Talk:Hrolf Ganger

Last time I checked, we called him Rollo the Gangler in English.... JHK

• Back to the old nomenclature question. I personally favor the Anglicized-Scandanavian version - Hrolf Ganger or Hrolf the Walker, whichever - because Rollo is ambiguous with other persons. I haven't seen "Rollo the Gangler" in any of my references, but it could certainly be added to the many variants on this name. -- April

Were we to use consensus nomenclature, the article would be entitled Rollo I, Duke of Normandy -- do you mind? Got the R the G from Hollister, BTW JHK

• Hm... I suppose I hadn't really thought of him in that context, but by all means let's go with the consensus nomenclature. I can get to it this weekend if someone doesn't move it first. -- April

---

Was there a Rollo II? If not, he's plain "Rollo, Duke of Normandy". Except on conversion he aparently adopted the name Robert and is given in some lists as Robert I (which means renumbering all the later Roberts). Aaaaargh! David Parker

David -- where did you get that? I know William's father was Robert, but I've NEVER heard that Rolf or Rollo was Robert. And NO ONE was called Robert then anyway -- was he Rodbertus, Ruadpertus (unlikely, that's more east of the Rhine), Rupertus (also more eastern, but where the Rupertiner was eastern, their distant cousins were the Robertians, i.e., Capetians...)? Don't suppose you've got a nice source we couold check? Annales Bertiniani? Vedastini? I'm pretty sure it's not in Annales Fuldensis, which is a drag, since I have that at home... ugh. JHK

I wasn't too happy with it myself: I certainly don't want to end up adding a I to every subsequent Robert. If he's the only Rollo we're likely to have, we could just title him "Rollo", or leave the title as is: the "of Normandy" is only really necessary when the regnal name occurs in other contexts. David Parker

• • Alas, it seems that there's more than one Rollo around... besides Hrolf, there's a character in a book and also a musical Rollo whose full name escapes me at the moment. -- April

PS. Is Rollo really French, or just their rendition of his original name?

I always thought (on no grounds at all) that Rollo is a Latinization from the chronicles of a name like Hrolf. MichaelTinkler

I think it's Francification Latinized. Really. No Joke. They did that. It's what makes my research so interesting. Can't spell a name the same way twice in a document. Really. AAARRRGGHH!!! JHK

---

I have to second the AAAARRRRGGHHH... I just found a source that questions whether Hrolf/Rollo can actually be fairly called a "duke" at all! Excerpts from Rosamond McKitterick's, "The Frankish Kingdom under the Carolingians, 751-987", (Longman) 1983:

"Rollo is thought to have been Norwegian rather than Danish, and later Icelandic sources identify him with Hrolf the Ganger (Walker), son of Ragnvald Earl of Moer, who had a career as a Viking before settling in Francia.... Flodoard adds the information that Rollo received baptism and the Frankish name Robert with the cession of this territory. ... Rollo seems to have been made a count in 911, with the traditional duties assigned to a Carolingian count, namely, protection and the administration of justice. He was certainly subordinate to the Frankish King. With the proliferation of titles accorded the leader of the Normandy Vikings in later sources, some historians hace suggested that Rollo was made a duke, but Werner has argued that there was no Norman 'marchio' before 950-6, and no duke before 987-1006 ... Rollo appears to have received his territory on similar terms as the Bretons had received the Cotentin, except that the bishoprics were also ceded. ..... In exchange, Rollo was to defend the Seine from other Vikings, accept baptism and become the 'fidelis' of the Frankish King."

Ack! Does this mean he is, in consensus nomenclature,

• Rollo I, Duke of Normandy
• Rollo, Duke of Normandy
• Robert I, Duke of Normandy
• Rollo, Count of Normandy
• Robert I, Count of Normandy

... or what?? Anyone know where current thinking is on this? -- April

AHA! This is an example of an excellent source! It's a tough call, because McKitterick seems to be implying that Werner thinks that R. could not have been a duke if there were no marchio. That's very silly, because Werner is very clear that there are both comites marchionis and duces marchionis. Normally speaking, I trust Werner, because he's been doing this stuff forever. But Carolingian sources are notorious for the interchangeability of titles and name spellings. My guess is that somebody found a reference to Rollo as dux and pieced it together with a much later duchy. I think that we should go with 'Count (some authors say Duke)...'. And I'm pretty sure we call him Rollo -- the best way to check is to find someone like Robert Curthose, get his number, and count backward. Me, I'm off to write a lecture on the English revolution.JHK