law reminded the Geats that they had to accept this election: Sveær egho konung at taka ok sva vrækæ meaning Swedes have the right of choosing and deposing the king."

It is difficult to know if the word "Svear" refers to Swedes (including Geats) or only to people from Svealand (now a part of Sweden). According to the Swedish version of this page, recent research shows that the word "Svear", at the time when the Vestrogothic law was written, refered to all people living in Sweden who identified themselves as beeing Swedish citizens, and to the original meaning of the word "sve" = us, our, we ...thereby including also Geats living in south Sweden.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 46.59.87.148 (talk) 07:02, 7 April 2018 (UTC)