Talk:Óengus II

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Medieval Scotland, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Medieval Scotland 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.Medieval ScotlandWikipedia:WikiProject Medieval ScotlandTemplate:WikiProject Medieval ScotlandMedieval Scotland articles
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the importance scale.

Biography: Royalty and Nobility

	Biography portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography articles
	This article is supported by WikiProject Royalty and Nobility.

Controversy about the man

I don't know who made him "of Dalriada", but it isn't a correct style. Dalriada was destroyed by Óengus I. - Calgacus 18:09, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

For the period of three reigns – Constantine, Oengus, and Drest – the kings of the Picts were also kings of Dál Riada. Most kinglists of the two kingdoms agree on this. I don't know the source of the other story, but it is paralelled on the Scottish flag page.
–Whaleyland 19:28, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dalriada isn't mentioned in contemporary sources after its conquest by King Onuist/Oengus; I'll need to go look at and read around the Dalriadan king lists, which I have in front of me ATM, in M.O. Anderson's great work. It doesn't make much sense to name the king of the Picts after one of his subordinate kingdoms. It'd be like Edward of Wales for Edward II of England. - Calgacus 19:33, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Broun's piece in The St Andrews Sarcophagus ruminates on the possibility of kings from Caus(t)antín to Uen having been added to the Dalriada lists long afterwards. His list of kings of Dalriada goes like this Donncoirce (to 792), Conall mac Tadg (to 807), Conall mac Aedán (to 811), Domnall mac Caus(t)antín (to 835) and Aed mac Boanta (to 839). For the fight between the two Conalls in AU 807 says it was in Kintyre, and doesn't mention Dalriada. If Aed mac Boanta was a king then 839 entry in AU doesn't say so, it simply lumps him and his in with the "men of Fortriu". Broun concludes by saying that this is all debatable and that the Duan Albanach is a shaky reed. I think I'm responsible for the claim that they were kings of Dalriada being up anyway. Mea maxissima culpa. Angus McLellan 20:14, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Pictish Chronicle lists the kings as rulers of both and separate kingdoms and Kenneth I of Scotland is generally listed as a king of Dál Riada before he conquered the divided Pict realms. I have read many histories of Dál Riada and, while the realms had a single king in some instances, I have never read that the Picts conqured Dál Riada. If anything, I've heard the opposite. They came from separate ethnic groups and ruled separate realms. This conversation should probably revert to List of kings of Dalriada if it is questioning the list of kings.
–Whaleyland 21:31, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The "Pictish Chronicle" (i.e. the Picts related documents preserved in the Poppleton Manuscript) is a dated term. The Poppleton Manuscript preserves a "Pictish King-List", shorn off after Cináed mac Ailpín sometime after the reign of King Máel Coluim III (other versions of the Pictish king-list go up to Máel Coluim III), and a list of rulers of the western Scottish Gaels (Dalriada isn't mentioned) with reign lengths beside it. The text has been interfered with, because the three Cináeds are spelled with "K"s, a French innovation to Scotland in the Norman period (Kynedus; Kinet; but Constantínus; Custanín; and every other word beginning with a C). The Dalriadic conquest of the Picts was manufactured in the 10th century in the reign of Causantín II, probably to allign the genre of Gaelic conquest myths with the standard in Ireland, and to connect it to the dynasty of which Causantín II was a part. But Dalriada was conquered by Onuist I of the Picts, and isn't mentioned again in the sources (the claim in his article that Onuist lost control of Dalriada later has little basis in fact). Cináed mac Ailpín was simply just another Gaelic-speaking Pictish ruler. No reference to any "conquest" lies in contemporary sources, where he's styled simply rex Pictorum (king of the Picts). - Calgacus 21:54, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Controversy about the battle

I have not found any historical evidence supporting the legend of the saltire or the identity of the opponent aethelstan. Unless evidence is forthcoming, its important not to give the impression that the legend is factual. Nesbit 04:49, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Web pages of questionable authority place the legendary battle at Athelstanford. Perhaps that is why the Angle leader is identified as Athelstan. But the chronology of Óengus II does not match that of Athelstan of England. I'll remove the reference to Athelstan because the detail gives a false impression of historicity. If you really think the name Athelstan is important to the legend, then put it back but without the link to the English king. Nesbit 16:37, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mais oui!, can you cite any evidence that the legend states the Anglian opponent as specifically Aethelstan of East Anglia? Nesbit 16:07, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's a legend, internal consistency is not part of the deal, is it ? Anyway, if we attempt to impose logic where it doesn't really belong, Guthrum the Old, aka Athelstan of East Anglia, is said to have died c. 890. If he was an adult by 834, that would put him into his 70s when he died. It's possible, barely. But, on the other hand, why would the Picts refer to him as Athelstan if he wasn't baptised with that name until c. 880 ? It seems to me that only "king Athelstan" likely to have impinged on the collective Picto-Scots memory is the obvious one, the victor of Brunanburh. YMMV. Angus McLellan 17:38, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You're right, the internal consistency of the legend is not in itself relevant. But the fact of the legend is. What I'm asking for is verification of what the legend actually is. If the legend says that the opponent is Athelstan of England, then so be it in all its anachronistic glory. Same goes for the more chronologically plausible, but still historically doubtful Aethelstan of East Anglia. But if the legend refers to a historically ambiguous Athelstan then let's leave him in but unlinked to articles about real historical figures. Of course the issue is that legends are not static things, and are often extended and re-constructed in web pages. But I think the point is to find what people believed about the legend at the time it was originally used to justify the selection of the Saltire as a national flag. The way to resolve this is for someone (oh no I guess that's me) to go to a decent library and find a reasonably authoritative analysis of the legend. Nesbit 22:42, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I'm in Brussels, and the national library is unlikely to have much of interest. Perhaps there is something in one of the online digital libraries. If you fancy trying them, the Cornell and University of Michigan Making of America sites have all manner of digitsed C19th material where you might find a telling of the story. Googling for Making of America shows more sites, but I've only ever used the two I linked to. I'll have a look on Gallica tomorrow and see if it has anything. Probably not. Angus McLellan 23:45, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]