Talk:Norrland

Historical? How fascinating, since Norrland is an extremely normal concept although not important from an administrative point of view. See map at sv:Norrland. /Habj 19:54, 27 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Entire Norrland

At the time of Engelbrekt, the concept of Norrland must have been very unprecise. How is it possible to say that someone conquered entire Norrland - or did I misunderstand the meaning of that phrasing? / Habj 02:16, 9 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The references is there to provide you with the possibility to check that, Habj. // Fred-Chess 01:20, 24 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

If it is unclear to someone reading the article but not checking the references, then maybe it can be phrased differently? It makes sense that someone tells someone to conquer the whole of a badly defined area but it is more difficult to say that the person did conquer the whole area without a finer definition of what he actually conquered. As you noticed, I removed that he did conquer entire Norrland ("which he did") since it is not really comprehendable in context. / Habj 11:11, 24 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Jämtland/Härjedalen

Needless to say, but Jämtland/Härjedalen was never part of the historical Norrland. Still today jamtlanders have some problem to accept being called norrlanders. THis is probably mainly due to the fact that one is making a too vast generalisation, but also to some degree to the historical fact that Jämtland/Härjedalen used to be in the backyard of Norway's old capital Trondheim rather than somewhere up in the far north far away from the Mälardalen region. / Hunef 19:23, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Norrland's Eastern border

As far as I know, the border between the Uppsala and Turku dioceses was drawn on Kaakamojoki in 1346. As this was the most stable and important adminstrative division in the area at the time, I think it should be accepted as the border between Norrland and Ostrobothnia. At least, Parish of Ii, about 50 km north of river Oulu (Oulujoki/Uleåälv) has never been considered part of Norrland but was a part of Ostrobothnia. This was evidenced in the raids of men of Ii and Liminka (definitely part of Ostrobothnia) against the Russian-Karelian settlements of Kem on White Sea in the 1550's. Had they been considering themselves part of Norrland, the men of Ii would not have allied themselves with the Ostrobothnian people of Liminka.

As can be seen from the fact that the area we are talking about was actually a hotbed of tribal warfare still in the 16th century, we also see that the only adminstrative division that really mattered was the ecclestiastical. There were no essentially temporal authorities in the area until the 17th century. At that time, the parish of Ii was definitely part of Ostrobothnia, given as a county to the family Natt och Dag. --MPorciusCato 23:54, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The other Norrland flag

There is also another unofficial Norrland flag which is dark green with a golden cross. It is used for example by this web community. Since they are both unofficial, none can be said to be more correct than the other. --Anon 21:00, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

Geographically

When you look on provinces in full I think this article is very good. Although it should have a reference to the climate and geographic line of Norrland, the river Dalälven. The northernmost part of the province of Dalarna is pretty much Norrland in many ways. "North of Dalälven" is another way to talk about Norrland. Or?

Fjollträsk

While Fjollträsk is a term that exists (although I'm not sure many use it anymore, the joke ruined by being stereotyped as using it) "träsk" absolutely does not mean "town". Its an old dialect word for big lake that is a common name element for villages in the far north.

To ruin a joke by explaining it, the idea is that you're juxtaposing the biggest city in the country with a name element that has associations of being small and remote, and THEN implying that it's defined by sissies. I think part of it is the perception that Stockholm residents are self-consciously urban in a try-hard way and easily insulted by implications of ruralness. 89.233.213.85 (talk) 09:07, 23 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Norrland History

The article reads, “From the Middle Ages on, the Swedish kings tried to colonize and Christianize the area.” From when? The “Middle Ages” can be any time from the fall of Rome to the printing press! You might try to nail down something more specific, like a date, or a range of dates, or the founding of specific settlements, or their Christianization, or something. “From the Middle Ages on,” is, imo, way too vague to be encyclopædic. I know that, right now, I'm doing some quick research on settlement during the Viking period, and such a reference is so vague as to be useless for my purposes. 2604:3D08:2676:A100:F4BB:B3F:649E:8443 (talk) 04:35, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah I can see the problem, thanks for pointing it out hopefully someone will see your post and find a source. If, while you are researching, you find a source feel free to be bold and add it to the article. Commander Keane (talk) 05:33, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You might be better served by (a machine translation of) the Swedish article sv:Norrland#Norrlands kristnande, which also has more references. Jähmefyysikko (talk) 05:42, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]