Diskussion:Radbod 2.

Fictitious

Hi @Rmir2, @Oleryhlolsson,

Apologies for writing in English, although I can understand some slivers of Danish, I am unable to write anything coherent in your language. Answers are welcome in Dutch, English and German or in Danish with the help of Google Translate.

Are you aware of the fictitious nature of the chronicles about Radbod II? There is not a single piece of material evidence of his reign and documents about it were either falsified or written more than half a millennium later, no matter what Frisian nationalistic activists bring up even in the 21st century.

From Dutch Wikipedia::

Verdubbeling

De 19e-eeuwse historicus Jan Bolhuis van Zeeburgh stelde nadrukkelijk dat er nooit een Radboud II is geweest. De Friese kroniekschrijvers hebben volgens hem een verkeerde aanname gemaakt: zij schreven dat de Friese koning Radboud (†719) streed tegen de Frankische leider Karel maar maakten daar abusievelijk Karel de Grote (747-814) van. Radboud vocht echter tegen Karel Martel (689-741). De apocriefe kroniekschrijvers hebben daarom een tweede Radboud aan de lijst van koningen toegevoegd, zodat de verhalen over de strijd tegen Karel de Grote weer klopten.

Translated:

Duplication

The 19th-century historian Jan Bolhuis van Zeeburgh emphatically stated that there never was a Radbod II. According to him, the Frisian chroniclers made an incorrect assumption: they wrote that the Frisian king Radboud (†719) fought against the Frankish leader Charlemagne, but mistakenly changed this to Charlemagne (747-814). Radboud, however, fought against Charles Martel (689-741). The apocryphal chroniclers therefore added a second Radboud to the list of kings, to lend the stories about the battle against Charlemagne some coherence.

Modern historians have recognized many fictitious kings in Frisian annals and chronicles and I am sure Danish Wikipedia will take pride in accurate representation of both real and mythological rulers.

Kind regards Bertux (diskussion) 26. nov. 2025, 19:50 (CET)

Der er flere danske forfattere og illustratorer fra i hvert fald det 16. til det 21. århundrede, der nævner eller beskæftiger sig med Radbod II eller hans nærmeste familiemedlemmer, så artiklen afspejler sådan set blot sådan nogenlunde, hvad der er udgivet om og 'gældende viden' vedrørende Radbod II i Danmark. Ole Ryhl Olsson (diskussion) 26. nov. 2025, 21:49 (CET)

@Bertux, can you point to any reliable modern online source (if not in English or German, then in Dutch) where it clearly states that Radbod II is a fictitious character? That would be helpful if the Danish text is to be amended. Økonom (diskussion) 27. nov. 2025, 07:38 (CET)

Have you any source, other than outdated books from centuries ago, that gives proof of the existence of this 'king'? Note: their were no Frisian kings in those times. The word 'king' is anachronistic. Thieu1972 (diskussion) 27. nov. 2025, 12:53 (CET)

This link tells you what went wrong: older writers have mixed up Karl Martell with Karl den Store. The real Radbod (670-719) fought against Karl Martell, but the medieval writers mixed the names up and wrote about his fights against Karl den Store - who lived after Radbods dead. So they had to create a second Radbod to make the stories believable. Thieu1972 (diskussion) 27. nov. 2025, 13:05 (CET)

There is also this article by Otto S. Knottnerus. Radbod 2. (Radboud II) is only mentioned in passing, page 69:

Jacobs beroept zich vooral op Suffridus Petri en zijn tijdgenoten en hekelt de moderne historici die hun dwalende voorgangers geen blik waardig keuren. Uiteraard spreekt zijn verhaal over meer dan duizend jaar Friese vorstengeschiedenis tot de verbeelding, beginnend met de fictieve held Friso 313 v.Chr.) en eindigend met de even fictieve koning Radboud II in 775. ‘Als het niet waar is, dan is het in elk geval leuk bedacht’, meent Jacobs, die daarmee een van troefkaarten van het moderne identitaire denken uitspeelt. De Friezen hebben immers recht op hun eigen mythen die hen moeten helpen om de stortvloed van cultureel relativisme tegen te houden.

Translation:

Jacobs relies primarily on Suffridus Petri and his contemporaries and criticizes modern historians who disregard their erring predecessors. Naturally, his account of more than a thousand years of Frisian rulers captures the imagination, beginning with the fictional hero Friso (313 BC) and ending with the equally fictional King Radboud II in 775. "If it's not true, then it's at least a clever invention," Jacobs argues, thus playing one of the trump cards of modern identity-mindedness. After all, the Frisians have a right to their own myths, which should help them stem the tide of cultural relativism.

@Otto S. Knottnerus, you mentioned an article by Paul Noomen but neither being a Frisian nor a historian I am not sure which title you mean. Bertux (diskussion) 27. nov. 2025, 16:48 (CET)

Well so far we've been presented to a book from 1873 dealing with a chritical approach to Frisian history and then to a very brief mentioning of Radboud II in the article "Redbad als icoon van de friese identiteit" - this could be interesting, but not realy convincing as such.

Does Halbertsma (haven't read his book) has anything to say about Radboud II or the history and governance of East-Frisia between 734 and 785?

The Danish authors who most recently have dealt with the connection between Frisian and Danish history in the 8th and 9th centuries suggests, that the Danes saw Frisia as a potential sphere of influence (not only in the 9th century but also in the 8th century). It's authors like Engelhardt (1980) and Krambs (2009), (2015), (2021) etc. and a few others, and they make the case, that there were an important relation between the Danes and the Frisian also including some intermarriages among the leading families of the two countries/territories, though precise names of the individuals involved can be hard to establish with any certainty in many cases (like the connection existed, but the actual names isn't realy mentioned). Radbod 2. is mentioned several times among these authors' works and this over several pages. Ole Ryhl Olsson (diskussion) 27. nov. 2025, 20:46 (CET)

Skøre visdom (pseudohistory)

Here we have the problem that some authors tend to restrict themselves to popular and totally outdated surveys from another country, but cling to their obsolete views. In Dutch-Frisian historiography there was a lot of pseudohistory, but Bolhuis 1873 has already changed the tide. Historian Edzo Waterbolk showed in the early 1950s that Frisian myths about the earlier Frisian history were produced by the former royalist and partly catholic fraction of the Frisian nobility in the last decades of the 16th century. They incorporated some older 15th-century Bourgondian myths that were disigned to legitimate the incorporation of the supposed Kingdom of Frisia into their own realm. Several authors drew upon the wild fantasies of the 14th‑century chronicler Jean d’Outremeuse from Liège. The authorative survey on the (West-)Frisian "apocryphal" tradition is Paul N. Noomen, 'Suffridus Petrus en de Friese identiteit', in: It Beaken 56 (1994), p. 146-187.

As for Radbod II, you can read on the Dutch Radboud II page that Radboud II was invented by a Holland noble family in the 15th century in order to support the idea that at least their supposed ancestor Radbod was a Christian, contrary to the heathen king. And also to correct the misunderstandings that had arisen from the confusion between Radbod's opponent Charles Martel (mentioned in knightly rhymes) and the hero of Frisian freedom, Charlemagne.

The whole idea of King Radbod's Christian offspring did originate in the French 12th-century tradition around the Chanson de Roland, in which several Christian Frisian princes were introduced in a Crucade context. In chivalry romances King Radbod himself is turned into a friend of Charlemagne. This is especially the case in the Norwegian tradition, which is largely based on a early 13th-century French romance from Liège. Of course there are also some 12th-century legends told by Saxo and Snorri, but these were highly educated intellectuals, who plundered a whole range of available comtemporary Crucade literature and mixed it up with local sources and fitted them into classical molds.

Still, Frisian-Danish interaction in the 8th to 10th century is a higly relevant topic, to which the director of the Frisian Academy in Leeuwarden, Nelleke IJssennagger-van der Pluijm, dedidated a dissertation as well as two important volumes with interesting articles frop top scolars in the Netherlands, Britain and Scandinavia. To ignore that is to return to 19th-century ignorance and ideology. And sorry to say, but Karsten Krambs has not taken part in any of these discussions or has been refered to in scolarly writing on the topic. The book is seldom available in academic libraries. Some people think this might be a sign of brilliance, but in most of the cases it is a bad omen.

Which is not to say that their may be some new possibilities in reconstructing early medieval royal genealogies. But saga literature has many pitfals, as the late Lars Hemmingsen has shown.

Maybe I could say more, if I could read what Krambs writes on the topic. You're welcome to send it. But generally, I'm inclined to think that Alfred P. Smyth, Scandinavian Kings in the British Isles, 850-880 (1977) is still the best work on the topic.Otto S. Knottnerus (diskussion) 28. nov. 2025, 14:26 (CET)

Now, based on Krambs’ paper on Frisian history, I took a look at what he has to say about the daughters of Radbod II. And I find it shocking. If we follow his reasoning, we would have to throw overboard all the achievements of modern source criticism. Krambs claims that Radbod II had two daughters: Sindacilla and Conovella. Both are inventions of early modern apocryphal historiography. The only foundation for this is a medieval note that the Ottonian queen Mathilde supposedly had a Frisian‑Danish grandmother. But that is where the sources end.

The name Sindacilla comes from Hieronymus Henninges, Genealogiæ Imperatorum, Regum, Principum, … Comitum et Dynastarum … from 1583, a largely fantasized collection of noble genealogies from the Saxon regions. A 19th‑century author then corrupted her name into Sandacella.

The name Cronovella (1772) or Conavella (1715) - as Krambs calls her - is a corruption of Cronavilla, which the master fantasist of Frisian apocryphal history, Martin Hamconius, in his Frisia, Seu, De Viris Rebusque Frisiae Illustribus Libri Duo from 1620, called a daughter of Radbod I. So it does not even go back to late medieval legends, let alone chronicles!

As I see it, this is pure pseudohistory or, rather, crackpot wisdom - in plain Danish: "skøre visdom". I hope (but I am due to what I see here not hopefull about it), that Krambs did a better job for Danish dynastic history.Otto S. Knottnerus (diskussion) 28. nov. 2025, 15:57 (CET)

@Bertux and others, thank you for contributing sources concerning Radbod II. Based on these, I think it is important that the present text be modified in some way.

@Ole og evt. andre danske brugere: Hvis moderne nederlandske forskere opfatter fyrsten som en fiktiv person, bør dette vel også fremgå af den danske version. Man kan godt beskrive, hvad de forskellige krøniketekster skriver om ham, men uden at lade det fremstå som formodede historiske kendsgerninger, på samme måde som flere danske sagnkonger har en artikel. Det ser for mig ikke ud som om, der er præsenteret nogen seriøse og anerkendte historiske vidnesbyrd om denne Radbods faktiske eksistens. Økonom (diskussion) 29. nov. 2025, 13:43 (CET)

Yes, there is something a little special about Krambs and his historical works. He has certainly made a number of both correct and interesting historical analyses in his written works over the years, but then there is also the side about him that he rarely admits that he may have been wrong if others point out that an interpretation he has put forward does not fit or has a number of 'problematic' aspects. Furthermore, he can sometimes be quite critical of other writers' use and interpretation of certain sources, but something could indicate that he may not be quite so good at directing such criticism towards his own work as well?

As for Engelhardt's book from 1980, he refers to Halbertsma a few times in his book, but it can be a bit difficult to determine from the text whether this should be understood as him specifically wanting to quote Halbertsma, or whether Engelhardt is simply taking Halbertsma as a reference for his own interpretation of the story on some basis? Therfore it would somehow be interesting to now, whether Halbertsma did mention anything about Radboud II or the history and governance of East-Frisia between 734 and 785 in his book? Ole Ryhl Olsson (diskussion) 29. nov. 2025, 21:06 (CET)