AHC: Correct Swedish regnal numbering

OTL the Swedish kings used Johannes Magnus' work as basis for their regnal names. It happened to include six fictional Eriks and Charleses, which meant that we got Erik XIV and Charles IX (and the current king is Karl XVI).

So, the challenge is to make the Swedish regnal numbering more in line with actual history.
 
Gustav I
Eric XIV should be Eric I
John III should be John I
Sigmund
Charles IX should be Charles I
Gustav II Adolph
Christina
Charles X should be Charles II
Charles XI should be Charles III
Charles XII should be Charles IV
Ulrica Eleonora
Frederick
Adolph Frederick
Gustav III
Gustav IV Adolph
Charles XIII should be Charles V
Charles XIV should be Charles VI
Oscar I
Charles XV should be Charles VII
Oscar II
Gustaf V
Gustav VI Adolf
Charles XVI Gustaf should be Charles VIII
 
Actually, if you believe wikipedia, Eric XIV was actually Erik VIII, and even if he was Eric I, he would simply be known as King Eric until the next King Eric came along. At least, that's how it worked before 1952 with Queen Elizabeth. The Virgin Queen never had a number until Brenda was crowned.
 
Gustav I
Eric XIV should be Eric I
John III should be John I
Sigmund
Charles IX should be Charles I
Gustav II Adolph
Christina
Charles X should be Charles II
Charles XI should be Charles III
Charles XII should be Charles IV
Ulrica Eleonora
Frederick
Adolph Frederick
Gustav III
Gustav IV Adolph
Charles XIII should be Charles V
Charles XIV should be Charles VI
Oscar I
Charles XV should be Charles VII
Oscar II
Gustaf V
Gustav VI Adolf
Charles XVI Gustaf should be Charles VIII

There was multiple kings before Eric XIV and many kings called Eric too. And this not yet answer how we get corrected regnal numbering.
 
There was multiple kings before Eric XIV and many kings called Eric too. And this not yet answer how we get corrected regnal numbering.

Yes, if we're gonna be as minimalistic as possible and only go with those Swedish kings who we know for certain existed, then Eric the Victorious should be Eric I. But it would be very difficult to say with much certainty that prior to Eric the Victorious there wasn't any man by the name of Eric who claimed the title and was acknowledged as the King of the Swedes. Even if he may have been mythologized to some extent, it would be difficult to say that Eric Weatherhat never existed. Simply put, "Eric the First" probably wasn't the first Eric.

The issue isn't one just of the extent to which the historical records are reliable (and the fun thing here is that history slowly blends into mythology the further back you go, there's no clear breaking point), the problem is one of defining "what is Sweden?" You could well argue that the Sweden that Eric the Victorious and Olof the Tributary wasn't really Sweden as much as a confederation of autonomous provinces with their own assemblies and laws. It's even difficult to say that these were really a single people (were the Geats Swedes? The Geats probably would have disagreed with such a distinction. Were the Geats really any more Swedish than the Norwegians?).

Unlike, say, Belgium, you cannot assign any date in history to "when Sweden started to exist" and consequently, you cannot say "X was the first king of Sweden". It just becomes a matter of conjecture, definition and inevitably, taste. The very idea of assigning correct Swedish regnal numbering therefore becomes, well, an impossible task. It simply isn't well defined.
 
Is there some event where we can number them since that event?
Like how the English numbers are "Nth of his name since the Conquest"
 
Is there some event where we can number them since that event?
Like how the English numbers are "Nth of his name since the Conquest"

Best chance would be ascension of Gustav I Vasa. Most kings before him even didn't use numbers on their names and Sweden wasn't hereditary monarchy. Gustav Vasa founded that Sweden which has been independent whole time to our days and was pretty similar with other European monarchies.
 
Last edited:
Best chance would be ascension of Gustav I Vasa. Most kings before him even didn't use numbers on their names and Sweden wasn't hereditary monarchy. Gustav Vasa founded that Sweden which has been independent whole time to our days and was pretty similar with other European monarchies.
This. Just like English kings started their numeration again after Norman conquest (Edward I Longshanks wasn't first king of England named Edward) and Bohemia or Poland ( king Vladislav I the Elbow-high was fourth Polish monarch with that name) renewed independent Swedish Kingdom could start the list again.
 
Is there some event where we can number them since that event?
Like how the English numbers are "Nth of his name since the Conquest"

Actually, the numbering of English monarchs is a tradition that doesn't have its origins with the Norman Conquest. The whole thing started when the English had three monarchs in succession all named Edward (1272-1377) and chroniclers used the numbering merely as a shorthand to denote which of the three Kings Edward they were referring to. Edward I became Edward the First not because he was the first Edward since the Norman Conquest, but because he was the First Edward of the Three Edwards.

It took a couple of extra centuries before it became established practice for monarchs to begin to numbering themselves during the Tudor era.

Best chance would be ascension of Gustav I Vasa. Most kings before him even didn't use numbers on their names and Sweden wasn't hereditary monarchy.

The practice of using regal numbers doesn't appear to have had any bearing in the case of England. William II, Henry II and Henry III certainly never referred to themselves as such.

I don't see why a monarchy needs to be hereditary to have numbering either. The Papacy most certainly isn't hereditary, and they have never shied from using regal numbers.

Gustav Vasa founded that Sweden which has been independent whole time to our days and was pretty similar with other European monarchies.

And this is where my point about conjecture, preference and taste comes into play. The notion of "Gustav Vasa founded modern Sweden" is a latter-day reconstruction. If you went back to Gustav Vasa's day and age, he and his court most certainly would have disagreed with you were you to say that he had founded modern Sweden. He had merely thrown off the yoke of the Danish Crown, but Sweden was an ancient country whose ancient institutions, laws, tradition of popular assemblies, noble families, etc. dated back long before him. Indeed, this was the very reason why his sons took as fanciful regal numbers as Eric the Fourteenth and Charles the Ninth because they wished to stress the continuity and the ancientness of the kingdom of Sweden.

Sure, you can use end of the Kalmar Union as your starting date, but you might just as well use the Christianization of Sweden 500 years earlier and make reference to the fact that that event too had a huge impact on the country (probably a far larger impact that the end of the Kalmar Union).

The same goes with English monarchs. Sure, the Norman Conquest was important. As was the Danish Conquest a little earlier. Or you could argue that you should start first with the Magna Carta, or how the Tudors truly made England a hereditary monarchy (and not one were it was fair game for anyone of blood relation to some king to claim the throne for himself). Or you could count from the Restoration and fall of Cromwell's Commonwealth, you you might just as well start counting from the Act of Union with Scotland. It's all a matter of conjecture, definition and taste.

There is no correct regal numbering. It's just a question of who you choose to define as your first Swedish monarch.
 
I thought the inflated numbers were derived from Adam of Bremen's semi-fictitious History. If we keep him honest - stop him making up half a dozen Erics, for instance - then the numbers would be accurate when they started to be used in the 1500s
 
I thought the inflated numbers were derived from Adam of Bremen's semi-fictitious History. If we keep him honest - stop him making up half a dozen Erics, for instance - then the numbers would be accurate when they started to be used in the 1500s

They're derived from the works of historians citing the works of previous historians citing the works of previous chroniclers and the like. It's a compound of misconceptions, poor methodology, lack of critical analysis (due to critical analysis not having been developed) and genuine lack of knowledge for anything better. I'm quite sure that all of these men considered themselves honest and their scholarship superb and were frankly unaware of how shitty they were.

You cannot retrace stuff to a single chronicler deliberately making a forgery out of history.
 
I'll count from Sverker the Elder 1134, as Before that, it is not proven that somone was King of Östergötland, Västergötland and Svealand at the same time - thus there was no Kingdom of Sweden, only a personal union between three Kingdoms (even if all three really were under one regent).

Sverker I 1134-1156 (Sverker Cornubesson).
Erik I 1156-1160 (Erik Jedvardsson, Erik the Holy).
Magnus I 1160-1161 (Magnus Henriksson).
Karl I 1161-1167 (Karl Sverkersson).
Knut I 1173-1196 (Knut Eriksson).
Sverker II 1196-1208 (Sverker Karlsson, Sverker the Younger).
Erik II 1208-1216 (Erik Knutsson).
Johan I 1216-1222 (Johan Sverkersson).
Erik III 1222-1229 (Erik Eriksson).
Knut II 1229-1234 (Knut Holmgersson).
Erik III 1234-1250 (Erik Eriksson).
Valdemar I 1250-1275 (Valdemar Birgersson).
Magnus II 1275-1290 (Magnus Birgersson).
Birger I 1290-1318 (Birger Magnusson).
Magnus III 1319-1364 (Magnus Eriksson).
Albrekt I 1364-1389 (Albrecht of Meckelburg).
Margareta I 1389-1396 (Margareta Valdemarsdotter, Queen of Denmark).
Erik IV 1396-1434 and 1435-1436 and 1436-1439 (Erik of Pommerania, King of Denmark).
Kristoffer I 1440-1448 (Kristofer of Bavaria, King of Denmark).
Karl II 1448-1457 (Karl Knutsson (Bonde)).
Kristian I 1457-1464 (Kristian of Oldenburg, King of Denmark).
Karl II 1464-1465 and 1467-1470 (Karl Knutsson (Bonde)).
Hans II 1497-1501 (Hans of Oldenburg, King of Denmark - Johan and Hans are considered the same name for Swedish regent numbering).
Kristian II 1520-1521 (Kristian of Oldenburg, King of Denmark).
Gustav I 1523-1560 (Gustav Eriksson (Vasa)).
Erik V 1560-1569 (Erik Gustavsson (Vasa), Erik XIV).
Johan III 1569-1592 (Johan Gustavsson (Vasa), Johan XIV).
Sigismund I 1592-1599 (Sigismund Johansson (Vasa), King of Poland).
Karl III 1604-1611 (Karl Gustavsson (Vasa), Karl IX).
Gustav II Adolf 1611-1632 (Gustav Adolf Karlsson (Vasa), Gustav II Adolf).
Kristina I 1632-1654 (Kristina Gustavsdotter (Vasa), Kristina I).
Karl IV Gustav 1654-1660 (Karl of Pfalz, Karl X Gustav).
Karl V 1660-1697 (Karl of Pfalz, Karl XI).
Karl VI 1697-1718 (Karl of Pfalz, Karl XII).
Ulrika Eleonora I 1718-1720 (Ulrika Eleonora of Pfalz, Ulrika Eleonora I).
Fredrik I 1720-1751 (Fredrik of Hessen, Fredrik I).
Adolf Fredrik I 1751-1771 (Adolf Fredrik of Holstein-Gottorp, Adolf Fredrik I).
Gustav III 1771-1792 (Gustav of Holstein-Gottorp, Gustav III).
Gustav IV Adolf 1792-1809 (Gustav Adolf of Holstein-Gottorp, Gustav IV Adolf).
Karl VII 1809-1818 (Karl of Holstein-Gottorp, Karl XIII).
Karl VIII Johan 1818-1844 (Karl Johan Bernadotte, Karl XIV Johan).
Oscar I 1844-1859 (Oscar Bernadotte, Oscar I).
Karl IX 1859-1872 (Karl Bernadotte, Karl XV).
Oscar II 1872-1907 (Oscar Bernadotte, Oscar II).
Gustav V 1907-1950 (Gustav Bernadotte, Gustav V).
Gustav VI Adolf 1950-1973 (Gustav Adolf Bernadotte, Gustav VI Adolf).
Karl X Gustav 1973-Present (Karl Gustav Bernadotte, Karl XVI Gustav).
 
The practice of using regal numbers doesn't appear to have had any bearing in the case of England. William II, Henry II and Henry III certainly never referred to themselves as such.
This doesn't really disprove your point, but I believe at least Henry III did use numbers occasionally (and was IIRC the first English monarch to put numbers on coins).
 
OTL the Swedish kings used Johannes Magnus' work as basis for their regnal names.
Johannes Magnus did not count Christian I, Hans (John II) and Christian II, but Johan III obviously did, or whoever called him number III.

But I do not understand why so many from time to time complain about these numbers. I would rather complain that the JM kinglist is kept secret and not mentioned today. Yes, it is available on Google books, but it still seems to be swept under the rug as a best forgotten fairytale. He mentioned Gothic (=Swedish) kings from Magog, son of Japheth son of Noah, and even if such persons might never have existed, we cannot know that they did not exist. We have no actual persons to replace them with, so why bother. Instead, we should endorse his list and fill it with life, to make history more clear.
 
Top