Talk:Battle of Edington

Untitled

Actual Locations. There is little clear evidence of locations of either the fort to which the danes retreated or of the battle itself. My problem with the Wiltshire site is that it is over 76Km from Athelney and requires an army to cross tidal marshes and fording several difficult rivers and then to attack up a steep gradient. Attemts to war game a win in Wiltshire show the possibility as remote. Ethandun means a hill or down in an empty place or possible an isolated hill. This isolated hill has to offer a tactical advantage to Alfred. The Somerset Levels had many isolated hills at that time from the imposing Brent Knoll with Battleborough at its base to Burtle (so called) Hill that was a dune just 8 foot above high tide. Edington on the poldens is on a ridge of hills so is only an approximation of an ethandun. Having written Narrative Verse and NOT History about the campaigns I am well versed in the issues and have come to the conclusion that historians seem not to have got all the details right as yet. As is said: "more research needed" (for verses google IWVPA Wessex Sagas)

Horrible Description

The Description of this Battle is very poorly done, and to confusing to follow. Other battles and campaigning need not be mentioned when talking about the Battle of Eddington itself. You digress way off topic and mention things that should be talked about in "Events before the Battle"

Yes, I've created an "Events before the Battle" section. Dzw49 (talk) 21:08, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

"Alfred seems at this time to have ineffectually chased the Danes around Wessex, while the Danes were in a position to do as they pleased. The Anglo-Saxon Chronicle attempts to convey the impression that Alfred held the initiative; it is "a bland chronicle which laconically charts the movements of the Danish victors while at the same time disingenuously striving to convey the impression that Alfred was in control",[14] although it fails. Even if Alfred had caught up with the Danish force, it is unlikely that he could have accomplished anything. The fact that his army could not defend the fortified Chippenham, even in "an age... as yet untrained in siege warfare"[14] casts great doubt on its ability to defeat the Danes in an open field, unaided by fortifications. There was little that Alfred could do about the Danish menace between 875 and the end of 877, beyond repeatedly paying the invaders off."

This section seems incredibly slighting and assumptive, and lists only a single source. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2404:4404:3400:6600:D891:7994:6157:2233 (talk) 08:03, 9 December 2024 (UTC)

Copyvio?

This edit [1] constitutes almost the entire article and has references to publications that the editor didn't even bother to add. I'm guessing it's copied from somewhere else. Without the references and source of this huge edit, I'm afraid it should be removed. --Ronz 23:59, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Reported to Wikipedia:Copyright_problems/2007_September_5/Articles --Ronz 00:05, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps, but I am not convinced enough that it is a copyvio. Anons also can greatly expand an article. Garion96 (talk) 14:48, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

Not a copyvio. I wrote this as a research paper for school and decided it would be useful here, so I added a (suitably trimmed and edited) version. I don't know why I didn't add the works cited list then; I've been meaning to add them since I noticed the omission, perhaps a month or two later, but just somehow never got around to it until now. Golwengaud (talk) 14:00, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

WikiProject class rating

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)

Alternative battle site

There are new arguments - reason to doubt that the battle of Edington was in Wiltshire, but happened in the village of Eddington - on the north :side of the Polden Hills and the Sedgemoor - in Somerset. The hills had a Roman road along them, which linked the town of Ilchester to the :port of Combwich on the river Parrett. In the same year (a few months before in 878), party of Vikings led by Ubbe Ragnarsson, brother of :Ivar the Boneless and Halfdan Ragnarsson, landed on the coast at Combwich with 23 ships and twelve hundred men. They were defeated whilst besieging :the fort of "Cynwit" (Battle of Cannington). They would have retreated to the river, and the Roman fort which stood at the only defensive mound :allong the river, at Bridgwater. Alfred was just 6 miles south at Athelney. Guthrum would have followed Alfred South, using the rivers and the :Bristol Channel. The fortress mentioned after the battle may have been Bridgwater, where the survivors of the battle of Cannington may have :been recovering. Thus not distant Chippenham. Further arguments to support this lie in the fact that a defeated Guthrum was baptised at Aller :(Enmore church, as claimed, did not exist at this time) which is just 4 miles (South) away from Eddington (Somerset) and a peace treaty was signed :at Wedmore - 3 miles North of the village.

I do believe a reference would be in order here (see WP:NOR). SwordSmurf (talk) 23:14, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Proposed move to Battle of Ethandun

I agree that Edington is the most likely site for the Battle of Ethandun, but I find the name and contents of this article quite wrong, indeed, frankly misleading. Our only source for the battle is the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle, which calls it the "Battle of Ethandun". Many, like me, think the site was probably at Edington in Wiltshire, but the movement which changes the name to the "Battle of Edington" is not a scholarly one, and it won't do to state this location as a fact. We should surely move this article to the title "Battle of Ethandun" and then put the points of view about the three most likely sites. Any comments? Dzw49 (talk) 05:00, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

As no one commented, I have now moved this to Battle of Ethandun. Dzw49 (talk) 00:24, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Requested move to Battle of Edington

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

I was inclined to move this back to Battle of Edington, because it had been moved from that title without discussion, but given the move was three years ago, that became the default consensus. However, Ealdgyth's comment today about the sources seems pretty clear, and given that opinion is otherwise divided, the result of the discussion is that it be moved back to Battle of Edington. SlimVirgin ^{TALK|CONTRIBS} 22:15, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

Battle of Ethandun → Battle of Edington – WP:COMMONNAME. The name of this article was at Battle of Edington from 1993 2003 until it was moved on 1 February 2009. The reason given for the move was not based on reliable secondary sources but on one primary source. I propose that it is moved back, because Battle of Edington is the most common name used in reliable sources since 1992 (46/847 Google Scholar, 131/514 Google Books) relisted--SlimVirgin ^{TALK|CONTRIBS} 21:02, 28 February 2012 (UTC) -- PBS (talk) 07:20, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

Responses

• Support. Philip Baird Shearer supports as nominator. Added by SlimVirgin ^{TALK|CONTRIBS} 19:44, 28 February 2012 (UTC)
• Support - I would say that there are more than one primary/ secondary source that uses Ethandun and the memorial commemorating the battle, unveiled in 2000, calls it Ethandun too. It has also been referred to as the Battle of Bratton Down. However the BBC, Yorke, Lapidge and most modern historians who count seem to refer to it as the Battle of Edington and also place it at Edington, Wiltshire, (Starkey for example says that there is archaeology to support this). I believe the argument somewhat marginal for change but support it on the basis that Edington probably has the edge. Wilfridselsey (talk) 10:55, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose. So far as I can recall, the principal source for this battle is the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle, which calls the place "Ethandun". G. K. Chesterton said of this "Perhaps you do not know where Ethandune is. Nor do I; nor does anybody. That is where the somewhat sombre fun begins. I cannot even tell you for certain whether it is the name of a forest or a town or a hill." So far as there is a scholarly consensus on the matter it seems to favour Edington in Wiltshire over Edington in Somerset, but the identification with one or other of those two places is not certain at all, and in my view keeping the article at Battle of Ethandun helps to remind us of that uncertainty. (I recently drove through the Edington in Wiltshire and noticed that it has entry signs at each end of the village reading "Ethandun / Edington"! Does anyone know, does the Edington on the Polden Hills do the same?) Moonraker (talk) 16:24, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose. Here is a version of the original Anglo-Saxon Chronicle [2] it appears to say "Ethandune". I know change my vote to Oppose. Should we go for "Ethandune" with the "e" as this is the spelling used by the Chronicle, Chesterton and Hodges. Does anyone know where "Edington" comes from originally. PatGallacher (talk) 15:20, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

• Note [copied from below by SV] - I pulled the first six books relating to the period off my shelves - and ALL six called this the battle of Edington. They were - Kirby's Earliest English Kings (p. 175), John's Reassessing Anglo-Saxon England (p. 75), Yorke's Wessex in the Early Middle Ages (p. 111), Blair's Introduction to Anglo-Saxon England (3rd ed.) (p. 75), Pollard's Alfred the Great (although he does list in the index "earlier Ethandun" but does not use that name in the text, (p. 263, etc.), and Abels Alfred the Great (see index, many mentions). None except for Pollard even mentions Ethandun, and his mention appears to support the fact that common usage now is to use Edington. I then checked Stenton Anglo-Saxon England (3rd ed. 1971) even though it is a bit older and it uses Edington also. The Blackwell Encyclopaedia of Anglo-Saxon England entry on Alfred (written by Yorke) uses Edington. Wormald's entry in the Oxford Dictionary of National Biography on Alfred (here if you have a UK library card) uses Edington. Costambeys' entry in the ODNB for Guthrum uses Edington. In short, I can't find any modern secondary sources that use Ethandun - there may be some out there, but they would appear to be outnumbered by the usage of Edington - especially in the three main biographies of Alfred I consulted. Ealdgyth - Talk 16:51, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

Threaded discussion

Note: the supports and opposes moved to the first section are retained here to keep the threaded discussion intact. SlimVirgin ^{TALK|CONTRIBS} 19:44, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

• Comment I think you mean 2003, since Wikipedia did not exist in 1993... 65.92.182.149 (talk) 08:24, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

• Yes thank you, I have struck out 1993 and replaced it with 2003. The search is from 1993 because that is the first year that Scholar allowed and I wanted to ignore older PD sources from distorting a the Book search-- PBS (talk) 00:04, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

• Support - I would say that there are more than one primary/ secondary source that uses Ethandun and the memorial commemorating the battle, unveiled in 2000, calls it Ethandun too. It has also been referred to as the Battle of Bratton Down. However the BBC, Yorke, Lapidge and most modern historians who count seem to refer to it as the Battle of Edington and also place it at Edington, Wiltshire, (Starkey for example says that there is archaeology to support this). I believe the argument somewhat marginal for change but support it on the basis that Edington probably has the edge. Wilfridselsey (talk) 10:55, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose. So far as I can recall, the principal source for this battle is the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle, which calls the place "Ethandun". G. K. Chesterton said of this "Perhaps you do not know where Ethandune is. Nor do I; nor does anybody. That is where the somewhat sombre fun begins. I cannot even tell you for certain whether it is the name of a forest or a town or a hill." So far as there is a scholarly consensus on the matter it seems to favour Edington in Wiltshire over Edington in Somerset, but the identification with one or other of those two places is not certain at all, and in my view keeping the article at Battle of Ethandun helps to remind us of that uncertainty. (I recently drove through the Edington in Wiltshire and noticed that it has entry signs at each end of the village reading "Ethandun / Edington"! Does anyone know, does the Edington on the Polden Hills do the same?) Moonraker (talk) 16:24, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

• NB, Starkey is the television historian and pundit David Starkey, whose period is the reign of Henry VIII. If there is any basis for "archaeology to support this", then I suspect Starkey has in mind excavations at the Iron Age hill fort of Bratton Camp, which is near but not at Edington. They have thrown up finds from most periods since the Iron Age, but no signs of a great 9th century battle. If my guess is right then I should say "archaeology to support this" is a debating point rather than serious history. Moonraker (talk) 17:01, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

• CMT- I think that in G.K.Chesterton's time most historians were referring to it as Ethandun whereas most seem to be using Edington now, which is my reason for support, all be it somewhat lukewarm! I guess that the trend is for modern English rather than something closer to the OE. Starkey says that there were some badly mutilated bodies, of the right date, found on the hill where the two armies fought. I couldn't find any other reference to it, so you maybe right. BTW - Starkey describes it as Edington(Ethandun) in the first instance but then goes on to use Edington for the rest of the time. I checked Stenton, Lapidge, Yorke, Kirby, Hines and Hunter-Blair and they all refer to it as Edington. The reference I gave above (Kinross) suggests Ethandun. In Batley's ASC they refer to it as Eþandune in the text and Ethendun(Edington) in the index. I have a few more sources I could check but getting bored now.Wilfridselsey (talk) 19:05, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

• While I understand your argument Moonraker, using a primary source and ignoring the common usage in reliable English language secondary sources, is in danger of falling under the banner of original research. For example the Battle of Waterloo did not take place at Waterloo it took place at Mont Saint-Jean which was the name Napoleon used in his account of the bataille de Mont Saint-Jean, but like the battle itself he lost the battle over the name. Or we could use the name the Germans used for the battle of la Belle Alliance (named after a inn on the battlefield and used by Napoleon as a field headquarters), because it carries less of a British bias (Where Wellington slept before the battle) and so would be less of a POV name as well as being politically clever as lots of nations were in the alliance against the outlaw, but we do not. We title the article after the name that is commonly used in reliable English language sources (see WP:AT policy). I think we should follow the policy for this article title well. -- PBS (talk)

• Comment: Wilfridselsey helpfully points out that both "Ethandun" and "Edington" are used in the latest sources, and that seems to me to leave us with a choice to make. If I am relying on primary sources in preferring "Ethandun", then I would submit that in making such a choice of name the primary sources deserve the greatest weight. There is a real choice to be made and all relevant factors can surely be taken into account, including reasoned opinions on which are the best sources. If David Starkey says anything like "found on the hill where the two armies fought", then he is plainly exploded on the matter. None of the primary sources says which county the battle took place in, let alone whether it was fought in lowland or on a hill. The main primary source is, of course, Asser's Life of King Alfred, which this article does not mention, although a footnote is presumably referring to it by "Life". Asser gives tantalising hints, for instance saying that Alfred camped one night in Selwood (rather a large forest) and the next night, before the battle, at "Okely", about which there has been much debate. An early secondary source is Symeon of Durham, but he relies on Asser. In the case of Waterloo, we know exactly where and when the battle took place, but with Ethandun we have only a name and a few hints from Asser: all is speculation. With regard to "badly mutilated bodies, of the right date", it is self-evident that more than a thousand years after a battle in the south of England nothing would remain of human bodies except bone, and I can find no sources for any mutilated 9th-century bones being found anywhere near any of the Edingtons. Clearly "Edington" is the modern name of various villages (in Wiltshire, Somerset, and even in Berkshire), but as no one knows whether "Ethandun" means "Edington", to say that there is a trend which prefers modern English is rather kind to present-day historians who wander beyond speculation. Moonraker (talk) 01:25, 17 February 2012 (UTC)
• Arithmetic I really do not believe a matter of this kind should be decided by g-hits, even in Google Books or Google Scholar, because the choice of name here is a more subtle question. However, if it did come down to numbers, then both spellings of Ethandun(e) would need to be taken into account. I have 9,180 Google Books hits for "Battle of Edington", 4,320 for "Battle of Ethandun" and 5,110 for "Battle of Ethandune", which gives a small majority to "Battle of Ethandun(e)". It is much the same with Google Scholar, which has "Battle of Edington" 156, "Battle of Ethandun" 71, and "Battle of Ethandune" 92. The numbers change if you leave out the quotation marks, because many of the hits are then not related to this battle. Moonraker (talk) 02:09, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

• I am not sure how your are getting your numbers and I do not think that you have been looking at hits since 1992. If you do that and you logically OR the two strings together then the ghits on books is 243 On Scholar it is 35 from 1 Jane 1993. The numbers for "Battle-of-Edington" are about 2,140 and 99 since the end of 1992. I suspect that you are not searching for the string in modern sources but all of the sources which as I said above includes lots of Victorian PD sources. -- PBS (talk) 04:33, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

• Comment. I think people can sometimes attach undue weight to g-hits. My knowledge of this battle comes mainly from historical fiction. C. Walter Hodges' "The Marsh King" has the battle as its climax, he calls it Ethandune. However the TV programme "The Raven and the Cross" called it Edington. Just trying to look at online primary sources, the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle calls it Heddington, and Asser's disputed Life of Alfred calls it Edington. So, much as I enjoyed Hodges' account, if modern scholarship is fairly evenly divided then I think we should give significant weight to the primary sources. PatGallacher (talk) 02:15, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

• PatGallacher, I welcome your comments on giving weight to the primary sources. It is surely translations of the ASC and Asser which have "Heddington" and "Edington"? So far as I can recall, the ASC has "Aethandun" and Symeon of Durham has "Adderandun". I don't have the Latin of Asser to hand but would be astonished if he has "Edington". Moonraker (talk) 02:26, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

• Here is my source for "Heddington", do you have any better? [3] PatGallacher (talk) 02:35, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

• Comment - If you look at g-hits you need to set the date option in the search, you will find that Ethandun was more popular in the 19th century, the Victorians were very much into playing up a German heritage of the English!! Look at what the current generation of AS scholars are saying eg: Campbell, John, Wormwald, Hines, Yorke etc. they all call it Edington, and some even addend (Wilts) to the name. We do have a section, even though it is a bit thin, that does discuss the possibilities of other sites, it could do with being expanded! I believe that the reason that Wiltshire has the edge is because of Alfreds connection there, and the stories of him actually praying at his local church (the current church is now named after him) the night before the battle, also of course there is the story that the White Horse carved into Bratton Down was on the site of an earlier one that Alfred troops had made in commemoration of the battle, the evidence for both stories is somewhat anecdotal. I can not add to what I or Moonraker have said about Starkey's assertion, it is in The Monarchy of England Part 1. p. 61 if anyone wants to check. Wilfridselsey (talk) 14:52, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose. Here is a version of the original Anglo-Saxon Chronicle [4] it appears to say "Ethandune". I know change my vote to Oppose. Should we go for "Ethandune" with the "e" as this is the spelling used by the Chronicle, Chesterton and Hodges. Does anyone know where "Edington" comes from originally. PatGallacher (talk) 15:20, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

• I think that is the nub of the argument, do we go for the primary ASC OE version Eþandune (Ethandune/ Ethandun) or the modern English Edington? According to Gelling Edington probably means Etha's hill which is the same meaning as Ethandun of course! Wilfridselsey (talk) 16:22, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

• PatGallacher so it is not confusing for the closing admin you should strike out your support above if you are now opposing the move. However I would urge you to reconsider again as the usage in modern reliable sources overwhelmingly describe this battle as the "Battle of Edington" and it is modern reliable sources not Victorian ones that we should be aiming to emulate. -- PBS (talk) 04:48, 18 February 2012 (UTC)
• Comment. I went into the Bodleian today and checked the ASC, Asser's life of Alfred, and Simeon of Durham, which are agreed as the three primary sources, and they all have Ethandun, variously spelt. Ethandun is the spelling from the Life, which is in Latin ("ad locum qui dicitur Ethandun"). The ASC has Æðandun, and Simeon has ''Eððandun. I mentioned "Adderandum" above. Stevenson, in his edition of Asser, comments wryly "The absurd form Edderandun given by Mr Arnold for Eðandun in both portions of Simeon of Durham in the Rolls Series edition is due to the careless repetition of the reading in Twysden's edition... The MS reads Eððandun, Edðandun. It is obvious that Twysden's transcriber mistook the ð for the compendium for der... Canon Raine printed Ederderandun, by a similar error." Reading what the editors of the primary sources say, it is fairly clear what has happened with the name of this battle: to begin with, it was always called "Ethandun", which is what the primary sources say. There was no reason to call it anything else. Camden (perhaps correctly) identified Ethandun with Edington in Wiltshire, but this was much disputed. By the early 20th century a consensus was forming which favoured Edington being indeed Ethandun, so references to the "Battle of Edington" began to appear. One result of this consensus was that translators, both from the Old English of the ASC and the Latin of the Life, began to "translate" Ethandun as "Edington", which it would surely have been better if they had not done. Later historians cited translations of the primary sources, so were citing "Edington", and some even considered the matter settled. I have to say, from my reading today it is clearer to me that Edington (Wiltshire) is a very strong candidate to be Ethandun, BUT the identification is essentially speculative and faute de mieux. All in all, I still agree with G. K. Chesterton that "I cannot even tell you for certain whether it is the name of a forest or a town or a hill", so I prefer to keep the name as Ethandun. The article can benefit from this discussion, and I'll try to improve it over the weekend. Moonraker (talk) 00:09, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

• See my comment above on Waterloo. You are not addressing the naming of this article through the policy and guidance given by WP:AT and its guideline. Instead you are arguing that we should not use the name commonly used in modern reliable sources, but base it on a study of the primary sources. If the majority modern academic literature was with you, there would not be such a paucity of sources returned by Google. The title of this article is not meant to make a statement about what is the truth but it is mean to reflect what is used in reliable English language sources. If you want the name to remain at "Battle of Ethandun" with or without an "e" at the end, you need to bring some late 20th or 21st century scholarly sources to the table that recommend using or use that name. For examples this 21st century Oxford University publication for a general audience uses "Battle of Edington":

• Pollington, Stephen (2010). "Battle of Edington". In Rogers, Clifford (ed.). The Oxford Encyclopedia of Medieval Warfare and Military Technology. Vol. 1. Oxford University Press. pp. 13, 14. ISBN 9780195334036.

-- PBS (talk) 04:33, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

• Moonraker thanks for the interesting and useful comments on your research. I look forward to them being transcribed into the article.

  I guess your argument is that we do not know for sure that Ethandun is the same place as Edingdon(Wilts) therefore we should stick with Ethandun untill there is some solid evidence that the two are the same? We already have some precedence for this in the AS domain, for example, the Battle of Mercredesburne is a battle that we are not sure of the location so we stick with the OE name. As I said above, all the (modern) AS scholars I could check on refer to it as Edington now so I feel that we should go with them. I know Kinross described it as Ethandun but he is a Chartered Accountant/ Publisher with a history degree!

  The references I have are: Asser, Life of Alfred Ch.56 for the Battle; the will of Alfred S 1507, leaving Ethandun to his wife; Charter S.646 referring to a meeting held at Edington in 957 by kings councillors ; a charter giving land from Edington to Romsey Abbey in 968 S.765 and the Domesday entry for Romsey Abbey's holding of the land at Edington (Edendone). Whereas the Domesday book has Edington, in Somerset, as Eduuinetone.Wilfridselsey (talk) 12:16, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

• See Battle of Cynwit where we have decided to go with what the earliest sources call it rather than the modern name of its presumed location, Cannington Hill. PatGallacher (talk) 16:13, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

• If the article title of that battle article is not under the name used in modern reliable sources, then it too should be moved, it is not justification for mistitling this article. The whole point of the title of an article is not to engage in OR, or to use a name popular in the past, but to give it a name that is easily found by someone who is familiar with the battle but is not necessarily an academic expert on the subject. -- PBS (talk) 23:19, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

• Not necessarily disputing that, but someone who is familiar with the battle but is not an academic expert may well have come across it first in historical fiction. Hodges and Chesterton both call it Ethandune, and Hodges calls the earlier battle Kynwit. PatGallacher (talk) 10:58, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

• As most modern reliable sources use the name "Battle of Edington", modern fiction is likely to follow their lead. Eg Bernard Cornwell in "The Pale Horseman" uses the name of Edington and, as is his want, at the end of his books explains his choice of name is based on a work by the military historian John Peddie (1999) "Alfred Warrior King". -- PBS (talk) 01:24, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

• Still opposed. I suspect we can all agree that the 20th century sources make a strong case for "Ethandun" being Edington in Wiltshire, and also that that does not amount to certainty. In those circumstances, we must surely have some discretion in the matter of naming, and common sense seems to me to call for erring on the side of caution. "Ethandun" cannot possibly be wrong, whereas "Edington" carries the risk of being just that. Most of the latest sources do indeed refer to "Edington", but the more comprehensive and specialist ones refer also to "Ethandun" (which it would be a major omission for them not to do). Lacking certainty, in my view from an objective point of view it might seem blinkered to treat the balance of the more general references to "Edington" and "Ethandun(e)" as trumping the primary sources, which all have "Ethandun". (If the answer to that is that "Edington" risks being wrong in absolute terms but that it is the correct choice in terms of the English Wikipedia's policy, then could it be that the policy lacks the necessary subtlety?) I am much less familiar with the Battle of Cynwit but would wish to apply the same principle there. Moonraker (talk) 00:06, 20 February 2012 (UTC)
• Note Stevenson may have said that "So far, there is nothing to prove the identity of this Eðandun with Edington" but he goes on to say that "there can be little reason for questioning it".Wilfridselsey (talk) 20:23, 29 February 2012 (UTC)
• Still slightly for. I have to say that with PatGallacher and Moonraker opposing and PBS and myself supporting we seem to be at somewhat of a stalemate! I will restate my argument for. The only versions of Assers life we have is a transcription, the original was burnt in a fire, but it does say the battle was at Ethandun. Alfred had lands in the Edington (Wilts) area and left Eðandune to his wife in his will (Alfred's will is original), the land left to Alfred's wife was given to Romsey Abbey the charter recording the transaction lists it as Edyndon, the Domesday Book shows Romsey Abbey having land at Edendone(Wilt'schire) at the time of Edward and 1086. Edington, Somerset is listed in Domesday as Eduuinetone, however Heddington, Wilts is listed as Eðintone (when copying from OE to Latin the scribes would transpose the ð to a 'd', 'y' or 'th'). Thus I would say that the strongest evidence for the battle field is in the Edington, Wilts area. My other point is that most modern Anglo-Saxon historians now say that it was in Edington, Wilts. Wilfridselsey (talk) 11:14, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

• Indeed, William Henry Stevenson runs through all of that in his edition of Asser of 1904 and gives his sources for the original documents he refers to. For Alfred's Will he has "Cart. Sax. ii. 178, 24". He also notes that Edington in Wiltshire was written as "Ethendun" in 1280/81 (Inquisitio post mortem I Edward I no. 42). In preferring Edington (Wilts) over the other candidates he mentions Edington (Somerset), Eddington (Berkshire), Heddington (Wilts) and Yatton Keynell and finds them all less likely, as "none of them satisfy the first requirement, that of having borne the name Ethandun". He than adds "So far, there is nothing to prove the identity of this Eðandun with Edington". It's really a question of whether there is now enough certainty to justify changing the name of the battle to tie in with the best guess as to where it was. Stevenson and others who thought as he did left it as "Ethandun". Do we know of anything significant which has turned the scale since? Moonraker (talk) 07:16, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

• I do not think that there has been any significant additions to the knowledge base since Stevenson's time, just a re-analysis of what I have already outlined. The Starkey mutilated bodies thing looks a bit of a red herring. I notice there is a reworking of his book available at Google if you want to check it out, I don't think that it's citable as he does not provide any decent references. More interesting is the recent book (see pp. 309-312) by Ryan Lavelle who actually provides a useful analysis of this subject, including a table with all the suggested locations for Ethandun. It seems that we should add Slaughterford(Wilts), Eddington(Berks) and Michampton(Glos) to our list. I also think that Joanna Parker's book provides some useful background into the Victorians love affair with Alfred and why they were suggesting all sorts of locations for Ethandun. Both of these authors support Edington, Wilts as the location by the way! For Lavelle the key seems to be, during the reign of Eadwig, where in Charter S.646 it refers to a meeting at the vill which is called Eðandun (uilla que dicitur Eðandun) in which Eadwig invoked 'the gift of divine grace and the example of the lineage of my ancestors'.Wilfridselsey (talk) 14:36, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

Note - I pulled the first six books relating to the period off my shelves - and ALL six called this the battle of Edington. They were - Kirby's Earliest English Kings (p. 175), John's Reassessing Anglo-Saxon England (p. 75), Yorke's Wessex in the Early Middle Ages (p. 111), Blair's Introduction to Anglo-Saxon England (3rd ed.) (p. 75), Pollard's Alfred the Great (although he does list in the index "earlier Ethandun" but does not use that name in the text, (p. 263, etc.), and Abels Alfred the Great (see index, many mentions). None except for Pollard even mentions Ethandun, and his mention appears to support the fact that common usage now is to use Edington. I then checked Stenton Anglo-Saxon England (3rd ed. 1971) even though it is a bit older and it uses Edington also. The Blackwell Encyclopaedia of Anglo-Saxon England entry on Alfred (written by Yorke) uses Edington. Wormald's entry in the Oxford Dictionary of National Biography on Alfred (here if you have a UK library card) uses Edington. Costambeys' entry in the ODNB for Guthrum uses Edington. In short, I can't find any modern secondary sources that use Ethandun - there may be some out there, but they would appear to be outnumbered by the usage of Edington - especially in the three main biographies of Alfred I consulted. Ealdgyth - Talk 16:51, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

Note about closing the discussion

This was moved without a requested-move discussion in 2009, and currently there is no consensus to move it back, so further input would be very helpful. I've therefore asked Philip if he can request comment from the relevant Wikiproject(s). SlimVirgin ^{TALK|CONTRIBS} 19:57, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Coordinates wrong?

The geographic coordinates currently shown for the battle (51° 26′ 25″ N, 2° 14′ 32″ W) indicate a place in the fields quite near Chippenham but rather a long way from Edington. If it is worthwhile having geographic coordinates at all for a battle of which the site is controversial, perhaps they should point to Bratton Camp (51° 15′ 49.95″ N, 2° 8′ 34.49″ W) near Edington, where, according to the apparently prevalent view, the battle took place.

Frans Fowler (talk) 20:03, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

Done -- I eventually found where to do it. --Frans Fowler (talk) 21:21, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: not moved. Consensus has not changed over the last two years, rather it is far clearer now. Andrewa (talk) 16:24, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

---

Battle of Edington → Battle of Ethandune – This issue was discussed 2 years ago, but the discussion was confused and inconclusive. "Ethandune" (with minor spelling variations) is definitely the term used by various primary sources, and although nowadays most historians believe that the battle took place at the modern village of Edington, even now opinion is not unanimous on this and other sites have been proposed. The term "Battle of Ethandune" is used on the monument on the presumed site at Edington, and in some works of historical fiction e.g. G.K. Chesterton's "Ballad of the Vale of the White Horse" and C. Walter Hodge's novel "The Marsh King". PatGallacher (talk) 21:23, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

"The Marsh King" was written nearly 50 years ago, the "Ballad of the Vale of the White Horse" over 100 years ago, both by authors with an interest in history. If you read any up to date books or papers on the subject, by modern historians, then it is referred to as the "Battle of Edington". On this basis alone I think that we should remain with the status quo. There is a discussion, in the article lead, to explain the link between Ethandun and Edington and a section on 'location' so I think that we have it well covered. Wilfridselsey (talk) 07:29, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose I'm not normally a fan of the Google Ngram but in this case it appears to show the evolution clear.[5] It appears that prior to 1950, there was a split usage with a likely preference to Battle of Ethandune. However, after the 1950s it became Battle of Edington and by the 1980s the clear favourite was the current title. The Google books stats seem to show the same when looking at sources from 1980 to present day. "Battle of Ethandune" -wikipedia, 544 hits[6], "Battle of Ethandun" -wikipedia 413 hits [7] "Battle of Edington" -wikipedia 3770 hits[8].--Labattblueboy (talk) 22:07, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

• Reply I note that we have Battle of Ellandun and Battle of Cynwit at their historic titles, not their presumed modern locations. (These were both important battles involving the West Saxons around the same time.) PatGallacher (talk) 01:19, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

• Comment It is true that we use the original OE name for places where the modern equivalent is not known for sure. However I believe that historians now agree that Edington was the site of the battle, based largely on the trail of evidence that we have outlined in the "Location of the battle" section. Wilfridselsey (talk) 11:35, 24 April 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose I have checked the indexes of half a dozen leading works such as Stenton's Anglo-Saxon England and Abels' Alfred the Great, and they all spell it Edington. I think this is the accepted spelling. Dudley Miles (talk) 16:54, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Edington/Ethandun Consistency

The Battle of Edington article calls it the Battle of Edington; the King Alfred's Tower article calls it the Battle of Ethandun (User Dzw49 having changed Edington to Ethandun in the King Alfred's Tower article in February, 2009). On the Talk page for King Alfred's Tower I'm suggesting the reference(s) there be changed back to Edington and I'm mentioning it on the Battle of Edington Talk page because there has been much discussion about Edington v Ethandun

Frans Fowler (talk) 03:11, 25 December 2014 (UTC)

Assessment comment

The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:Battle of Edington/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. ErikTheBikeMan (talk) 14:48, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Last edited at 14:48, 5 October 2008 (UTC). Substituted at 09:09, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

The battle in fiction

I am puzzled by the reference to the battle being featured in Bernard Cornwell's novel the lastThe Last Kingdom, as that novel ends two years prior to the battle taking place. While the battle does feature significantly in the The Saxon Stories series, it is the second novel in the series The Pale Horseman that covers the events leading up to and during the battle and which sees the series' hero and narrator Uhtred of Bebbanburg participate in the battle with his allies. The battle is an important event in the series, not least as two key characters die in it. I suspect some of the confusion is that the TV adaptation of the novels is also called The Last Kingdom.Dunarc (talk) 22:59, 3 August 2019 (UTC)

I think you will find that quite a few Wikipedia articles include an "in fiction" section. I note that this section includes an important work by an important writer, G.K. Chesterton. I question whether all the references given are invalid. PatGallacher (talk) 22:13, 18 June 2021 (UTC)

Some articles include lists of references in popular fiction, but not high quality ones such as Henry II of England, which is an FA. This has a discussion of cultural depictions with reliable sources, not in list form, and a link to a separate article, Cultural depictions of Henry II of England, for those interested. This model could apply to the Edington article. The Chesterton ref and maybe the Cornwell one are probably discussed in reliable sources which could be cited, and the other books could be hived off to a new article, Cultural depictions of the Battle of Edington. Dudley Miles (talk) 07:09, 19 June 2021 (UTC)

Either this sort of material is encyclopedic or it isn't. Some reasonable quality articles do include a "popular culture" section e.g. Henry III of England. Whether this material is hived off is a separate issue, mainly determined by the length of the articles. PatGallacher (talk) 17:10, 19 June 2021 (UTC)

Henry III has a popular culture section as text (not a list) with reliable references explaining why the depictions are significant, like Henry II but with a slightly different title, and as I suggested for this article. Dudley Miles (talk) 17:34, 19 June 2021 (UTC)

Battle of Trafalgar and Battle of Flodden have similar sections, a list of occurrences in popular culture. I'm not disputing that this could be improved, but that doesn't justify taking a hatchet to it. PatGallacher (talk) 20:15, 19 June 2021 (UTC)

Whether some articles have lists is not relevant. Many articles have unsatisfactory sections, but that is not a justification for adding more. Referenced discussions of a subject in popular culture are a useful addition to articles. Lists of unreferenced trivia are not. Our aim should be to make Wikipedia a first rate encyclopedia, not a ragbag of trivia. Dudley Miles (talk) 20:27, 19 June 2021 (UTC)