Talk:Ivar the Boneless

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page.	Biography Portal
B	This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale. [FAQ]

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Norse history and culture, a WikiProject related to all activities of the Norse people, both in Scandinavia and abroad, prior to the formation of the Kalmar Union in 1397. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the Project's quality scale. Please rate the article and then leave a short summary here to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article.
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale.

A "berserker" who had to be carried on a shield seems like a contradiction in terms. Could we have a source or some clarification? Otherwise, I suggest deletion of this claim. PhD 14:52, 22 September 2006 (UTC)PhD

It seems questionable to me, too. Let's see what the authors think. --Ghirla ^-трёп- 16:17, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

If a child had a defect the Viking drink the child to death. Soo he had no defect

I have OI, but hadn't heard of this guy until I came here. I actually have problems with the theory that he has OI now that I've learned more of him. For one there are elements of his legend which are inconsistent with him having OI. In one case it says that he hacked a monk apart with an ax I believe. Now I don't know of any OIs that could manage that. Another issue is that in part the stories have him as basically asexual. OIs can be asexual, but as far as I know we are no more apt to be that then anyone else. However it matters because in Viking languages impotence or asexuality in a male was sometimes given the slang term of "bonelessness." There is the issue of being carried on a shield, but this could mean he simply had terrible leg injuries at an early point. Also OI is a genetic disorder that doesn't effect your legs alone. It's unlikely, as far as I know, that you could have OI in your legs but the rest of your body be completely normal. Still in some stories they do describe Ivar as a fragile military strategist who did not go out hacking people up. Instead he was only able to survive as a youth because of his father's powerful protection. So there is a theory that there are two Ivars, one of which maybe had OI and the other who was impotent. As the terms for the disparate conditions were similar they got conflated with each other. A support for this is that Ivar has a fairly long lifespan for a tenth century Viking. It was theorized then that they used the birth year for one and the death year for the other. So far that's all very speculative, but it nevertheless sounded plausible to me. Conflating two different people was fairly common in records back then.--T. Anthony 09:05, 12 September 2005 (UTC)

T. Anthony. We'll never know whether he had a very special kind of OI or not. If I were you, I'd appreciate the fact that even in the brutal dark ages, a man with OI could become a hero and a legend among his people. Note also that according to the sagas, his strengths were not in the body but in the head.--Wiglaf 09:09, 12 September 2005 (UTC)

-less mean: loose. And in the fixed phrases: "be on the loose" or "give a loose" mean "loose" move unhampered. He get this byname becorse he drag the ships from the Baltic across ice and snow to the navigable Russia rivers and in the springtime he sail to attack Constantinople. The attack was completely crazy, but a total surprise. And he get a big payment for sail home, by the Mediterranean. He get blue (back?) men in Spain.

Well okay. I'm both an OI and an aspiring historian though. (I'm getting my Master's soon, hopefully) Historically I think the evidence I've read so far hasn't really impressed me that he is OI. A part of me is pleased by the idea, but I like caution on declaring anyone anything. In part because if we someday find convincing evidence he's not it'll just look embarrassing. Still it is a theory that's importantly linked to him so I'm not doubting it's worth mentioning.--T. Anthony 01:15, 13 September 2005 (UTC)

You'll also have to judge the sources differently. If Anglo-Saxon sources describe him as a brutal berserker who did things that an OI can not, they may have demonized and exaggerated him. The Scandinavian sources, AFAIK, only describe him as a planner and advisor, a more realistic role for an OI.--Wiglaf 06:27, 13 September 2005 (UTC)

Here is what the Scandinavians said about their hero:

'He had only cartilage in his legs and so he could not walk, but had to be carried on a shield. However, it is said he was fair, big, strong and one of the wisest men who have ever lived. He was consequently the advisor of his brothers Björn Ironside, Sigurd Snake-Eye and Hvitserk.

This sounds like a man who is disabled, but whose personal qualities made him a legend together with his father and brothers.--Wiglaf 08:33, 13 September 2005 (UTC)

Ivar Vidfamne is the same as Ivar the Boneless

Haabet, we are already dealing with your theories on the Swedish Wikipedia and the Danish has been averted. I guess I have to open that rfc on you.--Wiglaf 20:13, 17 May 2005 (UTC)

I have a new concept. A Categorie: Verbal Traditions

soo is any conflict by historial source without importance. Haabet 10:24, 2005 May 18 (UTC)

There is already such a category: Category:Norse mythology.--Wiglaf 21:14, 18 May 2005 (UTC)

An old (but interesting) article in support of the OI theory can be found here: http://www.channel4.com/history/microsites/H/history/i-m/ivarr01a.html .

I intend to include this link in the article --Crais459 15:18, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Boneless or legless??

Should inn beinlausi really be translated boneless?? The concept is shocking(ly funny)! Bein also refers to legs, which may be a more plausible reason for the adnomen. Said: Rursus ☺ ★ 23:15, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Ivar the Boneless a minor character in Cornwell's novel

Just going to change that quickly. The article says that he is a major character in the novel, although he is referred to frequently as a great warrior he only has a few spoken words and is irrelevant in total. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.121.102.141 (talk) 16:52, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Ivar the Boneless and "Ímar, king of the Northmen of all Britain and Ireland"

At the moment, this article is really about the (fictional) character from the sagas, along with a teensy bit of history and some modern culture stuff. Should it be entirely about the saga character, with McTurk et al's (unconvincing, YMMV) arguments in favour of historicity and historical-Ivarr in another article, or should there be one article on both? It seems normal (contrary to what I did with "Olaf the White") to do both in one article. If it's both, the article can hardly remain at Ivar the Boneless, but Ivarr redirects here, so there's no problem with what to call it. Angus McLellan (Talk) 16:39, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Ivar the Boneless is a literary and historical topic of high note independently of anything else, and IMHO when all else is equal it is preferable to treat him in his own right as long as his identification with any character of clearer historicity is purely theoretical and no more than plausible or possible. Of course, the two can be easily cross-referenced; I suppose you'd have to weigh the strength of the arguments. I'd lean towards keeping the two together if their identification is highly likely or virtually certain, but I'd lean to the opposite for anything below. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 10:37, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Downham, Woolf, O Corrain and Hudson are in varying degrees skeptical, Downham and O Corrain very much so and Woolf simply ignores Ragnar's saga in Pictland to Alba so far as I can see. Hudson appends his comments with "If the identity between the Irish and English Ívarrs is accepted ..." and Barbara Crawford also has "if" in Scandinavian Scotland. O Croinin, Early Medieval Ireland, says of the identification "the matter is controversial". Stenton too is uncommitted, "... there are many difficulties in the way of the identification ..." of Ingwar and Ímar. Jones's History of the Vikings is quite dismissive when it comes to "Olaf the White" and doesn't take Ímar in Ireland to be the same person as Ingwar in England, identifying the English one with Ivar the Boneless; Boyer's Les Vikings treats Ingwar/Ivar the Boneless as distinct from Ívarr, brother of Amlaíb. Keynes, "Viking in England" in the Oxford Ill. Hist. of the Vikings says "Ivar, if assumed to be Ímar ...". Kirby is non-committal in The Earliest English Kings. Wormald in Campbell's The Anglo-Saxon says "probably" Ivar the Boneless. Good old A.P. Smyth, of course, takes them to be one and the same, no doubt at all, while McTurk is only marginally less enthusiastic. It's not just recently that this has been a bone of contention. Lest Mr Lauder come along and accuse me of recentist bias, I checked some old books. In 1862 Robertson treated the identification as only tradition, in 1922 Walsh said that the Ivar the Boneless and Ímar "may be identified", while Moore's 1840s history of Ireland treated Ímar and Ingwar as different people, Ingwar being Ragnar's son. Plus ça change. Angus McLellan (Talk) 18:40, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Nothing wrong with a recentist bias; otherwise we'll have FAs on Tasmanian sub-humans and such. Anyways, Woolf in the "Age of Sea-Kings" says:

By the middle of the tenth century the islands seem to have fallen within the imperium of the dynasty claiming descent from Ímar (known to the Icelanders as Ivarr the Boneless) who had died in 873. (p. 95)

I think what I'd say is that if Imar didn't have an influence on the tradition of Ivarr the Boneless, then you've got a situation where a guy powerful enough to create such a dynastic imperium and with all the poets and prestige of all those ancestors ... you got a situation where a guy like that isn't remembered in Icelandic tradition! Doesn't seem very plausible to me; but that doesn't matter. Your comprehensive survey of the secondary literature has enough scepticism in it that we as impartial regurgitators can't portray it as highly likely without being imbalanced; so I'd say prolly they should be treated separately. Regards, Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 19:54, 21 January 2008 (UTC)