About Ragnar Lodbrok, this Is an intresting shortread useful for the upcomeing Viking

Tvshow torment that will show up.

For those who would like some historical accounts rather then thinking a TVSHOW is
historically accurate ...

One of the things that makes this a difficult question to discuss is that the question "Was
Ragnar Lothbrok historical?" is itself somewhat ambiguous. Thus, before the question
can be discussed, the question has to first be more clearly defined. To mention two
opposite extremes, a skeptic could ask whether or not everything which is said about the
character of Ragnar Lothbrok is historically accurate, observe that the answer is certainly
"no", and then claim victory. At the other extreme, a proponent of a historical Ragnar
Lothbrok could ask if a Viking by the name of Ragnar ever existed, point out that a Viking
having the correct name ("Reginheri") appears in the Frankish annals, and claim that
Ragnar Lothbrok was therefore historical. Neither of these two extremes is acceptable in
a serious argument on the subject, so I will discuss the subject from the following middle
ground. The criterion which I will use are that in order for Ragnar Lothbrok to be
considered as historical, there should be a historically documented person of that name
who actually performed a significant number of the deeds attributed to the legendary
Ragnar Lothbrok. I think this is a reasonable criterion, since it places the burden of proof
where it belongs, i.e., on the shoulders of those who claim Ragnar Lothbrok to be
historical. The remainder of this discussion is based on these principles.

Now, to answer the question: No, Ragnar Lothbrok does not appear to be a historical
figure, based on the above criterion. I will give some comments as to why I have this
opinion, and then mention some reading material for those who want more.

RAGNAR
The contemporary historical records of the ninth century (when Ragnar Lothbrok
supposedly lived) show only one Viking of the correct name, a Viking named "Reginheri"
(a Latin form equivalent to the name Ragnar) in France who died in the year 845,
according to the contemporary Frankish annals [Annales Bertiniani, or the Annals of St.
Bertin]. The emphasized words in the previous sentence are often conveninetly
overlooked by those who wish to use Reginheri as a historical prototype for Ragnar
Lothbrok. Since Reginheri died in France in the year 845, he cannot have participated in
the later events which form the principal part of the legendary Ragnar Lothbrok's
exploits.
In addition, there is no good evidence that Reginheri was the father of any of the
individuals who later came to be regarded as sons of Ragnar Lothbrok. Thus, Reginheri
fails to satisfy the criterion mentioned above. No other historical Norseman named
Ragnar is known for the appropriate time period.

LOTHBROK
No contemporary record gives this name, and it is significant that when the name finally
does make it appearance in the records 200 years later, it stands alone. (Ari, writing in
the twelfth century, was the first known writer to make Ragnar and Lothbrok the same
person.) The name first appears (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 the contemporary chronicles, but without
the nickname.) Adam of Bremen, writing soon afterward, called Ivar the son of
"Lodparchus". Besides the fact that this Lothbrok is not attested in any of the
contemporary sources, there is another potential problem, and that is that the name
("Lothbroka") might be a women's name. See the article on "Ragnars saga" by Rory
McTurk in "Medieval Scandinavia: an encyclopedia" (New York and London, 1993). If this
argument based on philology is correct, then this Lothbrok(a), if historical at all, would be
a women, and clearly not identical with the legendary Ragnarr Lothbrok. (I do not have
the background in linguistics to comment further on this gender argument.)

RAGNALL
The "Fragmentary Annals of Ireland" (edited and translated by Joan N. Radner, Dublin,
1978, formerly called "Three Fragments") has an item of interest which has frequently
been pointed out as possibly relating to the legend of Ragnar Lothbrok. In it, a certain
Ragnall (Rognvald) son of Alpdan (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 this interpretation. First, Ragnar and Ragnall are not the same name, even
though they look similar. Second, and more important, the Fragmentary Annals are
themselves not a contemporary source, and there is good reason to be suspicious about
them.

However, even if we were to allow that the events given there are historical (a concession
which many historians would be unwilling to make), and then concede further that these
events form the basis of the Ragnar legend, then we would still have that the person on
whom the legend was based did not have the right name.

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 for Ragnar Lothbrok. Thus, it appears
that the best attempt to argue for a historical Ragnar Lothbrok is to propose (as has been
done on numerous occasions) that Ragnall and Lothbrok were both the same person,
and then assume that the similar (but different) names Ragnall and Ragnar were
accidently confused. In his article "Ragnarr Lothbrok in the Irish Annals?" [Proceedings of
the Seventh Viking Congress, 1976, pp. 93-123], R. W. McTurk approached the problem
from the viewpoint of looking in the statements made in the sources, and seeing what
assumptions would have to be made about those statements in order for us to accept a
historical Ragnar Lothbrok who was a member of the Danish royal family. In my opinion,
his requirement that Ragnar should be a member of the Danish royal family is not really
needed in order to argue for Ragnar Lothbrok's historical existence, and this requirement
led to a long discussion of the genealogical relationships of the early Danish kings (not
always convincing) which were not of immediate relevance to the question of Ragnar
Lothbrok's historical existence. Thus, I am going to approach the problem in much the
same way as R. W. McTurk did, but without making any requirements about the
genealogical origin of Ragnar Lothbrok. Thus, suppose we were to assume that Ragnall
and Lothbrok both existed and were the same person, from which it could then
reasonably be assumed that man named "Ragnall Lothbrok" existed (later misnamed
"Ragnar Lothbrok" by a minor error in the Icelandic sources). If, as a thought experiment,
we claim that this is the case, then there appear to be six assumptions which are
necessary and a seventh which is highly desirable:

1. We must assume that Adam of Bremen (late eleventh century) was correct in giving
"Lodparchus" (i.e., Lothbrok) as the name of the father of Ivar (late ninth century).

2. We must assume that the "Coghad Gaedhel re Gallaibh" ("The War of the Gaedhil with
the Gaill", ed. by Todd, London, 1867), a twelfth century Irish source, is correct in stating
that Halfdan of Dublin (killed in Ireland in 877, according to the Annals of Ulster) was the
son of a certain Ragnall, and that this Ragnall was the same as the Ragnall who appears
in the Fragmentary Annals of Ireland.

3. We must assume that the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle is correct in stating that a brother
(unnamed, but called Ubbe in later sources) of Halfdan and Ivar was killed in England in
878, despite the contradictory testimony of Aethelweard which gives a very different
reading for the same event (see 4).

4. We must assume that the chronicle of Aethelweard is wrong in stating that Halfdan
brother of Ivar was killed in England in 878, for otherwise that would prove that Halfdan of
Dublin (d. 877 in Ireland) was a different 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 was the same person as Adam of Bremen's
Ivar, keeping in mind that Aethelweard's chronicle, if correct, would imply the existence of
two Ivars in the British isles at this time.

6. We must assume that the philological argument making Lothbrok(a) a feminine name
is incorrect.

7. If Ari, the earliest author to mention Ragnar Lothbrok, is to be considered a reliable

source on this matter, then we must also assume that Halfdan of Dublin was the same
person as the Halfdan brother of Sigifrid who appears in the Annals of Fulda for the year
873, despite the severe chronological problems which that would cause with Ari's
genealogies.

Of the above assumptions, numbers (1) through (6) are crucial if one wishes to argue that
Ragnall and Lothbrok were the same, and (7) is needed also if it is to be assumed that
the information given by Ari is accurate. Given the noncontemporary nature of the first
two items, along with the contradictions present some of the others, there is a very small
chance that all six of the crucial assumptions are correct. [Note: That some, or even
most, of the assumptions are true is likely, but that is not sufficient.] However, if any one
of the first six items is false, then the case for Ragnall being the same as Lothbrok
collapses, and we must conclude that the "Ragnall Lothbrok" attempt for a historical
Ragnar Lothbrok is unsatisfactory. Even though this list is relaxed considerably from the
more stringent list given by McTurk in his article, the result is similar.

CONCLUSIONS

Since all of the above attempts to find a historical Ragnar Lothbrok fail to satisfy the
mentioned criteria, Lothbrok and Ragnall come from noncontemporary sources which are
themselves open to suspicion, and the historical records show nobody else (as far as I
know) who could be plausibly identified with Ragnar Lothbrok, it must be concluded that
Ragnar Lothbrok is not historical according to the terms described above. In fact, if there
is any historical basis to Ragnar Lothbrok legend, it is quite likely that Ragnar Lothbrok is
the result of combining two or more distinct individuals into a single character having the
attributes of both, in much the same way as Ragnar Lothbrok's legendary "father" Sigurd
Ring is in fact a composite of two different men who fought against each other for the
Danish throne in the year 814, Sigifridus ("Sigurd") and Anulo (of which "Ring" is a
translation of Latin "Annulus"). However, such composite characters cannot be
considered as historical, and there is no evidence which comes close to being
contemporary which shows that either Lothbrok or Ragnall existed.

FURTHER READING

The most ambitious attempt to portray Ragnar Lothbrok as a historical figure is

"Scandinavian Kings in the British Isles 850-880" by Alfred P. Smyth (Oxford University
Press, 1977). For a very critical examination of Smyth's views, see "High-kings, Vikings
and other kings", by Donnchadh O' Corrain, in Irish Historical Review, vol 21 (1979), pp.
283-323 (very highly recommended). Both of these sources cite numerous other relevant
sources for those who are interested in further details.