Talk:Battle of Brunanburh

Location of battle

I don't want to edit the actual article as I have little knowledge of Anglo-Saxon history but here is a link to a BBC News article detailing a recent claim to establishing the location of the battle. Oska 09:24, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

The location of the Battle has been discovered but not yet announced by archaeologists. A link to the article is here: https://www.thesun.co.uk/tech/10202513/battleground-england-battle-brunanburh-wirral/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.233.148.27 (talk • contribs) 21:04, 22 November 2019 (UTC)

The Sun is not really a reliable source on such matters, and even the article refers only to archaeologists' "claims". We await their findings, and the views of their academic peers. Ghmyrtle (talk) 22:43, 22 November 2019 (UTC)

Wirral Archaeology have issued a press release on the Liverpool University website, about this. They are confident that the have found the battle site. This is already referenced in the Battle of Brunanburh location section. They are confident that they have found the site but are not saying where it is yet. They are getting various experts to study their findings and thus will not know for sure whether their theory is correct, for a fews years yet! Wilfridselsey (talk) 23:34, 22 November 2019 (UTC)

Indeed, and thank you for this edit - which I have now trimmed a little. Ghmyrtle (talk) 07:42, 23 November 2019 (UTC)

Primary sources

"Primary sources regarding details of the battle come from the Anglo-Saxon poem of the same name that is in the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle, the writings of Anglo-Norman historian William of Malmesbury, the Annals of Tigernach, the Brut y Tywysogion and Icelandic sagas such as the Saga of Egill Skallagrimsson, who fought for Athelstan."

This is a misunderstanding of the meaning of the term "primary sources" William of Malmesbury was not alive at the time of the battle, his writings are a secondary source, as are Icelandic sagas that may mention the battle. A primary source is a source which was present at the battle. This must be rewritten. William of Malmesbury etc are secondary, not primary, sources.--Barend 17:25, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

I couldn't disagree more. For historical purposes, those are the sources, which means they are primary sources. The secondary sources are historians who analyse the primary source material, along with the other evidence. Tertiary sources are encyclopedia/dictionary articles. Of course, Egil's Saga is fiction, and Malmesbury is a medieval chronicler, so they are not quite the same as the ASC or the Irish and Welsh annals. Still not secondary sources though. Angus McLellan (Talk) 20:19, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

Well, I would respectfully argue that your definition is wrong. A primary source is a source composed by someone who has witnessed the events he/she describes. The poet of the Anglo-Saxon poem may well be a primary source. A secondary source is someone who bases his narrative on what he has heard from others, or read elsewhere. Historians who analyse the primary source material, as you correctly put it. Malmesbury is a medieval historian. He analysed the sources available to him, and wrote his account, which is therefore a secondary source. The same goes for the author of Egil's saga, if one chooses to regard that at as history rather than fiction (which I, and most historians, don't).--Barend 23:06, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Technically you are correct, but there is of course a real difference between William of Malmesbury and modern secondary sources. Malmesbury gets analysed by modern historians as if he were a primary source. Some information on Anglo-Saxon history is not found in any source earlier than the fifteenth century; these can't be realistically treated as secondary sources, which would imply they should be assessed for reliability by the editor of the Wikipedia page rather than by a scholar. (I'm not saying you're implying this, just that the fact that William of Malmesbury is not technically a primary source doesn't automatically make him a secondary source.)

Perhaps we could avoid the question by changing it to be "Early sources regarding details of the battle"? Mike Christie (talk) 23:54, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

That is an excellent suggestion.207.157.121.92 (talk) 17:20, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Any suggestions on how to account for the fact that all (theoretically) of the primary sources can be found in Livingston's 'Casebook' along with the secondary sources cited elsewhere? I had opted for a headnote explaining this, but I wasn't terribly confident about it and it was edited out. It does strike one as odd (1) to privilege a few of the sources over others and (2) not to mention that there's a new one-stop shop for them. Cynehawke (talk) 04:47, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

As the primary and secondary sources are listed separately, I should say it's better not to mention Livingston's 'casebook' under the primary sources, even as a location for finding them, but where the work is properly listed under 'Secondary sources' I suggest adding a short note to say "(In this the primary sources listed above are quoted at length)". Does anyone object to that? Moonraker (talk) 14:16, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

background/location

While I have the mike, two suggestions. First, the all-too brief and somewhat strained 'background' section needs to be rewritten, with for instance Peter Hunter Blair's book as a cue (mentioned at the bottom of the article though never cited). I may do this at some point. Second, there is a reference to Alistair Campbell in the 'location' section, but whoever wrote that failed to give any kind of specific information. Campbell was in fact an editor of the poem--way back in 1938. This is the kind of gratuitous reference that gives Wikipedia a bad name...207.157.121.92 (talk) 17:26, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

This article is so bad I don't know where to begin.....

This is written entirely subjectively, with poor referencing and citation. What are the large stretches of poems doing here? 87.127.178.28 (talk) 21:53, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Badly in need of a rewrite with sources placed in proper places and grammatically corrected. Too many subjective sentences. White43 (talk) 00:21, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

I agree. It seems nationalistic at first with the following sentences:

• '...the resilience of the English...' - A massive generalization! Anyway, resilience wouldn't have won them the battle, only strength in numbers and/or good tactics.
• '...crushed the Brythons...' - Um, how exactly did it crush the Brythons? They may have suffered a major defeat but they weren't 'crushed'. Brythonic rule in the British isles wasn't crushed until the conquest of Wales by the Normans in 1283.--81.156.13.43 (talk) 18:51, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

This article still needs revision, especially in light of Michael Livingston's just-published The Battle of Brunanburh: A Casebook, of which I have just received a copy. Any objections to a thorough overhaul? Cynehawke (talk) 03:42, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

Please go ahead -- if you have a good source, I'm sure you can help the article. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 12:56, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

The more I've poked around, the more it looks like this needs almost complete re-writing in light of recent scholarship. I'm doing the work in a sandbox for now: User:Cynehawke/sandbox. I'm still new to all this, so I'd be happy for feedback/help on how to proceed. Cynehawke (talk) 20:13, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

I have now glanced at The Battle of Brunanburh: A Casebook. As a peer-reviewed academic study, it's clearly a reliable source and should enable you to do good things for the article. Glad to see someone taking it up. Moonraker (talk) 22:14, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

My sandbox rewrite is complete, and I think it is a significant improvement on the inaccurate, dated, and misleading information currently here. Given the depth of the overhaul, is it acceptable to just cut and paste the article content from my sandbox over that which is here? Or do this by sections (I kept the same sections as the original article)? Again, I'm new to the WikiLife and so would love to know how to proceed. Cynehawke (talk) 17:11, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

I think the greatest difference between the two approaches is that if you do it section-by-section it may be easier to follow the changes made, so may I suggest that? Moonraker (talk) 19:49, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

Moments ago completed a thorough overhaul of the entire article. I tried to do it in pieces (as suggested above) to ease following the changes. Cynehawke (talk) 04:15, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

Any objections to the removal of the "cleanup" and "refimprove" tags atop the page? Given the major changes to the article, these do not pertain to the current text (or so it seems to me). Still, I'd prefer that this "final" alteration be done by someone of more experience than me (perhaps an admin?). Help? Cynehawke (talk) 04:10, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

Well done, Cynehawke. I have taken out the {{Cleanup}} template but left the {{Refimprove}} one, as better citations are still needed. I am supposing all or nearly all of your improvements rely on the new book by Livingston, so would it be possible for you to add citations? It works like this, to add a footnote reading "Livingston (2011), pp. 98-99" you add <ref>Livingston (2011), pp. 98-99</ref> where you want the superscript number to go. The numbering of the footnotes is automatic. To use the same citation more than once, use <ref name=livingston12>Livingston (2011), p. 12</ref> the first time and after that <ref name=livingston12/>. NB, I see there are some existing citations from the new book, but not all with page numbers, you may be able to supply them. Moonraker (talk) 09:19, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

Thanks again, Cynehawke, now that you have sorted the references I have taken out the {{Refimprove}} template, too. (I have tidied some repetitions of the whole of Livingston's new title.) Moonraker (talk) 23:35, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

Thank YOU for helping a new person out. I figured that the references could be better sorted than I was managing! Cynehawke (talk) 00:47, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

Re-organising the article

This article will remain messy without sorting out a couple of things: the historical sources and that the battle site is unknown.

At the moment some earliest historical sources have been cut back or are missing while 15th century Ingulf's Croyland Chronicle (that article notes it isn't always reliable) has heavier usage. Some historical sources are mentioned in the first paragraph as wikilinks with little else (eg. Annals of Clonmacnoise, Egil's Saga etc). Others pop-up in odd spots or only as 'Primary Source' links (eg. Æthelweard and Henry of Huntingdon, etc.) What about summarising the historical sources chronologically with any footnoted qualifications about their value? (eg. only account to say this, later & less reliable, etc.)

While the Wirral location has strong support at present, the debate on the location continues. As the article is weighted towards Wirral supporting authors (Livingston, Cavill etc), the location issue is popping up in the body of the article, and isn't confined to the 'Location' sub-head.

If we go for the chronological historical sources summary then their differing location names and indicators (eg. Florence suggesting the Humber) will already be covered. That will leave the 'Location' section to summarise footnoted arguments for each offered candidate. I'd suggest a brief intro then geographical sub-sections starting with the west of England (given Wirral's weight of sources). eg. west, south & east coasts of England, then Scotland. The locations in each section ordered by weight of sources so those that are more expansive are at the top and footnoted names without descriptions at the bottom.

I'm in two minds about a 'battle' section mainly because the historical sources differ so much and we don't want to repeat the 'Historical sources' section. Maybe if the rest is organised then a brief paragraph or two could be useful?

Thoughts? AnonNep (talk) 05:06, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

William of Malmesbury

Hi AnonNep. Please note that William of Malmesbury's ignorance of the poem is actually mentioned by Sarah Foot in her authoritative book Æthelstan: The First King of England; it is not my own work. See this link to page 182 on Google Books, near the top of the page. --Biblioworm 16:54, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

Hi, Over 1000 years of evidence. One recent author reading Malmsbury's mind and deciding he was 'ignorant' does not meet WP:RSUW. It works as 'Sarah Foot argues in her 2014 work' (follow with quote) but not using Wikimedia's voice, based on one source, to call Malmsbury 'ignorant'. That he, and others didn't mention certain things in their published works is fact but why they didn't is still opinion and should be stated as such if included. AnonNep (talk) 17:04, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

RSUW is actually just an essay, but you make a good point. I'll re-add the statement with the clarification that it is mentioned exclusively in Foot's book. --Biblioworm 17:08, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

Thank you. WP:RSUW may be 'just an essay' but it seemed the most appropriate summation of issues related to the uses of 'Reliable sources' & the principle of 'Due weight' as it applies to the difficulties of this article. As I stated previously on this page - the location is contentious and that means certain authors carry bias - that can be stated as opinion but not in Wikipedia's voice. The same goes for author's favouring a location who have to 'shoot down' historical sources to do it. Wikipedia needs to stay neutral and avoid buying into an ongoing academic fight. AnonNep (talk) 17:23, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

William of Malmesbury - Evidence of Awareness

Biblioworm is insistent on retaining a statement of William's awareness of the contents of a chronicle of the time. The word "evidently" is used by Biblioworm. This suggests that there is evidence of William's awareness at that time. No support is provided for this claim. One can only rely on Biblioworm's text to glean what that suggested evidence may be and it appears (and I am open for correction) that he evidence is simply that he, William, presents an account not consistent with the chronicle. This is not logical. The world is full of people with different notions and that is no evidence of their ignorance of the views of others. I urge Bibiloworm to think again and come up with some support for his claim, to modify or delete the reference from the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sirlanz (talk • contribs) 02:24, 16 November 2015‎

I have revised to reflect Foot's comment, which is not definite that William did not know the poem. Another issue is that the article frequently refers to Florence of Worcester, although historians now think that the chronicle formerly attributed to him was written by John of Worcester. Dudley Miles (talk) 11:35, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

Both Sirlanz & Dudley Miles make strong points. Its why I argued in an earlier Talk section for 'Historical Sources' to be a chronological (wikilinked) summary.

Let's just place that wide ranging mass of (often contradictory) primary evidence in there, with footnoted qualifications , such as on Florence's name & Ingulf's credibility, and leave the 'Location' debate to footnoted commentary in that section. There are disagreements in scholarship over all of this - Wikipedia's 'voice' shouldn't editorialise towards any battle site (but we should recognise that weight of current scholarship just as we include what has passed).

I expect many of us with enough interest to post here have a favoured location (or at least region). Let's use that energy & stick to the factual middle ground & take the time to create a wonderful, informative article. :) AnonNep (talk) 15:10, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

I'm not sure exactly what you mean by "chronological". Of course I know the meaning of the word, but I have tried to combine all the primary sources into one chronological narrative of the battle, to the best of my ability. I was already well aware of all the credibility issues surrounding certain authors well before I began re-working the article, but I couldn't think of any better way to do it. However, I have an idea that I'd like to try out, and I'd be more than happy to collaborate with those who are also interested in the topic. --Biblioworm 16:00, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

This is why I suggested what I did - 'Historical sources' listed based on the chronological time as they are first documented. There are a LOT of Brunanburh refs but they are highly contradictory. So, in 'Historical Sources' lets list them (with wikilinks to each article page - as most have them) in chronological (date first appearing) order. Once we have that we've documented the primary source documents. Everything after that is more easily defined as 'secondary source' debate, or commentary, & can be incorporated under topical sub-heads. AnonNep (talk) 16:30, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

Documenting primary sources is original research, which is against Wikipedia rules. Articles must be based on reliable secondary sources. Dudley Miles (talk) 17:08, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

Surely we could just have a section which documents what the primary sources say. After all, we're not endorsing them by doing so. And, according to WP:PRIMARY, it is permissible to use primary sources in articles as long as they are summarized straightforwardly without commentary by the editor. I could probably cut down on the amount of direct quotes, but as I mentioned I have an idea for formatting the article more neatly. --Biblioworm 17:22, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

WP:PRIMARY says "A primary source may only be used on Wikipedia to make straightforward, descriptive statements of facts that can be verified by any educated person with access to the primary source but without further, specialized knowledge." In a historical article like this, it is much safer to use reliable secondary sources. Dudley Miles (talk) 17:41, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

I'll do it if I need to, but it would be much more useful for editors to research for themselves what is a primary/secondary source in modern, medieval & prehistory and contemporary times . On this article I've always used primary/secondary in terms of the article subject (& history scholarship) of an early 10th century, pre-history, battle (NOT WP nerdspeak). AnonNep (talk) 18:32, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

'Widespread Agreement'

The article says that 'there is widespread agreement among historians that it was somewhere on the Wirral Peninsula'. I think that's overstating it quite a bit, and the assertion appears to be contradicted by the article. It might be true that the most powerful historians are more likely to favour the Wirral than another location, but the middle ground is probably the 'we don't know' crowd--it's certainly moved there in the last few years. See this speaker session at Nottingham, the centre of the Wirral theory, where Woolf's 'we don't know' position is treated as the middle ground Livingston's presentation of the situation was criticised in several reviews (e.g. WoodMcGuiganClarkson and should not be the basis for this assertion; i.e. Livingston's views are worth hearing, but he is a proponent of one view and is not the best source for a NPOV assertion. Even Sarah Foot, who was once had unrestrained confidence in the Wirral location, backtracked quite a bit in her monograph. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 16:08, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

I removed the statement. I actually didn't add the sentence itself; I just copy edited it and didn't give too much thought to removing it, since I was busy reworking the other parts of the article. Thanks for bringing this up. --Biblioworm 23:03, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

logical connection not explained

"In August 937, as Æthelstan and his army were on the southern coast, Olaf crossed the Irish Sea with his army to join forces with Constantine and Owen, suggesting that the battle of Brunanburh probably occurred in early October of that year." How does August imply October? Travel distances and times, given troop strength, terrain and technology level? Please explain in detail. Ditto for philologist's opinions. Tks. Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 19:51, 28 November 2015 (UTC)

That is Livingston's opinion, not mine. That statement was there even before I started working on the article. However, it is cited to a reliable source. (Livingston is obviously an expert, having written an entire book on the battle which is widely recognized as the authoritative text.) It should be noted that he does seem to have some biases; for instance, it appears that he prefers Bromborough over the other locations, since he included essays in the book (such as Cavill's) dedicated to showing that the battle site was likely Bromborough. Personally, I'm not entirely convinced that the battle site was at Bromborough; I do disagree with most of the other alternatives, but I'm very impressed by Breeze's argument for Durham. So, personally, I think those are the two most likely locations. Back to the point, though, I do think we should make it clear that the statement is Livingston's personal opinion. Biblioworm 20:32, 28 November 2015 (UTC)

I do not currently have access to Livingston's book, but early October does seem plausible. Æthelstan was criticised for being slow to react to the invasion, which Wood attributed to his wisdom in taking his time gathering his forces instead of being provoked to precipitate action like Harold in 1066. See Æthelstan#The Battle of Brunanburh. The statement that he and his army were on the south coast in August 937 is cited to Cavill 2001. I suggest checking this as it is extremely unlikely. Anglo-Saxon kings did not have standing armies, and there is no known threat on the south coast which would have made it necessary to raise one. Æthelstan's movements before the battle are not known. Foot in her biography has an appendix listing his known locations at different dates, and the only one she could find in 937 was Brunanburh. BTW I do not personally think Durham is likely. The allies are reported to have plundered Æthelstan's territory while he was gathering his forces, which suggests a location further south. Dudley Miles (talk) 22:35, 28 November 2015 (UTC)

It agree that October does seem likely, given the time it would take to receive the news, organize the forces, travel, etc. Concerning Æthelstan's being on the southern coast at this time, I'm wondering as to whether I should state that this "fact" is unique to Cavill ("according to Cavill", etc.) or just remove it completely. Finally, it should be noted that (I believe) only William of Malmesbury recorded that the invaders extensively plundered England. His reliability is questionable; he repeated the same tale he told about Alfred the Great, added some legend-like details, etc. I think Durham is an extremely strong candidate because of the place name; for instance, "Brunanburh" could have derived from "Browneynburh" (or, "fortification near the Browney"). You would just need to change "ow" to "u" and "ey" to "a" to get "Brunanburh". I may not have my theorized original name ("Browneynburh") exactly right (there may not have been a "y", for example), but I think it's easy to imagine how "Brunanburh" could be related to the OE word for "fortification near the Browney". Biblioworm 00:28, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

I would also note that the OE word for "brown" is actually "brun", so in OE "Browneynburh" would have been written "Bruneynburh", so now all you have to do is change "ey" to "a" (which could easily happen) to get "Brunanburh". As an additional factoid, John of Worcester recorded that the invaders entered via the Humber. I know this would be a strange way to enter England, especially if you were coming from Ireland, but I believe someone once noted that John is considered a reliable source for immediately preceding events, so there's no reason why he shouldn't be considered reliable in the case of Brunanburh. I think, personally, that a battle site at Durham would be consistent with a Humber entry. I recall that someone arguing for a different location suggested that Æthelstan may have pursued the army and cornered them. I don't see why that wouldn't be applicable to a Durham location as well. The invaders may have entered the Humber, and Æthelstan rapidly traveled north with his forces, pursued them, and finally fought them at Durham. In any case, this is sort of off-topic and in any case is entirely my own opinion (and therefore OR), so obviously it is not suitable for inclusion in the article. I just think speculation on such things is rather interesting, though. Biblioworm 00:44, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

I would remove the south coast comment unless you have access to the source and confirm that Cavill has been correctly quoted. I have just listened to his talk at Nottingham in 2011 at [1] and he said nothing like that. Wood said that there is a growing consensus for Bromborough and it is the accepted site. Coming from an opponent, I think that is worth quoting in the article. All three speakers (Cavill, Wood and Woolf) agreed that the battle was fought in England, far to the south of Durham. Cavill argued for Bromborough, Wood for somewhere between York and the Humber, and Woolf for anywhere in England. He said that the accounts may conflate several battles, one of which was fought at Bromborough. He also suggested somewhere near Malmesbury area, stating that there was a medieval tradition that it was fought there, and pointing out that Æthelstan's cousins who died in the battle were buried there. Dudley Miles (talk) 13:06, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

@Dudley Miles: But the issue is that I do have direct access to the source I'm citing, and therefore I'm certain that Cavill stated that Æthelstan was on the southern coast in August. However, being that he is the only one to mention that and seeing that he did not mention anything of the sort in his more recent talk, I'm inclined to remove it. Secondly, the Wood quote is very interesting, but how can it be cited if it's in a video lecture? I've never seen anything of that sort before in a high-quality article (except ones that new users create). Biblioworm 16:38, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

• These are all nice thoughts. Aside from deleting what I added to merely state this is L's opinion (which is not a massively helpful addition), did anyone um... improve the... what's that thing called? Oh yeah, the article? It still has large holes, and none of this on the talk page seems to have made it onto artic text. Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 13:31, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

  Well, I'm thinking about removing that statement (see my comment to Dudley above). Also, what other holes are there in the article? I'd like to know so that I can fix them (one person can't see everything, you know). Biblioworm 16:38, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

There is guidance on citing audio sources at Wikipedia:Citing sources#What information to include. Dudley Miles (talk) 21:52, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

Yes. Audio should be fine, if you can establish/defend the speaker's credibility. Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 01:08, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

• @Biblioworm: Well, for things left unsaid, it seems to me that some of the suggestions for possible locations rest solely on etymological lines of reasoning, while others are drawn from examination of the logistics of the relative armies, their goals, etc. I'd consider dividing them up into these two groups and mentioning something more about respective theories etc. MMmm, Tim Clarkson has refined his suggestions in a more recent book...mmm I'm still looking... Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 13:31, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

  That's because I'm only allowed to use what is in the sources. If the original person to argue for a particular location is basing his argument on etymological reasons, then I can only state that in the article. Speculating on the possible goals of the army when none are suggested by the author would be OR. (By the way, I ordered the different locations alphabetically, which I think readers would find more logical. Since the two types may overlap at times, I think it would be very difficult and complex to attempt to divide these arguments into two categories.) Also, Wikipedia is intended to be a summary of information. Some arguments for a location are very long or complicated, and I put quite a bit of work into understanding the most important or relevant points and summarizing them in the article. Biblioworm 16:33, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

  Yes, I'm actually quite grateful that this article exists, and quite grateful for your hard work on it, which is clearly evident to anyone who considers the article for any length of time. The carefulness of your research shines through in your work. As for the complexity of the arguments, the fact that some may overlap, and the resulting need for even further hard work, I would counter, "That's why we're here, isn't it?" I came to this talk page originally stating that there are large gaps in the article. I felt frustrated, and regrettably, perhaps I let it show a little too much. Now that I have delved into a very few sources, I think that sifting through those various complex arguments, uncovering their common threads and presenting them at greater length would be of great benefit to the lay reader. Unfortunately, I personally have nearly zero access to those sources (I can only read those that are offered free on the internet). In this way I am quite representative of the vast bulk of Wikipedia readership, I would assume, who lack either the time (everyone is busy) or the actual resources (just as I do) to read any further than this page. Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 21:59, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

  I only have limited access to some sources, so I simply can't expand some. However, I'll try to (reasonably) expand those that I'm able to. Biblioworm 17:11, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

  I see you are an admin and have access to JSTOR so I am probably teaching my grandmother to suck eggs. However, I or another editor should be able to send you a pdf of any journal article. For books you might try inter-library loan through your local library - if this is available where you are. My library, Barnet in London, says it is available for non-fiction books, although I have not used it for years as I subscribe to the London Library. You could also apply to the Wikimedia Foundation to pay for a subscription to a journal you need access to. Dudley Miles (talk) 00:18, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

  With this particular article, it's mostly small portions of books that are needed. For example, I can't expand the paragraph on Bromswold, since I only have access to that book via snippet view on Google Books. I also can't do much more with the paragraph on Brinsworth, since I extracted about as much information as I could from the Google Books preview (and obviously I'm not going to go through too much trouble just to see a couple of pages), but in any case that position is already well-covered in the article, so I don't think that one even needs expansion. I'll probably try to add more information for Barnsdale, Burnley and Durham, since those sections are rather short and I have full access to the needed sources for those. Biblioworm 01:41, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

Once again, Wirral advocacy & the source problem

I've commented before on the problem of developing this article given a bias towards a location that has partial academic (mainly placename) acceptance.

I added a 'when' on an existing pro-Bromborough edit with the note 'Added citation needed on unsourced with query on date of historical statement' & received the reply 'the citation for this sentence is at the end of the next one (that is accepted practice); Foot does not give an exact date, but her point is that Bromborough is situated near a river that Vikings often used'.

I get the argument but the same can be said for almost ALL the other potential battlesite locations - they were ALL used by Vikings during that broad year range. Why is that a notable point in the Wirral section but nowhere else? If it is a notable point in the Wirral argument lets see the specifics referenced. To include such detail, when it applies to others, for ONE location is misleading.

Once again, without archaeology, the Wirral has the present fashionable vote, but, I'd suggest, statements for the Wirral shouldn't be included if they just as easily apply to other locations (such as - Vikings had a port here around the general time).

I would prefer this article to be shaped around surviving historical sources rather than more recent fashionable trends but that's another story. AnonNep (talk) 16:46, 19 December 2015 (UTC)

Foot said that Vikings from Ireland (perhaps I should clarify that) commonly used the Mersey as an entry point. Olaf, an invader at Brunanburh, came from Ireland. I do see any need to have an exact date here, as that would be a strange detail (Example: "Between XXX–XXX, Vikings from Ireland used the Mersey as a common entry point.") What if they always used it as a common entry point? I think Foot is rather strongly implying that they were using it at the time of the battle of Brunanburh. So, the point is that Vikings from Ireland used it as a common entry point, and since Bromborough is near the Wirral, this is another piece of evidence for a battle site at Bromborough. In regard to your last paragraph, it is not permitted by policy to completely base this article on primary sources (especially when trying to get an article to GA), and I tried very hard to maintain a good balance on that. We are also to give due weight to opinions, and apparently even Michael Wood (a person who has argued for alternative sites) said that Bromborough is becoming the accepted location. Biblioworm 17:01, 19 December 2015 (UTC)

Clarification: Bromborough is on the Wirral, not near it. It is very close to the boundary of the accepted Norse settled area at Raby (a Norse place-name meaning "boundary settlement"). Ghmyrtle (talk) 17:06, 19 December 2015 (UTC)

I understand the reasoning but not the Wirral as a 'special snowflake'. Why should use of that area by Vikings be used as an argument for Bromborough when equal (or greater) Viking uses of other areas isn't? Either: (1) include the same Viking argument for all relevant candidates, (2) establish a special argument for the Wirral, in detail (hence my 'be more specific' edit), or (3) remove it from all. AnonNep (talk) 17:13, 19 December 2015 (UTC)

To add: Primary sources can be a problem due to the risk of original research. I believe a 'Historical Source' section drawing from secondary source scholarship of the general worth of each source would be useful. Then there can be a section on speculative (still unresolved) modern location arguments. This article should be a summary of information about the historical battle not reduced to a sly promo for particular location candidates. AnonNep (talk) 17:31, 19 December 2015 (UTC)

I really don't want to get involved with this article that the moment, but I feel I need to throw my opinion into the ring. To my understanding, the location of the battle is one of the longest of long-standing conundrums in British history. The current Location section is so far from doing justice to this, that I wonder why this article is a GA nom? I feel the section should open with the history and then the methodology of the search: Burh and Werc = fortress, Dun = hill, Brun = brown or Bruna, that the presumed goal was to liberate Northumbria from English control, how the campaigns of 927 and 934 affect the thinking, discussion on the Humber, where is Dingesmere and how close was it to the battle site. Then we move on to how the limited evidence and often questionable science has generated a large number of possible sites, usually involving a fortification on a hill.

Now as it happens I rather like Bromborough as a location and am comfortable with it having prominence, but the evidence is still very slight. Arguments against (which are available in sources already used), should be included. Obviously the list of alternatives needs work, apparently Paul Hill identified over thirty possibilities yet we list six (seven with Bromborough)? And why do Barnsdale and Brinsworth seem to have the same justification? Trappedinburnley (talk) 22:40, 19 December 2015 (UTC)

Hill said there are over 30, but he only listed 21, and most of them with only a few words and no source or detailed examination. I think the discussion should be confined to locations advocated in detail by experts. Dudley Miles (talk) 23:00, 19 December 2015 (UTC)

Beginning to think the only way we'll get a 'Battle of Brunanburh' article based on historical sources is to allow over development to the point that a 'Location of the battle of Brunanburh' can be split off as the debate article. Sad that... AnonNep (talk) 18:18, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

(e/c)To be fair, it might be worth adding that a number of commentators have used the presence of the Scottish king to argue against the Wirral. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 23:05, 19 December 2015 (UTC)

As another point, the Burnswark site in Dumfriesshire is a bit unfairly relegated. It's not now generally in much favour, at least not outside Scotland, but was I believe the long-standing leading candidate before Bromborough. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 23:05, 19 December 2015 (UTC)

I am not clear why the presence of Constantine makes the Wirral unlikely. According to William of Malmesbury, Æthelstan was criticised for being slow to react while the allies were ravaging his territory, and this is accepted by Michael Wood, who praises him for taking the time to gather his strongest forces instead of rushing into action prematurely like Harold in 1066. This points to northern Mercia, as Olaf would hardly ravage Northumbria when he was aiming to become its king. As there is no evidence that the allies retreated when Æthelstan attacked, it is likely that the battle was fought in northern Mercia. Of course, this is POV. Dudley Miles (talk) 00:34, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

Woolf, McGuigan, and Clarkson all mention this as a problem. The Wirral is OK for an army coming from Dublin, but Scotland in this era is an east coast kingdom that ends at the Forth and Causantin would have to have marched halfway through Britain and into the west coast to help Olaf recover set of territories to the north and east. It's hard to make sense of why the Scottish king would be there, how he got there unopposed and, if he did get there, how he escaped. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 00:46, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

Some historians see it as a problem - most do not. Æthelstan marched his army much further in 934, from Wessex to Scotland, to humiliate Constantine, who had every motive to ravage Mercia in revenge. Who could have stopped him marching there, or stopped him fleeing back to Scotland? Dudley Miles (talk) 18:41, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

Not sure why you think this, that objection is quite recent. I think it's more a case of 'most historians [working on this issue] haven't realised it's a problem' rather than 'don't think it's a problem', and you know only a couple of handfuls of historians actually work in this area so that's a sizable sample. If you read/listen to the references above, you'll see the problem explained in more detail. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 01:49, 24 December 2015 (UTC)

Short of any evidence to the contrary, the Wirral is likely to remain the front runner for a number of very good reasons: 1) The area has long been established as a Viking stronghold, as borne out by the preponderance of Norse place names; 2) A large invasion force sailing from Dublin would very likely have chosen to minimize risk by making landfall in the Dee or Mersey estuaries, both of which are close to Ireland, ideal for running ships ashore, and easily reached with the prevailing wind. It needs to be remembered that AEthelstan had a large and competent fleet, and was (nominally) in control of the seas. 3) The local names of Bromborough and Thingwall come closer to matching the descriptions in the chronicles than anything else; 4) The location is consistent with the likely timeline and the accounts of the pre-battle activities of the invading armies; 5) The location seems logical, given that AEthelstan would have needed to march north and may very well have chosen to base himself at Chester. Later events, such as the homage paid to King Edgar at Chester by "eight kings" suggests that the area came to assume an exceptional (and symbolic) importance in subsequent years. 6) The elevated ground in the vicinity of Bebbington golf course would have offered a classic defensive position such as was favored by armies of the period; furthermore, relics consistent with the period have been found in the area. None of the above are proof as such, but their consistence with the known narrative is quite striking. Other locations usual fail on one or more points. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 185.108.92.22 (talk) 16:36, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

The Location section still needs a rewrite

Would an experienced and neutral editor please rewrite the Location section? It currently reads as “mainstream theory” (Wirral) plus “random fringe theories”, which doesn´t reflect the debate in a neutral manner. The Deacon of Pndapetzim and others have already pointed this out above, but the problem remains.

There is no mainstream consensus among historians on the battlefield location. The Deacon of Pndapetzim says above that Sarah Foot has backtracked on her support for the Wirral theory. Frank Stenton and Nicholas Higham both state baldly “location unknown”. Michael Wood has long supported a Yorkshire location. Paul Hill, author of “The Anglo-Saxons at War 800-1066” and “The Age of Athelstan”, states in the latter: “we must reject Bromborough on the Wirral… the weight of the Yorkshire argument may yet prove Bromborough to be one of history´s great red herrings.” The list could go on…

The only medieval chroniclers to give concrete information on the battlefield location are John/Florence of Worcester and Symeon of Durham, who both say that Olaf´s fleet sailed up the Humber (i.e. towards York). Yet these early accounts are dismissed by the proponents of the Wirral theory.

There are further problems with the Location section: it is written in an awkward/heterogenous style; it gets bogged down in too much speculative detail in the Wirral section; and it assumes too much knowledge of English geography.

I would suggest:

(1) An introduction stating (in a neutral manner) the concrete location information given in the medieval sources relating directly to the battle (i.e. John of Worcester, Symeon of Durham).

(2) Mention the geographical hints provided in the medieval sources (e.g. Anglo-Saxon Chronicle, possibly Egil´s Saga), e.g. proximity to coast.

(3) Group the proposed locations into the following regions:

(i) Yorkshire and the Humber

(ii) North East England

(iii) East Midlands

(iv) North West England

(v) Other regions

(4) Within each region, state the various proposed locations and cite a reference for each. The interested reader can then decide for themselves on the merits of each case.

Arthurs Grandchild (talk) 09:20, 2 September 2018 (UTC)

Proposal for the Location section

Here is a proposal for the text of the Location section, attempting to strip it back down to basics: i.e. what do the medieval source texts say? Another paragraph could be added on archaeological evidence (or reasons for lack of). The information in the medieval sources can be checked in “The Battle of Brunanburh – a Casebook” (ed. Michael Livingston). The proposed locations come from the present Wikipedia article combined with Paul Hill´s “The Age of Athelstan” (pp.141-2).

"The location of the battle is unknown and continues to be a subject of lively debate. Over thirty locations have been proposed, from the south-west of England to Scotland, although most historians agree that a location in the north of England is the most likely.

The earliest relevant document is a poem in the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle (version A), written within two decades of the battle, which names the battlefield location as “ymbe Brunanburh” (around Brunanburh) and says that the fleeing Norsemen set out upon “Dingesmere” for Dublin. Most of the numerous medieval sources relating to the battle give little geographical information beyond variations on the name Brunanburh (Brune, Brunandune, Bruneford, Bruneswerce, etc). Symeon of Durham (early 12th C) gives the alternative name Weondune, while the Annals of Clonmacnoise say the battle took place on the “plaines of othlyn”. Egil´s Saga names the locations Vinheiðr and Vinuskóga. None of the placenames Brunanburh (or variants), Dingesmere, Weondune, Othlyn, Vinheiðr or Vinuskóga is known in that form in Britain today.

Few medieval texts refer to a placename still in use today, although the River Humber is mentioned by several sources. John of Worcester´s Chronicon (early 12th C), Symeon of Durham´s Historia Regum (mid-12th C) and the Chronicle of Melrose (late 12th C) all state that Olaf´s fleet entered the mouth of the River Humber, while Robert of Gloucester´s Metrical Chronicle (late 13th C) says the invading army arrived “south of the Humber”. Peter of Langtoft´s Chronique (ca. 1300) states the armies met at “Bruneburgh on the Humber”. Pseudo-Ingulf (ca. 1400) says that as Aethelstan led his army into Northumbria (i.e. north of the Humber) he met on his way many pilgrims coming home from Beverley. Hector Boese´s Historia (1527) claims that the battle was fought by the River Ouse (which flows into the Humber).

Few other geographical hints are contained in the medieval sources. The poem in the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle recounts that the invaders fled from the battlefield to regain their ships, so a location near a river or the coast is indicated. Egil´s Saga contains more detailed information (a fortified town north of a heath, a camp pitched between a forest and a river), but its usefulness as historical evidence is disputed.

The proposed locations include:

Yorkshire and the Humber

Aldborough; Barnburgh; Barnsdale; Brinsworth; Elslack; Kirkburn

East Midlands

Bourne (Lincs); Bromswold; Brumby; Burnham

North East England

Bamburgh; Brumford; Durham; Lanchester; Hunwick

North West England

Bamber; Bourne (Lancs); Brindle; Bromborough; Bromfield; Burnley

Other regions

Axminster; Banbury; Bromfield; Burnswark; Dunbar; Dunlow"

Arthurs Grandchild (talk) 19:26, 8 September 2018 (UTC)

• I would oppose this. Going back to the original medieval sources is WP:OR. Wikipedia should summarise reliable modern sources. The proposed rewrite is also unreferenced and does not make clear that majority opinion favours Bromborough. Few if any other suggestions have attracted support beyond their original proposer. Dudley Miles (talk) 08:58, 9 September 2018 (UTC)

I'm assuming Arthurs Grandchild has left-out the refs in this version to save time. I don't think the section needs to be entirely rewritten, but there are several elements of this that fit with comments I've previously made here [2]. This article does not make clear that there is insufficient evidence for anyone to be confident of their opinions at this time. All we have are the ancient texts and conjecture over what is plausible. I support expansion of the Primary accounts (surely Ancient accounts would be a better name?) section with more relevant material and further discussion (as found in reliable sources) of the texts and their author's proximity to the event. For example part of the chronicle that mentions Dingesmere and all mention Egil´s Saga are omitted despite them being used to justify battle-sites in the Location section. I would also support prefacing the Location section with a summary highlighting that this is a long-running puzzle that has attracted a range of authors. And some generally accepted theory would be good i.e. Burh is probably a fortification and Dingesmere was probably close to the sea. I also support the addition of more proposed sites (again as found in reliable sources). And I also support expansion of the Humber issue currently mentioned in the Background section.

I've not read Michael Livingston's work, but remain dubious of his assertion that majority opinion favours Bromborough, and would certainly like independent confirmation. However unless a contradictory source is offered there is no reason for it not to be given prominence. At the end of the day, unless someone with access to the relevant sources is willing to put the effort into being bold and changing the article prose, these discussions are unlikely to achieve much.TiB chat 18:26, 10 September 2018 (UTC)

You make some good points, Trappedinburnley. I´d be happy to take on board your comments (and any others appearing here in the next few days) and then be bold. As you say, some of the other sections need a little tweaking, especially the comments about the Humber in the Background section. I suggest moving the alternative names for the battle site from the Battle section to the Location section. There are a lot more medieval sources than those mentioned in the "Primary accounts" section, and I´m not sure this comes across. Arthurs Grandchild (talk) 22:07, 10 September 2018 (UTC)

I have rewritten the Location section based on my above proposal and taking into account Trappedinburnley´s comments. As a compromise I did not delete the conjecture which was in the Location section but moved it to the Notes section; I also retained the favoured status of the Bromborough theory and kept the photo of Brackenwood golf course (though I don´t think this is relevant). I have looked into Dudley Miles´ objection that this constitutes OR, but I disagree. Setting aside the debate about whether the medieval texts are primary or secondary sources (see above), the new Location section does not refer to material for which no reliable, published sources exist - all the cited medieval texts are available online, in university libraries and in the Casebook. I have cited reliable, published sources that are directly related to the topic of the article, and directly support the material being presented. It does not include any analysis or synthesis of published material that serves to reach or imply a conclusion not stated by the sources; there is in fact no analysis, just quotation from the sources. There is no novel interpretation of primary sources; the proposal merely lists all the location information available in the medieval sources to make straightforward, descriptive statements of facts that can be verified by any educated person with access to the primary sources but without further, specialized knowledge.Arthurs Grandchild (talk) 08:24, 15 September 2018 (UTC)

Proposal for the Primary Accounts section

In response to AnonNep and Trappedinburnley´s suggestions for improving the Primary Accounts section, I´m working on a very brief summary of about 15 of the most important medieval sources in approximately chronological order, endeavouring to avoid anything which could be seen as OR. I´m also adding some comments by modern historians for some of these sources. Neil McGuigan mentioned that the Casebook omits the Beverley accounts, so I´m adding William Ketel and expanding Pseudo-Ingulf. Otherwise all the texts are published in the Casebook. I´d also like to change the section header to “Medieval sources” (or "Medieval texts"). Before I edit the Primary Accounts section, any comments anyone? Arthurs Grandchild (talk) 22:46, 26 September 2018 (UTC)

I have changed the section header to “Medieval Sources” (because of the controversy above over primary vs. secondary sources) and replaced the existing quotes from Æthelweard, ASC, William of Malmesbury, Wulfstan of Winchester and Geoffrey Gaimar by a chronological summary of a broader range of texts, as AnonNep and Trappedinburnley suggested. For a few sources I have also added some comments or analysis by modern historians. In summarising the works I have tried to point out where specific factual information is supplied, as opposed to the more general background information in the previous quotes. Having said that, I think the original quotes gave a nice sense of atmosphere, so some of them could perhaps be reinstated in the Battle section. The Battle section also needs to be harmonised with the Medieval Sources section to avoid repetition. Arthurs Grandchild (talk) 22:25, 1 October 2018 (UTC)

Date of the battle

My edit of the date of the battle (“sometime in the autumn or early winter”) was reverted to “and in Livingston's opinion this suggests that the battle of Brunanburh occurred in early October” with the explanation “It is Livingston's view, not certain fact.” This edit was done for several reasons. Firstly, early October is an implausibly precise deduction from the information in the annals, which only give the month Anlaf left Dublin (August) and the year of the battle (937). If the annals are correct it is thus a certain fact (given that Æthelstan had to muster a vast army and march north) that the battle was fought in the autumn or winter of 937. Secondly, Livingston has been widely criticised by historians and reviewers for his pro-Wirral bias (see e.g. Neil McGuigan, Tim Clarkson, Michael Wood), so the fact that only his opinion is quoted at various places in the article could be perceived as a lack of neutrality (as noted by other editors). To redress the balance I had kept the original reference to Livingston (as a note) and added a reference to Wood, who surmised that the battle could have been fought in late October, in November, or even early December. Thirdly, the style of the original text was awkward. Perhaps another editor could find a compromise solution which improves the style and acknowledges our inability to be more precise than autumn/winter.

On a more general note, it will be a challenge to achieve an article which satisfies both the west coast and the east coast camps, but it is something to aim for. Arthurs Grandchild (talk) 22:13, 25 October 2018 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Battle of Brunanburh/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Peacemaker67 (talk · contribs) 04:50, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

Rate	Attribute	Review Comment
1. Well-written:
	1a. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct.
	1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.	Capital 'B" for battle in the lead sentence seems to me that the paras in the lead could easily be combined into two. Four should only be needed to summarise a long and detailed article. John of Worchester is linked more than once, as are the Annals of Clonmacnoise
2. Verifiable with no original research:
	2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline.	I'd recommend the citations are consolidated into the Sources (just for appearances sake). ie just the shortened footnote in the References section and the full citations in the Sources section. Contrast the appearances of fns 10 (a book) and 11 (a journal).
	2b. reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose).
	2c. it contains no original research.
	2d. it contains no copyright violations or plagiarism.
3. Broad in its coverage:
	3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic.
	3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).
	4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.
	5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.
6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:
	6a. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content.
	6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.
	7. Overall assessment.	Passing, none of my comments are an obstacle to promotion to GA. Well done, Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 06:57, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

Assessment comment

The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:Battle of Brunanburh/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.

Decent start, needs more references, in-text citations and some rewriting (some of which I did).ErikTheBikeMan (talk) 23:36, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Last edited at 23:36, 4 October 2008 (UTC). Substituted at 09:08, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Battle of Brunanburh. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160304192433/http://www.english.uga.edu/~jdmevans/Personal/Kevin%20Halloran%20-%20The%20Brunanburh%20Campaign%20A%20Reappraisal.pdf to http://www.english.uga.edu/~jdmevans/Personal/Kevin%20Halloran%20-%20The%20Brunanburh%20Campaign%20A%20Reappraisal.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 13:58, 28 October 2016 (UTC)

Naming Consistency

Changed some uses of the term Kingdom/King of Alba to Kingdom/King Scotland, since the article uses both terms interchangeably which is needlessly confusing to people who don't understand that they mean the same thing. This is a problem that plagues a ton of Scotland related historical articles. There is really no reason or justification for using Alba in lieu of Scotland anywhere in the English Wikipedia other than in articles specifically about the Gaelic word for Scotland.

Reason for reversion of 1 September 2019

On 30 August 2019 user Drmies unilaterally reverted to a 2016 version, thereby deleting 20kB of work by dozens of historians and experts over a 3 year period. This work was pertinent, impeccably referenced, verifiable, concise and neutral. Drmies's actions and his/her comment that the intervening edits "made a mockery of the GA tag" demonstrate a fundamental misunderstanding of the purpose of Wikipedia. Furthermore, there is no evidence that Drmies is an expert in Anglo-Saxon history. The article has therefore been reverted to the last version before his/her deletions. Arthurs Grandchild (talk) 08:15, 1 September 2019 (UTC)

 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Arthurs Grandchild (talk • contribs) 08:13, 1 September 2019 (UTC) 

From Brunanburh to Bromborough

1066Thinker I've always felt that getting from 'Brunan' to 'Brom' must have required some toponymical gymnastics. I've also commented before on the lack of evidence to support the Bromborough location. The source is interesting, however until it is published or otherwise peer-reviewed, it is too early to be using it in the article. Here is a link [3], should anyone want to read it in the meantime.TiB chat 11:03, 6 March 2021 (UTC)

I see that Notes & Queries, where the source is to be published, is not peer reviewed but it is published by the Oxford University Press and I assume that it is therefore a reliable source. Gog the Mild is that correct? Dudley Miles (talk) 14:29, 6 March 2021 (UTC)

Absolutely. OUP meets all of the requirements of an RS. And would be considered a (very) high quality RS. (There is no requirement for an RS, even a high quality RS, to be peer reviewed.) Gog the Mild (talk) 14:44, 6 March 2021 (UTC)

Claim that the site has been found and proven by archaeology? :: keep or delete?

• @Trappedinburnley: There is a newspaper report that archaeologists have found and proved (by a large amount of broken weapons), not merely guessed, the site of the battle. To settle a potential dispute, please discuss here: should we delete (for claimed unreliability and/or repetition), or not, the 3rd-level paragraph Battle of Brunanburh#Site discovery claim: near Bromborough in the Wirral which describes this find? Anthony Appleyard (talk) 22:27, 3 May 2021 (UTC)

• We should delete. There are no reliable sources, just self-interested claims and press reports. Dudley Miles (talk) 22:46, 3 May 2021 (UTC)

• It is hardly surprising that local amateur archaeology group are convinced they are right, or that those who advocate for the Bromborough location would cast any discoveries in a favourable light. IMO a cache of weapon parts, possibly indicating a production site, roughly dating to the same era, may eventually prove a pivotal find. As the Mersey estuary is thought to have been a Viking stronghold at the time, the discovery could also be utterly unrelated. I bet it turns out to be inconclusive. However my primary concern is that you are just repeating content already in the article, with extra confidence. Aside from the Telegraph, which you've not linked, the only source I kind of thought was OKish is already used in the earlier section. So it is a delete from me also I'm afraid. If you want to expand the existing prose with a bit more detail on the finds, I won't oppose.TiB chat 23:02, 3 May 2021 (UTC)

Please check these links [4] [5]. We already have this story covered, in the location section, it is not new it is just an update. The presentation indicates that the Wirral location is still not proven. I think that the 'self interest ' bit is rather disingenuous as there are some serious historians and archaeologists involved. However as the presentation says there is no universal agreement, with Michael Wood particularly dissenting. I think the location section covers it adequately, I don't think that we need a new section. Wilfridselsey (talk) 08:58, 4 May 2021 (UTC)

Anyone who issues a press release about their work has an interest in playing up its importance. This is an obvious fact and pointing it out is not "disingenuous". Whether there are reliable sources to support the claims is a separate issue. In my opinion at present there are not. Wirral Archaeology seems to be an odd organization. Their web site at [6] does not name any officers, address, phone number or email address, only a contact form. It describes excavations and surveys going back to 1990, but so far as i could discover does not claim to have ever published any reports on its work. Even the comments in the press release are attributed to an unnamed "spokesperson". I do not remember ever seeing such claims being made without a person being named. A web page describing their work at [7], probably published in 2017 (it refers to 2016 as in the future and 2017 in the past) says that they displayed a selection of their Brunanburh finds at a public event in 2011/11 and a book is in preparation. Their 2019 press release, The search for the Battle of Brunanburh, is over. quotes experts who have been given "privileged access to the artefacts recovered". Restricting access to finds was common in the past, but nowadays it is regarded with hostility and suspicion. In his Medievalists.net article at [8] Livingston says that what has been found is part of a metalworking area associated with a medieval army camp with artefacts which appear to date to the tenth century. This is not a battlefield and it is "disingenuous" to claim to have found the site. It could relate to another episode, such as the Norse invasion of the Wirral in c.903.

The comments of experts also need examination. Steve Harding praises their work, but he expresses frustration of the failure of experts to accept his place name evidence for Bromborough and would naturally favour supporting evidence. Cornwell is not a historian. Kelly DeVries is lukewarm, saying that "“Such a large amount of period-dated archaeological material suggests that the Wirral case for Brunanburh can by no means be dismissed.” Cat Jarman is an archaeologist and a Viking expert, so her reference to "exciting progress" is significant. The press release also says that they are preparing a bid for the National Lottery Heritage Fund, but this was unsuccessful, suggesting that the Fund may have found their case unconvincing. Their summary of progress at [9] states that they are short of funds to continue their researches, so it is unclear when there will be any further progress. I think a sentence on the project would be justified, but the current paragraph is not justified in view of the lack of reliable sources. Dudley Miles (talk) 19:18, 4 May 2021 (UTC)

Have a look at Cavill p.106 or Higham a useful discussion but with the conclusion on p.156. There is also some background in EPNS Journal 36. Wilfridselsey (talk) 20:50, 4 May 2021 (UTC)

These papers are on the case for Bromborough. That is widely accepted and is not the issue. The issue is whether we should cover the claim of Wirral Archaeology to have found the actual site of the battle. I find this less convincing the more I read about it. They appear to have found a military metal working site which may be related to Brunanburh but may be related to the Norse invasion in c.903. But I am no expert and may have got it wrong. We need reliable sources which examine the evidence and we do not have any. Dudley Miles (talk) 21:58, 4 May 2021 (UTC)

OK. I think that we are on the same page. I do not believe that Wirral Archaeology has actually said that they have found Brunaburh. On their website they are pretty guarded. The best they can do is on their FAQ page is "no comment". The Liverpool Uni page, that is used as a reference, headlines "The search for Brunaburh is over.." however when you read the article it does make clear that there is no proof yet and that it will be a few years for a conclusion to be reached. They do not say that the site has been definitely found so neither should we. BTW - There's info on Wirral Archaeology at Companies House, if you want to check it's officers. Wilfridselsey (talk) 22:28, 4 May 2021 (UTC)

How about "Wirral Archaeology, a local volunteer group, believes that it may have identified the site of the battle in the Wirral. According to Michael Livingston, they have found a field with a heavy concentration of artifacts which may be a result of metal working in a tenth-century army camp. The location of the field is being kept secret to protect it from nighthawks. As of 2020, they are seeking funds to pursue their research further."

Dudley Miles (talk) 09:35, 5 May 2021 (UTC)

Looks good to me. I think that it updates the original message very well. Best wishes. Wilfridselsey (talk) 11:40, 5 May 2021 (UTC)

Edits of 02.04.2022

@Dudley Miles, I’m not sure why you have twice deleted the following passage:

“According to medieval chroniclers such as John of Worcester and Symeon of Durham, the invaders entered the Humber with a large fleet. Although the reliability of these sources is disputed by advocates of an invasion from the west coast of England, they are the only historical references that give an indication of where the coalition fleet disembarked.”

The first time you commented “John of Worcester is the only chronicler to say the Humber. All the other sources are either copies of John or unreliable. See the Cavill ref.“

The second time you commented “This is covered in the location section below. Also the comment is not in the Cavill source cited, and Symeon is a copy of John of Worcester, not an independent source.”

I disagree with your deletion of this paragraph because it was factually correct. It also had the merit of giving a succinct and even-handed summary of the Humber debate. It is therefore important to retain it in the Background section if we are to maintain the necessary neutrality of position between the west-coast and east-coast theories.

I disagree with your argument that “John of Worcester is the only chronicler to say the Humber”. The Humber entry is mentioned by several 12th century sources, from memory: John of Worcester, Symeon of Durham, the Chronicle of Melrose, Aelred of Rievaulx and Roger of Howden, none of whom had any difficulty accepting the fact.

You also say that all the other sources are either copies of John or unreliable, which contradicts your argument that John of Worcester is the only chronicler to say the Humber. The question of whether any medieval historian can be considered “reliable” or “independent” is a complex one. Obviously none of these 12th century chroniclers was an eyewitness to events of the 10th century; they all based their accounts on other sources, some lost, some extant. If we were to discredit every chronicle which was the first or only source to mention a fact, we would open up a whole can of worms. Do we discard Dingesmere because it was only mentioned in the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle, or Weondune because it was only mentioned by Symeon of Durham? Clearly not in both cases. By the same token there is no justification for discarding the Humber entry merely because it was first mentioned by John of Worcester.

The fact remains that the Humber is mentioned as the point of entry by John of Worcester and other 12th century chroniclers (who evidently believed in its veracity), and no other point of entry is mentioned in any other historical source. This is an important (indeed, essential) point, and it should be stated clearly in the Background section.

The second sentence of the deleted paragraph stated correctly that the reliability of John of Worcester et al is disputed by advocates of an invasion from the west coast of England, and this should suffice to put them into context.

In your second comment you say, “This is covered in the location section below”, but in fact the Location section said:

“Few medieval texts refer to a known place, and John of Worcester is the only chronicler to say that the invaders landed in the Humber.”

The second half of this sentence is wrong on two counts: Firstly, John of Worcester is not the only chronicler to mention the Humber: he is the first chronicler to mention it. Secondly, he doesn’t say that the invaders landed in the Humber; he says that the invaders “entered the mouth of the river Humber with a strong fleet”. The implication is indeed that they landed somewhere along the Humber or the Ouse, but this is not stated explicitly.

To address your objections, I have replaced the passage you deleted by:

“According to the 12th century chronicler John of Worcester, the invaders entered the Humber with a large fleet. This information was repeated by other contemporary chroniclers, such as Symeon of Durham. Although the reliability of these sources is disputed by advocates of an invasion from the west coast of England, they are the only historical references that give an indication of where the coalition fleet disembarked.”

The Location Section has been corrected to:

“Few medieval texts refer to a known place, apart from John of Worcester (and accounts based thereon) who says that the invaders entered the mouth of the river Humber with a large fleet.”

To overcome your objection about the Cavill reference I have added a better source. On a side note, we should be careful to distinguish between the historian Paul Cavill, specialist in early modern British history at the University of Cambridge, and the toponymist Paul Cavill of the School of English at the University of Nottingham. The “Brunanburh” Cavill is the toponymist, not the historian.

The article could be improved further by deleting the passages containing unfounded speculation, such as:

• “the battle occurred in early October”
• “the battle site at Brunanburh was chosen in agreement with Æthelstan”
• “the invading armies entere d England in two waves, Constantine and Owen coming from the north, possibly engaging in some skirmishes with Æthelstan's forces as they followed the Roman road across the Lancashire plains between Carlisle and Manchester, with Olaf's forces joining them on the way”
• etc.

These are just one person’s imagining of how it “could” have happened. However, we should be aiming for factually correct content and a neutral stance on the Bruna nburh debate, not speculative narrative. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Arthurs Grandchild (talk • contribs) 15:56, 2 April 2022 (UTC)

Your arguments are original research, which is forbidden under WP:NOR. It is not valid to cite Symeon, since as you accept his account is a copy of John's, not an original source. Your citations are two passages from John and Symeon and Peter Murren (not Paul as you say), who is an amateur historian who has written a book on 'Dark Age' battles, not apparently a specialist on Brunanburh. You have not cited any reliable secondary sources. Darlington and McGurk in their edition of The Chronicle of John of Worcester, p. 393, n. 9 says that the statement that the fleet sailed up the Humber is peculiar to John, and this is quoted approvingly by Cavill in the Casebook, p. 338, who suggests an explanation for John's error. Wikipedia articles should be a summary of reliable sources. Your interpretation of original sources gives a misleading account of expert academic opinion. Dudley Miles (talk) 14:56, 3 April 2022 (UTC)

@Dudley Miles: I am trying to understand why you think my edit counts as OR, but in all good faith I can’t see the problem. We have had this discussion before. A primary source may be used on Wikipedia to make straightforward, descriptive statements of facts that can be verified by any educated person with access to the primary source but without further, specialized knowledge. This is the case here. Furthermore, the primary sources are quoted verbatim in the referenced secondary source (Casebook) and I cited a further secondary source (Marren) supporting the statement.

It is interesting that you reverted my edits on the grounds that Marren (not Murren) is an “amateur historian” and neither a reliable secondary source nor an expert academic. Marren has authored three books on British battles with Pen & Sword Military and contributes articles on medieval battlefields to Battlefields Review. If you are really suggesting that we cannot cite “amateur historians” I would point out that Michael Livingston is cited 50 times in the article and Paul Cavill is cited 14 times. Cavill has no academic qualifications in history. Livingston’s highest qualification in history is a BA from Baylor University, whose history department is currently ranked 10th best in Texas. Ironically, Livingston denigrates Michael Wood as “a historian journalist for the BBC” (Wood is professor of public history at Manchester University, undertook post-graduate research in Anglo-Saxon history at Oxford University and is a respected historian of the Anglo-Saxon period). That said, I have no axe to grind concerning Marren and would be more than happy to cite Sarah Foot (professor of early medieval history at Oxford University) or Michael Wood instead.

Your statement “Your interpretation of original sources gives a misleading account of expert academic opinion” is contentious to say the least.

To quote Sarah Foot:

“Relevant to [the discussion of the battlefield location] is John of Worcester’s assertion that Olaf and Constantin, king of the Scots, entered the mouth of the Humber with a strong fleet, causing Æthelstan and his brother Edmund to go and meet them at Brunanburh. Simeon of Durham claimed similarly that the attacking fleet sailed up the Humber. Otherwise one might have assumed that the attack came from the west, Constantin meeting up with a Norse fleet from Dublin to attack at some point on England’s western seaboard.” (Æthelstan. The First King of England, p.174).

And to quote Michael Wood:

“The tale of the Humber landing cannot be John´s own invention. His statement is repeated verbatim by several other annalists of the twelfth century and later, who have transmitted a set of tenth-century northern annals from York, among them the Liber de Exordio, the Chronicle of Melrose, Roger of Howden, Ailred of Beverley, the Chester annalist Higden and the Bridlington chronicler Langtoft, […]. The relationship of these annals has never been worked out, but they must all depend on the common northern source they share with John of Worcester, and they constitute a medieval tradition – in fact the only tradition – on the location of the war, and a tradition which was current in the early-twelfth century when the general area of the war was perhaps still remembered, especially by annalists in the north, and in Yorkshire in particular.” (Searching for Brunanburh: The Yorkshire Context of the Great War of 937, pp.147-8).

Therefore, with all due respect, Darlington, McGurk and Cavill are very mistaken if they indeed believe that the statement that the fleet sailed up the Humber is peculiar to John of Worcester. But again, why is this relevant? Why would this invalidate the information anyway? There are countless instances in early medieval history of narratives relying on a single historical source.

I do not “accept that Symeon’s account is a copy of John’s” as you claim. If you read my argument carefully you will see that I stated that John is the first historian to mention the Humber in an extant chronicle. As John (death c. 1140) was obviously not an eye-witness to events from the 10th century he must have based his statement on a lost source. Symeon may have based his account on John, but it is likely that they both copied verbatim the same contemporary account, now lost. This is certainly Michael Wood’s opinion in “Searching for Brunanburh: The Yorkshire Context of the Great War of 937”, p.147-8.

Concerning your mention of Cavill’s “explanation for John’s error”, Cavill argues that John was in the habit of writing a formulaic “the pagans entered the mouth of <random river name>”, but then goes on to cite 20 such instances, all of which are accepted by historians; so it would seem that John was not in the habit of making up his history. It should be pointed out that any proponent of the Wirral theory must argue that John of Worcester, Symeon of Durham, et al were in error, otherwise they would get into a logical contradiction. Such arguments fall foul, however, of the historian’s golden rule that he must eschew cherry-picking of the evidence and must weigh the authenticity of all accounts, not merely those that contradict their favoured view.

This is the fundamental problem of the Brunanburh debate: too much credence has been given to people who discredit or ignore inconvenient historical evidence, invent evermore convoluted scenarios to prop up their theory, and have a poor grasp of military tactics, early medieval warfare, history and geography.

Lastly, I am intrigued by your repeated reinstatement of Livingston’s opinion that the battle took place in early October 937, which is pure speculation on his part and has no basis in any historical source. There are more instances of this throughout the text. I don’t understand why you insist on keeping unfounded speculation in the article and yet object to a factual statement substantiated by two secondary sources. Arthurs Grandchild (talk) 15:34, 21 May 2022 (UTC)

Owain/Owen?

We're a bit inconsistent in this article when talking about Owain ap Dyfnwal, calling him both Owen and Owain. It's not the worst thing in the world, and we do offer some cross references, but I think it would clearly be better to unify our spelling. Given the biographical article, I would vote for 'Owain,' but I'd like to know if others agree or are happy with the status quo. Happy to go wherever consensus leads. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 17:38, 31 January 2023 (UTC)

I think Owain is the usual spelling. Dudley Miles (talk) 19:38, 31 January 2023 (UTC)

Who were the "Invaders"?

Paragraph two of the opening section starts by saying that Æthelstan invaded Scotland. Later it says '"…but the invaders were routed in the battle against Æthelstan"' So just which side was doing the invading? This is just one confusing element in the intro that could be cleaned up. MiguelMunoz (talk) 00:09, 5 September 2023 (UTC)

I see what you mean, though paying attention to the dates does help somewhat: Æthelstan's invasion of Scotland occurred in 934, while the retaliatory invasion led by Constantine et al. happened in 937. Thus the "invaders" at Brunanburh were the non-Æthelstan forces. It seems clear enough to me, but it could always be improved, if you have any suggestions! Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 01:01, 5 September 2023 (UTC)

I have hopefully clarified. Dudley Miles (talk) 08:43, 5 September 2023 (UTC)

That's an improvement, but it might be clearer if the the article gave a name to the initial invasion of Scotland. This would make it clearer that the Battle of Brunanburh was a retaliatory invasion. MiguelMunoz (talk) 03:50, 7 September 2023 (UTC)