Lore talk:Harald

The UESPWiki – Your source for The Elder Scrolls since 1995
Jump to: navigation, search

Vrage[edit]

I'm reading through Pocket Guide to the Empire, 1st Edition, but Vrage is not namely designated as Harald's son. So does that quest in Morrowind name Vrage as Harald's son or it is just assumption? --213.155.255.148 13:57, 1 June 2013 (GMT)

Oh, it's set down in Lore:King Edward, Part X. Hmm, you have some confused references there. --213.155.255.148 14:00, 1 June 2013 (GMT)
Citation added to the sentence. Silence is GoldenBreak the Silence 14:22, 1 June 2013 (GMT)

Misinterpretation in Harald's age and reign?[edit]

In "Frontier, Conquest", the exact sentence talking about those years 1E 113 - 221 is, "Indeed, the early Nord chronicles note that under King Harald, the first historical Nord ruler (1E 113-221), 'the Atmoran mercenaries returned to their homeland' following the consolidation of Skyrim as a centralized kingdom." Yes, the brackets are after the word "ruler", but it could still mean Harald's birth and death dates rather than the time that he reigned. So, there might not be conflicting information at all, just misplaced brackets / vagueness in what they represent. Grammatically, I don't think it's completely wrong to mean age with those brackets, since the sequence "the first historical Nord ruler" is more like an intervening sentence in the middle of the whole sentence. It's just regrettably polysemic this way. — Unsigned comment by 77.109.225.121 (talk) at 06:48 on 7 August 2013

The dates in Frontier, Conquest are almost certainly referring to Harald's birth and death. The problem is the "almost", of course. Anyways, I'm not entirely sure what your concern is, but Frontier, Conquest is not the source of the discrepancy alluded to in the first note on the page. It's mentioned because it's a relevant source and provides a good starting point for understanding the matter. The note shouldn't be construed to claim that Frontier is one of the sources which conflates Harald's reign with his life. It says Frontier "accredits" those years to him, an ambiguous word to describe ambiguous dates. I think you confusion is due to the fact that the note's conclusion is stated up front, but the conclusion and reasoning should be read in isolation from each other. The opening sentence is merely prefacing why the information following it is being disseminated in the first place.
Looking at all the sources together, the most likely explanation is that the third Pocket Guide mistakenly states 1E 113 instead of 1E 143, as the four other sources on the matter, including Frontier, can be interpreted harmoniously with each other. But that kind of editorializing is uncalled for. All we can really do in such situations is state the facts in such a way that, hopefully, readers will come to the right conclusions on their own. Minor EditsThreatsEvidence 07:59, 7 August 2013 (GMT)