Kind(eren):
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Information copied from Wayne Iverson, World Connect db=wiversrm,rootsweb.com
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Haithabu is the predecessor kingdom of Norway. Also recorded born in 750and died in 804 in the Irish Sea.
He was sometimes known as Wartooth and may be legendary. He wasambitious and warlike and overcame his rivals in Denmark including theislands of Jutland and Skåne and then the ancient kingdom of Gautar andpossibly Uppland. He lived to be very old and preferred to die in battleand had a huge battle at Bravellir with nephew Sigurd Hring who may havebeen a subking or king of parts of Sweden and was killed.
Sometimes recorded as Harald I, King of Denmark
---------------------
The following post-em by Curt Hofemann, (XXXXX@XXXX.XXX), putssevere doubts as to the accuracy of the pedigree of the "Kings" ofHaithabu, which, even though it is contained in "ES" (a fairly reliablesource), is a mixture of historical and legendary figures:
"Haithabu is the predecessor kingdom of Norway".
Jim, this is certainly asserted all over the net. For a run-down ofthese purported kings of Haithabu visit Miroslav Marek’s website at:http://genealogy.euweb.cz/scand/norway1.html
He relies on ES as his source.
On the other hand, a serious caveat emptor per the Gen-Medieval archives:
… in my opinion, the "Haithabu" chart (which, as I understand it, wastaken from ES) is completely worthless. For the most part, the editorsof ES seem to use reasonably good sources, but they really got carelesswhen they let this chart get into their collection. This chart istypical of many noncritical histories in which the author would take acollection of sources, and then shuffle them together without any regardfor whether or not they were reliable, filling in all of the missingpieces with "brilliant deduction" (i.e., pure guesswork). Of thenumerous flaws, I will mention a couple:
(1) There is no good reason to call these people "kings of Haithabu." Theindividuals on the chart who appear in the contemporary records and arecalled kings of "Haithabu" on the chart are called kings of the Danes bythe contemporary Frankish annalists. In fact, there is no good reason tobelieve that the kingdom ruled by these kings was significantly differentthan the kingdom ruled later by Gorm the Old (d. 958). In fact, eventhough the continuous proven genealogy of the Danish kings begins withGorm the Old, it is possible to make a reasonably good list of Danishkings from the late eighth century on (with annoying gaps here andthere). Unfortunately, there are no known provable descents from theseearlier Danish kings. To my knowledge, not a single one of theindividuals who are called kings of "Haithabu" in the chart appear underthat title in the primary records.
(2) Although there are numerous tantalizing pieces to the puzzle, theredoes not seem to be any general agreement among scholars about how theseearly Danish kings are related. If you look at different attempts, yougenerally get different charts. In such a case, one should always besuspicious about a chart like the "Haithabu" chart, which claims to knowtoo much. I suggest attaching a "Pure Garbage" warning label to thechart. [Ref: Stewart Baldwin 17 Jun 1996]
In fact, one only has to look at ES's chart of the kings of "Haithabu"(Hedeby) in order to find a chart which is so ridiculous that the entirechart should be removed from the book… The Haithabu chart is inSchwennicke's version, volume 2, table 104. [Ref: Stewart Baldwin 30 Dec1996]
For example, that hideous "Haithabu" chart which appears in ES shouldnever be allowed into a database which has pretensions of being reliable.[Ref: Chris Pitt-Lewis 25 Jan 1998]
...Schwennicke's Europaische Stammtafeln, which is usually a pretty good source, but blundered completely in this "Haithabu" table, which should never have been included. Indeed, although Hedeby (Haithabu) was ani mportant commercial center during the period, there is, to my knowledge,no evidence whatsoever that there ever was a "kingdom" named Haithabu.The "Haithabu" table in Schwennicke is a curious attempt to combine the Danish kings mentioned in contemporary sources with Norwegian kings from the sagas. Some of the kings given in the "Haithabu" chart were in fact historical, and were referred to as kings of the Danes in the contemporary Frankish chronicles, but the relationships given in the tables cannot be trusted. [Ref: Stewart Baldwin 1 Mar 1998]
There was never a "kingdom of Haithabu" (or Hedeby, as it was called in Norse). It was the mightiest king (kind of high-king) in the area thatcontrolled Haithabu. [Ref: Frank H. Johanson 1 Mar 1998]
Haithabu should never be used. It brings back too many bad memories ofwhat is perhaps Schwennicke's greatest mistake. Besides, (Stewart has, Ithink, addressed this before) [Ref: Todd A. Farmerie 5 May 1998]
See Stewart Baldwin's review of early Danish royalty for this individual.Any source that claims there were kings of Haithabu should not betrusted. [Ref: Todd A. Farmerie 17 Mar 1999]
*****
Jim, it is Hedeby in Danish & Haddeby in German. Haithabu bei (near)Haddeby is in the German state of Schleswig-Holstein & both are nowincorporated into 24866 Busdorf. It is 1 km south of the city ofSchleswig across the western end of the Schlei (fjord/firth/estuary) & isvery small.
For a picture showing where Haithabu used to be (now consisting of a veryinteresting Viking museum business park) go to:http://www.neufi.de/ehaithabu.htm
Regard,
Curt
De getoonde gegevens hebben geen bronnen.