Talk:Battle of Maldon

East Anglia Mid‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject East Anglia, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of East Anglia on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.East AngliaWikipedia:WikiProject East AngliaTemplate:WikiProject East AngliaEast Anglia
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Norway Mid‑importance

	Norway portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Norway, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Norway on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.NorwayWikipedia:WikiProject NorwayTemplate:WikiProject NorwayNorway
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Anglo-Saxon Kingdoms High‑importance

	Anglo-Saxon England portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Anglo-Saxon Kingdoms, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Anglo-Saxon Kingdoms on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Anglo-Saxon KingdomsWikipedia:WikiProject Anglo-Saxon KingdomsTemplate:WikiProject Anglo-Saxon KingdomsAnglo-Saxon Kingdoms
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Norse history and culture High‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Norse history and culture, a WikiProject related to all activities of the North Germanic peoples, both in Scandinavia and abroad, prior to the formation of the Kalmar Union in 1397. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.Norse history and cultureWikipedia:WikiProject Norse history and cultureTemplate:WikiProject Norse history and cultureNorse history and culture
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Military history: European / Nordic / Medieval

This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history

This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-class status:
Referencing and citation: criterion not met Coverage and accuracy: criterion met Structure: criterion met Grammar and style: criterion met Supporting materials: criterion met

Associated task forces:
/
	European military history task force
	Nordic military history task force
	Medieval warfare task force (c. 500 – c. 1500)

Middle Ages Low‑importance

	Middle Ages portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Middle Ages, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the Middle Ages on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Middle AgesWikipedia:WikiProject Middle AgesTemplate:WikiProject Middle AgesMiddle Ages
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Other sources

"...that first [payment] was 10,000 pounds..." Although the word "þusend" seems to be the modern "thousend" it ist very unlikely that in this time somebody might have owned so much money, gold or silver. Not even the kings! So therefore it seems to me, "þusend" should be translated as "dozen" "x.þusend punda" would be then "ten dozen pounds" 120 pounds of silver (or whatever) is a much more reasonable ammount. (Waechter im All, Aug.10 2007, 13:45)

English strength of numbers

>A source from the 12th century, Liber Eliensis, written by the monks at Ely, suggests that Byrhtnoth had only a few men to command: >"he was neither shaken by the small number of his men, nor fearful of the multitude of the enemy". Not all sources indicate such a >disparity in numbers.

Can the battle summary in the blue box be changed to reflect this multiplicity of opinions? It currently just says "a few men".

Year of this Battle

A program on History Channel that aired Thurs. March 19th, 2009, says that this event took place in 881 AD, not 991 AD. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.192.198.104 (talk) 03:37, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, in all manuscripts of the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle in which the event appears, C being the earliest attestation I believe, it is clearly indicated as having taken place in 991. Honestly, I trust Wikipedia more than I do the History channel these days and wouldn't modify the former to reflect the claims of the latter without some other source. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.123.138.80 (talk) 19:53, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"[E]xtra-academic success of The Battle of Maldon"

This recent addition is on the wrong page. It discusses an "investigation of the poem’s reuse and rewriting", and as such should be on The Battle of Maldon, not here.--Old Moonraker (talk) 10:45, 18 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"ofermōd" in the poem

On the word "ofermōd": In Danish language "overmod" means 'overly confident' and to be in this state can course one to become 'reckless' and commit 'hubris'.

To be 'overmodig' is not seen as dishonourable thing in itself, as it also means something like being 'overly eager' and therefore it can actually be used as sort of an acceptable excuse, when one makes mistakes. At least in the Danish language. The hubris interpretation of things would then only apply to the religious or superstitious of course, but that would probably include most common people at the time I guess? Explaining the defeat like that, would leave room for saving Byrhtnoth's honour and blaming it partly on the Gods punishments, rather than him as an individual alone. (Be careful when using explanations based in Christianity alone. Hubris is a thought-pattern that relates to any kind of religious mindset, also a pagan one.)

That is what I read, when I use the Danish word 'overmod' at least. RhinoMind (talk) 11:10, 12 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Nice

Only 90's kids will remember this!

Will2022 (talk 13:38, 28 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Battle of Maldon. 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}}).

Y 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) 18:38, 28 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Day and month of the battle

"The Battle of Maldon took place three weeks before Whitsun on 11 August 991 CE."

Can this be right? Whitsun is seven weeks after Easter, which would place Easter Day 991 in early July. The latest possible date for Easter seems to be 25 April (see List of dates for Easter) - and thus for Whitsun, 13 June. Narky Blert (talk) 17:53, 26 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

An online friend has found this site, according to which Easter 991 was 5 April. If it is correct, then Whitsun 991 would have been 24 May. Narky Blert (talk) 22:10, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Most books and reputable websites such as Battlefields Trust http://www.battlefieldstrust.com/resource-centre/viking/battleview.asp?BattleFieldId=23 go for an August date, though with some dispute about 10th or 11th August. So it appears the Whitsun comment is the bit that is wrong and should be removed. Monstrelet (talk) 09:22, 31 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Which dating sources has more amount of reliable sources? OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 02:50, 1 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

As I understand it, the only primary sources are the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle which just says "991. This year was Ipswich ravaged; and after that, very shortly, was Britnoth the ealdorman slain at Maldon" [1]. The other source is The Battle of Maldon, a part of a poem which may or may not be contemporary, and gives no dating at all, as far as I can see. It's a bit puzzling how anyone could even guess at a particular month and day. Alansplodge (talk) 13:13, 2 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Aha, puzzle solved. Quote from: Foard, Glenn (10 September 2003). "MALDON BATTLE AND CAMPAIGN - Information from The UK Battlefields Resource Centre" (PDF). www.battlefieldstrust.com. The Battlefields Trust. Retrieved 2 June 2017. Calendars of Abbey of Ely, Winchester and Ramsey. The calendar of Ely, which Brihtnoth had close associations, gives the 10th August, the currently accepted date, while the other two give 11th August for Brihtnoth's death and hence for the battle. (p. 17). Alansplodge (talk) 17:56, 2 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Many apologies User:Monstrelet, I see that you had already linked the Battlefield Trust report, but I lazily didn't read the whole thing and so missed what I was looking for! Alansplodge (talk) 18:21, 2 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

A more weighty source is "English Heritage Battlefield Report: Maldon 991" (PDF). historicengland.org.uk. English Heritage. 1995. Retrieved 2 June 2017. The abbey calendars of Winchester and Ramsey record the death of Brihtnoth on 11 August 991 while that of Ely cites 10 August. The battle may therefore have been fought on either 10 or 11 August 991, but given the close connection deriving from Brihtnoth's substantial patronage of Ely, and his burial there, it seems probable that the Abbey must once have known the date of the Ealdorman's death with some accuracy (p. 5) Alansplodge (talk) 18:18, 2 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The only source I could find which connects the battle with Whitsun is In the Land of Giants (2015) by Max Adams, which possibly used Wikipedia as a source. Therefore, I intend to remove any reference to Whitsun as suggested above. Alansplodge (talk) 15:55, 4 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Now done, I have also added "Chronolgy" and "Topography" subsections to the "Other sources" section, using the refs quoted above. Alansplodge (talk) 17:07, 4 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

TY all :-) August makes military sense to me - enough time to raid Ipswich beforehand, and to get back home to bring the crops in afterwards. May (or even June) looked way too early in the year. I'd guess that one of the Vikings' targets may have been food animals; the spring births would have been better grown by August.

FWIW, I don't know of any significant Christian festival which was being celebrated in C10 four weeks either before or after 10/11 August. The Assumption is 15 August, but that's a relatively recent feast day. Narky Blert (talk) 20:57, 10 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Battle of Maldon. 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:

Corrected formatting/usage for http://www8.georgetown.edu/departments/medieval/labyrinth/library/oe/texts/a9.html
Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080511173948/http://www.maldonsx.freeserve.co.uk/Maeldune/battle_of_maldon.htm to http://www.maldonsx.freeserve.co.uk/Maeldune/battle_of_maldon.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

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.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 03:41, 16 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]