Jump to content

Talk:Battle of Assandun

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Chronology problem?

[edit]

There are some problems with the chronology in this article, because the years do not seem to conincide with years in e.g. the Canute-article. According to the latter, not much is known of Canute's life prior to his crowning in 1016, while in this article it is stated that he is ruler of Britain from 1009. I have found no evidence of 1009 in Danish sources - all seem to agree on him starting his reign in 1016. Furthermore, in Knýtlinga saga (cited in this article) it is claimed that:

Knut, son of King Svein Forkbeard, was ten years old when his father died.

So he would hardly be able to command an army in 1009, when in fact his father is claimed to have died in 1014!

Hence, I would like to ask for evidences of Canute's ruling from 1009. Amjaabc 08:00, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I see no evidence of anyone writing he was crowned 1009 in this article. Where did you see 1009 written?.....does not matter anyway, it is a widely known fact that Cnut does not come into history until Sevyns invasion of England; 1013. He was crowned the following year after his fathers death, was betrayed and went into exile, and returned in 1016 to reclaim the crown in the campaign featured.
On a different note; I am glad to see that this article has its own discussion section. I dont know who did in addition, but I suggested the newly-made article, and wrote most of the paragraphs; so Im proud....and up myself. 60.228.143.191 12:10, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I withdraw – I cannot figure out, why I wrote about problems concerning 1009. I cannot seem to find this year either. Amjaabc 21:43, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Your right in your inquiry, but their doesn't appear to be a problem. It is strange. 138.130.142.46 00:12, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Semantic struggles for the reader

[edit]
  • "...particularly the Southampton nobles." Who are "the Southampton nobles"? The average well-read reader might be clueless as to what is so "Southampton" about these nobles. The wikilink to Southampton sheds no light.
  • "The siege was in response to Edmund's reconquest of recently Danish-occupied Wessex, as well as conducting various indecisive offensives against Canute's army. " What is the subject of "conducting" in all this?
  • "raid-minded Danes" Someone's fallen asleep reading Keats.
  • "Edmund risked travelling into the countryside, dominated by enemies and at risk of being attacked..." Insecure shifts of floating subject leave Edmund dominated by enemies.
  • "superior Viking soldiers" Were they really? Or does this simply mean that there were more of them? the missing cliché is "superior numbers": is that desired?
  • "a minority of pro-English primary sources claim" This needs a footnote to be intelligible. Which sources? And what do the majority of pro-English sources say? And by the way, which are the sources that are not "pro-English"?
  • "Eadric (the traitor) was not a coward" The reader senses that something has been missed: Eadric has not yet been mentioned. Move the A-S Chronicle quotation up and expand upon it.
  • "A few years later saw the construction of St. Andrews memorial church in 1020 on the hill of the site of the Battle" Why then is there doubt as to the site: "the location is still debated"? whose debate? (Historians have debated the battle-site as being generally accepted as one of the two Essex villages, Ashdon and Ashingdon. The most recent and widely accepted research being Warwick Rodwell's paper that concludes the site was Ashdon. Dogfax (talk) 12:55, 12 December 2007 (UTC)) what alternatives are suggested? and who is doing the "seeing" in this sentence? "a few years later" is an expression of progress of time, not an occasion that might "see" (usually a lame substitute for a passive verb tense, yes?)[reply]

Does Warwick Rodwell's paper have a title? Is it published? What is the evidence that it is widely accepted?

  • Encomium Emmae is not on everyone's bookshelf; besides the wikilink, a brief appositive clause would explain what this work is. What is the purpose of its author in relating these details? --Wetman 07:10, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree that the article is a bit of a mess. Basically, as far as I am aware of, we have three primary sources on the battle. The Chronicle, Knýtlinga saga and the Encomium. The accounts in the first two are short enough to be quoted in toto while the Encomium account could be summarized. I wouldn't mind a revert to my version as of September 9, 2006. Haukur 07:22, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Their was nothing much worth reading in the article back then. I think the idea of Eadric's deal with Cnut is only from the Encomium. So the majority do not support this. I don't see the problem with conducting, or the idea that danes in the early 11th Century were mainly raid-minded militarily, the idea that (back then) they were technologically and morale-wise superior soldiers (that's why vikings were initially successful). It seems that Eadric was a coward I have no qualms with that. I have nothing to dio with the location argument (and I don't recall "seeing", but I thiink that is in the Ashingdon article), I think their is a link to Encomium, and yes, as I have explained, the country was filled with dangerous Danes and English nobles. Southampton nobles is from Enconium. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.217.138.85 (talk) 01:10, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WikiProject class rating

[edit]

This article was automatically assessed because at least one WikiProject had rated the article as start, and the rating on other projects was brought up to start class. BetacommandBot 08:57, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move

[edit]

Since the location of the battle is not certain - Ashingdon or Ashdon - it seems more sensible to have an article name which makes no assumptions. Angus McLellan (Talk) 16:18, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Support I certainly heard it referred to by the period name when I studied it....and it seems to be standard within study of the period (To take a famous example, we call the Battle of Hastings the Battle of Hastings, not the Battle of Battle, the town which has sprung up around the site (With the battlefield literally behind a row of buildings on the main street) Narson (talk) 16:19, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nature of the Kingdom of England

[edit]

Apologies: not sure if this is the right place to butt in, so once again apols if I have the etiquette wrong. Perhaps this should go in "Semantic struggles". The articles states: "Thus for the first time England became a single united kingdom, covering the same territory as it does today", which I think should mean that this is the first time we see a united England with much like today's boundaries. But this sentence implies that this is the first time that England was a united kingdom, full stop. This was clearly not the case - as a cursory reading of, say, http://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/Edgar_the_Peaceable will show. I would suggest a subtle rewrite? James Harvey (talk) 16:26, 7 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Better late than never but your request has been carried through so to speak, just a mere two years late though. JoshNEWK1998 (talk) 12:53 4 April 2015 (BST)

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Battle of Assandun. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

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: 5 June 2024).

  • 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.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 01:00, 19 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Assessment comment

[edit]

The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:Battle of Assandun/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.

Relatively short and does not directly reference any sources. ErikTheBikeMan (talk) 21:27, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Last edited at 21:27, 3 October 2008 (UTC). Substituted at 09:06, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Battle of Assandun. 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:

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

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • 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) 13:02, 28 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "http://en.wiki.x.io/w/index.php?title=Talk:Battle_of_Assandun&oldid=1216449919"