Talk:Danegeld

Not just an English tax

A danegeld was not just an English tax, it was also used in Francia, and it did not necessaraily have to be a 'tax' in the proper use of the word. Charles the Bald was the first Frankish king to pay a danegeld in 845. This consisted of him handing over 7,000 lb's of silver to the viking leader Ragnar.

Source: The year 845 in the Annals of St Bertin. I'll come back later and rewrite this article unless anyone else has further input?

Just checking a few sources and the first English danegeld actually appears to have been in 865 by the people of Kent.

Source: Jones, Gywn. A History of the Vikings. New York: Oxford University Press, 1968.

"48,000 pounds (17,916 kg) of silver" - something wrong here. 17,916/48,000=0.37325 kg in one pound. Wrong pounds or kilograms? --Tigga en 04:39, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

I can well understand the concern that paying tribute was not just an English phenomenon in the so-called Viking Age, but, was it called 'danegeld' in Francia? I don't know, but I very much doubt it. If not, then that has to be made very clear: it should not be called "danegeld" in this article. Nortonius (talk) 10:17, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Whatever 'francia' was, it is noteworthy that there was nothing at all alike to England's Danelaw nor the Danish placenames therein. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.153.101.41 (talk) 20:49, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

What are the images for?

As far as I can see, the images of rune stones in this article don't relate to danegeld, except perhaps indirectly. The translations for these rune stones, offered in the indicated WP article, mention only "payments", made to the individuals concerned by their respective Scandinavian leaders. That's not danegeld. Danegeld was paid by rulers to their counterparts, and, specifically in the case of the English danegeld, this was from land taxes. Of course the payments received by the individuals commemorated on the rune stones are interesting, and might have originated in danegeld collected by their leaders, but it is wrong to call these payments "danegeld". Nortonius (talk) 10:23, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Well, according to mainstream scholarship these stones talk of the Danegeld. Do you need references?--Berig (talk) 14:27, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Hello - yes, that would be good - quotations and references would be better still! Thanks. Nortonius (talk) 15:51, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

No problem. I am a bit busy tonight, but I'll see what I can find. Here is a link to begin with.--Berig (talk) 15:54, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Here's a second one.--Berig (talk) 16:05, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Ah - thanks for the thought, but that first link is to information on "fees and payment" for a conference, being held in Uppsala in a few days! Interestingly though, an image of a rune stone on that page has a caption speaking of 'Canute the Great's danegeld', which sort of reflects what I mean - if it's correct, and if I've understood it correctly! But, I'll sit with a nice cup of tea and read through the item in the second link, thank you very much; and I'll be interested to see anything else you might come up with. Cheers. Nortonius (talk) 16:09, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Here's a page from Googlebooks.--Berig (talk) 16:16, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Here's a second page on Googlebooks.--Berig (talk) 16:19, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

The already classic book by Jansson Runes in Sweden (1987:76-80) says

Stones of especial interest are those that mention the Danegeld, [...] To this group belong the notable Yttergärde stones (Uppland) inscribed in the 1020s. [...] Another Uppland man who "received Canute's payment" and came back to his farm safe and sound was Alle in Väsby. [...] One of the Lingsberg stones (Uppland) says among other things that Ulvrik had taken two payments in England [...]. And on the Grinda stone, also from the first decades of the eleventh century, it says that Gudve was west in England and took his share of a Danegeld payment [...].--Berig (talk) 16:29, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

(undid indent) All very interesting, and thank you very much. I think what's going on here is that a line is being blurred, between the land tax known as "danegeld", and payments made to individuals from the proceeds of that land tax. This would be comparable to the difference between say a modern "income tax", and the "wages" paid to soldiers, or perhaps more accurately mercenaries. Obviously they are connected, but they are two very different things.

In Bengt Holmström's paper here, he's not discussing the danegeld, and the impression is that he is being uncritical in that regard in quoting from a translation of the Yttergärde rune stone - it's not his subject, after all. Incidentally, that writer does his credibility no favours, I think, when he describes Cnut as 'looking Nordic' in the illustration in the New Minster Register. While that image is clearly designed to make Cnut look as much like an English king as possible, no doubt for purposes akin to propaganda, it is directly comparable to an image of his thoroughly Anglo-Saxon predecessor King Edgar, in the New Minster charter.

Much the same can be said for the item here. Its subject is the rune stones, not the issue of what constitutes a danegeld. In this example, the word "danegeld" is used in the main text reporting the inscription on the Väsby stone, but this then becomes merely "geld" in the caption for the accompanying illustration. The main text then goes on to mention 'payments of geld' (i.e., not explicitly "danegeld"), with regard to the inscription on the Yttergärde stone - but, this inscription is translated here using only the word "payments".

Meanwhile the third example is really just a repeat of the second one, as it too mentions the inscription on the Yttergärde stone. By this point, I have to ask, can anyone provide trustworthy translations of these inscriptions, which are not coloured by foreknowledge of the existence of an English tax called "the danegeld"?

Of course I'd still be interested to see what else might be offered by way of answer to this question, but to me it still looks very much as it did when I left my first comment - in other words, that the rune stones don't record payments of danegeld, which would require that the persons commemorated on the stones themselves received tribute, in this instance collected through a land tax called "danegeld", directly from whoever had collected it, in this instance being an English ruler with the power to tax. Instead, the rune stones record individuals who had been in England, and had been paid by their leaders, probably from the proceeds of danegeld.

I think that the quote from Jansson's book, Runes in Sweden, is itself illustrative of the point that I'm trying to make. In effect, it may well be that the rune stones do mention danegeld, but not by name, and only indirectly. To begin with, Jansson himself introduces the word "Danegeld", and then there is mention of 'Canute's payment', and then 'two payments', with no further mention of danegeld - just, "payments"; until, that is, Jansson mentions a man named Gudve, who was 'west in England and took his share of a Danegeld payment' (my italics).

So, what I'm driving at is that there is a distinction between "the danegeld" as a tax, and how the proceeds of that tax were used. In other words, at present the Danegeld article doesn't appear to recognise this distinction, and this is especially evident in the image captions, which speak of individuals "taking" and "receiving" danegelds. I still say that they didn't - they simply received payment - their shares - from their leaders. The rune stones are still of great interest here, as I would agree that these payments were most probably derived from the proceeds of danegelds, so long as they are chronologically appropriate; but the line between the supply of a demand for tribute by an English ruler's imposition of a danegeld on the one hand, and the rewards given to warriors and mercenaries on the other hand, is invisible in the article as it stands. I suppose the bottom line is that, as it stands, the article appears to allow readers to go away thinking that "danegeld" is a term that can be used for any payment received by any Danish warrior who had been fighting in England. And, very grateful though I am for the examples that have been offered in this discussion, really what I (or anyone) would be hoping to see would be simple, contemporary examples of the word "danegeld" being used outside the context of an English land tax being raised by an English ruler and paid to a Danish ruler or leader of a war band; or, reliable, published discussion of contemporary use of the word "danegeld" which would explain and include the sort of payments received by the individuals commemorated on the rune stones. Failing that, a solution to this problem in the article might be to create a brief subsection discussing what happened to the proceeds of danegeld, and relating the images to that, rather than directly to a tax known as "danegeld". Any further thoughts? Cheers. Nortonius (talk) 17:31, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Well, it is the traditional transaction scheme of a giver/seller, a transferred object and a receiver/buyer. From an English perspective, the Dangeld was "taxation and handing over to extortionists", while from a Norse perspective it was "the received tribute and what was handed out to warriors". Distinguishing between the two sides would simply be to expand the article and adding more fine-grained structure to it.--Berig (talk) 11:22, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Umm - sorry, but I already covered that! That's really basic... The point I'm making is that the individuals mentioned on the rune stones are bit players - they got wages - it was their leaders/rulers who got "danegeld"... Maybe read what I wrote again...? Nortonius (talk) 13:07, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

The thing is that several of them actually mention leaders/rulers who took danegeld, and they are roughly contemporary.--Berig (talk) 13:12, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

That's wonderful! Now we're getting somewhere, maybe! If you could indicate who they are, or which of these leaders/rulers appear on rune stones, with citations and, as you were so kind before, quotations or text that I could see, I'd be very grateful. Or, if these leaders/rulers are not the ones already mentioned in the article, perhaps they could simply be swapped, with the necessary citations? As I've sort of said before, what I've seen so far doesn't seem to fit the bill. All that's needed really is an example of a leader/ruler taking specifically "danegeld", or "tribute" for that matter, from an identifiable English leader/ruler - that would be perfect. The only English ruler mentioned in the article so far is Æthelred, and he's a well-known example.

Also, I think another good illustration of what I'm getting at is provided in the body of the article, by the section heading "Danegeld in England", where only England is mentioned at first, followed by the subsection heading "Anglo-Saxon era": here, the first sentence says 'The first payment of the Danegeld to the Vikings took place in 845 when they tried to attack Paris.' Obviously, Paris is not in England, and I don't think the French would be too keen on having this period of their history described as the "Anglo-Saxon era". There's a distinct lack of clarity here. To push that idea further, I'm suggesting that "danegeld" is a term which specifically relates to England: I bet the French don't call it "danegeld". Thanks. Nortonius (talk) 13:50, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

I have already provided you with sources per WP:RS that these stones refer the Danegeld, and if you are interested in what leaders they refer to I suggest you read Jansson's Runes in Sweden (1987:76-80). You'll find that U 344 mentions both Canute the Great, Skagul Toste and Thorkell the Tall, which is BTW already mentioned in the caption of the picture of the stone. Moreoever, if you contest that they refer to the Danegeld, I suggest you refer to sources that do so as well, per WP:NOR and WP:RS.--Berig (talk) 14:07, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

(undid indent) Sorry, I don't mean to be annoying! But you refer me to previous examples which I've already discussed in some detail, without actually responding to my discussion. The issue I'm addressing is precisely that the "Ulf" commemorated on U 344 received "wages" from Tosti, Thorkell and Cnut: those three were the ones who received "danegeld", not Ulf. Also, you haven't responded to my last illustration, about "danegeld" allegedly being collected in Paris. I'd be grateful if you would. Thanks. Nortonius (talk) 14:31, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

As for the first question, I do not see the problem, because it is enough for WP purposes that reliable sources say that the stones refer to the Danegeld. As for "Danegeld collected in Paris", I don't think it's relevant, and I haven't written it. Unless the connection between Paris and the Danegeld is supported by an RS it should go.--Berig (talk) 14:50, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Good, thanks. About the "first question", it's actually the reliability of these sources, specifically relating to their use of the term "danegeld", that I'm calling into question. I think what is needed is references to reliable, published sources which discuss specifically "danegeld", not a separate subject such as "rune stones". If that were done, and the article were edited accordingly, I think the issue might well disappear. About the relevance of "danegeld" collected in Paris, this is because it derives from the same issue of clarity, and use of relevant, reliable, published sources. Sorry if that looks a bit like "mission creep", but I don't think it is - I was first moved to discuss this article by a perceived lack of clarity. Anyway, I'm glad to hear you accept that there may be a question mark over the use of "danegeld" in a French context - it's not the existence of the phenomenon that I'm calling into question, but clarity over use of the term "danegeld"; which, after all, is the title of the article. In other words, I don't have a problem with the proposed presence in this article of a discussion of parallel developments in France, under the section heading "Danegeld in Francia": I'd just be keen to see that the term "danegeld" is used appropriately. Thanks. Nortonius (talk) 15:39, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Jansson is as reliable and authoritative as a source can get although you seem to question his reliability based on the fact that he's a linguist and a prominent runologist who writes on runestones. If you want a reliable source written by a historian and an archaeologist you can check out Harrison & Svensson's book Vikingaliv (2007) pages 42-43. They mention U 344 in a discussion on the Danegeld from a historical perspective. Another historian who writes that these stones refer to the Danegeld is Omeljan Pritsak in his book The Origin of Rus (1981) page 392.--Berig (talk) 16:03, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

That sounds promising - is it possible that those two works could be cited in the article? I notice that they're not at present. From its title, I suspect that Vikingaliv is not in English, so citing that might be problematical; but hopefully citing The Origin of Rus might be simple enough. The more information the article can present about 'what is meant by "danegeld"', the better it'll be, I'm sure you'll agree. Thanks. Nortonius (talk) 18:05, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Appeasement

Is the addition of Appeasement in the "See also" section legitimate? I am not a native English speaker, but the article does not have any mention of the word being relevant for Danegeld. --Saddhiyama (talk) 15:19, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for Spoting that your have good eyes Appeasement difinatly deserves to be linked to this artical 76.244.155.36 (talk) 06:13, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

Frisia

Under the heading Frisia you say:

where they assaulted Dorstadt and extorted a tribute from the population

are you sure this should not be Dorestad (NL) instead of Dorstadt (DE). Kadeike (talk) 10:02, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Footnote 18 - formatting, line break - fixed

Can someone tell me what I've did wrong with note 18 and why the brackets don't do their job? Nik Sage (talk) 13:35, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

There was a linebreak in text in the brackets between the author and title (presumably from wherever you cut and pasted it). I guess on your screen it must have appeared at the edge of your screen where there was already a natural linebreak, and you didn't notice it. Happens to me all the time as well. --Saddhiyama (talk) 13:41, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the help, but I still don't get it. What do you meen when you say linebreak, a simple space that breaks the line? Was it between "England:" and "Grant"? Nik Sage (talk) 17:17, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

Yes, basically same function as if you write a sentence then move the cursor to the middle of it and press "enter". If you copy paste that whole sentence, the "enter" linebreak will be copied as well, and the ref-code requires the citations to be on the same line. I hope you understand, it is difficult to explain as I am usually not that technically minded. --Saddhiyama (talk) 19:27, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

Plural of Danegeld

I corrected the few instances of "Danegelds" to Danegeld. The addition of plural -s is foolish and demonstrates no feeling for the old Norse language; a discussion could be started regarding plural of old Norse words, since almost no-one today has knowledge of complex old Norse grammar wherefore the correct usage of plural in different contexts might prove exceedingly difficult to implement.

Be that as it may, "Danegelds" is certainly unpreferable. One might conjugate as in German 'Danegelder', but for now I have corrected as uncountable 'Danegeld', and then number of instances where Danegeld was received.

Forgot to sign in again-again, sorry; ~ Jjjjc —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.72.23.67 (talk) 23:58, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

I agree with you you are correct You cant Plural a non-english word in the english way its against the rules of english wikipedia. you have certainly studied your stuff. the plural of the word is certainly Danegelder which would literally translate to Dane money's. Its becasue of your logical Agrument that i edited the Literal meaning back to its real value. i added your citatation as well. i checked the artical to see if this issue was brought up before and some one said it was Danes's Money but its incorect. also the literal cant be Dane debt that makes no sense whats so ever theres no way geld can mean debt litteral (translation wise). thanks for living up to the creed of wikipedia and promoting knowledge helping me and every one else to be smarter in the process 76.244.155.36 (talk) 00:02, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

Focus

This article would appear to be unfocused according to www.britannica.com (my emphasis):

Though the Danes were sometimes bought off in the 9th century in both England and France, the word Danegeld is usually applied to the payments that began in 991 and continued at intervals until 1016. Danegeld is distinct from heregeld, an annual tax levied between 1012 and 1051 to pay Danish mercenaries. The Anglo-Norman and Angevin kings continued the geld until 1162. ("Danegeld". www.britannica.com.)

-- PBS (talk) 13:10, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

Protection money - or extortion

Would it be correct to distinguish two processes: the extortion of money through menaces, and the raising of that money through a protection racket? Shtove 14:04, 12 June 2020 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Shtove (talk • contribs)

@Shtove: How are they different/distinguished ? - Rod57 (talk) 11:20, 28 April 2022 (UTC)

The former is offensive: give me silver, or I kill you. The latter is defensive: give me silver, or I can't protect you from the killer. I'm wondering if the answer to the curious state of the country over such a long period, with its permanent enemy within, is that the ruling elite found the racket a convenient way to maintain and extend power. Perhaps I'm projecting American values! Shtove (talk) 12:00, 28 April 2022 (UTC)

Correct translation?

Article reports translation into modern English as "Danish tax" or "yield". I'm no expert on Old Norse/English, but I was wondering if this is correct?

"tax" or "tribute" seems to fit, but translation as "yield" seems wrong - only source seems to be this page.

"gæld" in modern Danish is "debt" - it is described as "Danegæld" on the Danish page. In fact modern Gældstyrelsen (https://da.wikipedia.org/wiki/G%C3%A6ldsstyrelsen) comes after you if you don't pay your taxes or public debt.

Would "Dane debt" be a valid translation? One reliable source describes it as such from Univ. Exeter. https://projects.exeter.ac.uk/RDavies/arian/viking.html Jw2036 (talk) 22:35, 9 April 2022 (UTC)

How did it start - before/outside England

How did it (the wider practice) start - before/outside England ? Could do with a chronological overview, in intro or own section, since the national sections make it hard to see if Fresia or elsewhere was the first. Were the payments made to a single Danish authority, or to various tribal groups ? - Rod57 (talk) 11:17, 28 April 2022 (UTC)

Can we have a list of such payments

Can we have/start a list of such payments, including dates, amounts, by-whom, to whom, location ? Did the Vikings always visit to collect the Geld, or was it sometimes delivered to them ? - Rod57 (talk) 11:30, 28 April 2022 (UTC)

danegeld or Danegeld?

The article uses both. Should it be capitalised or not? LastDodo (talk) 09:14, 4 August 2023 (UTC)

Danegeld - means a payment or tribute for the Danes. "Dane" is synonymous with Scandinavian raiders in the 8th/ 9th century and refers to a country and is therefore a proper noun so should normally be capitilised. There are other precedents, for example if you look at dogs, breeds such as "Afghan Hounds" or "Rottweilers" that are named after places are always capitilised, whereas breeds such as "fox hounds" or "bulldogs" are not.Wilfridselsey (talk) 14:12, 4 August 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply. I would like to see if anyone disagrees. If not, I suggest the article be adjusted accordingly. LastDodo (talk) 09:50, 7 August 2023 (UTC)

OK - I have adjusted the article accordingly. Please check to make sure I haven't missed any. There are probably more arguments about English grammar than anything else on English Wikipedia. So maybe we will get some on this?Wilfridselsey (talk) 11:05, 7 August 2023 (UTC)

I'm not an expert but your explanation for capitalizing it seems reasonable, so as long as it is consistent I for one have nothing against it. TylerBurden (talk) 09:18, 9 August 2023 (UTC)

Historians don't necessarily have a degree in English grammar, so I am sure that we will occasional get the "D" in miniscule form based on an authorative source! That does not mean that it is correct. We still get arguments about the indefinite article and the all time favourite must be "its vs it's" (the former being possessive and the latter a contraction). I think that as Dane is a proper noun, it is secure to use the Majuscule form. Wilfridselsey (talk) 15:05, 9 August 2023 (UTC)

I checked with the Britannica, OED and Websters. Britannica and OED have Danegeld capitilised, Websters describes Danegeld as a noun "often capitalized". Wilfridselsey (talk) 08:20, 10 August 2023 (UTC)

So it seems references mostly capitalize as well, then I think we can pretty much consider it consensus to use that consistently here. But you're right, I wouldn't be surprised if someone eventually takes issue with it somehow, it's amazing what petty things people waste their time arguing about on this site. Hopefully we can avoid that here! TylerBurden (talk) 10:42, 10 August 2023 (UTC)