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 articles
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 articles
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 articles
This ain't a good title. Create two separate articles; name isn't enough to lump two battles together; I even thought you were describing the two encounters of the battle fought in 918 - Calgacus22:50, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Firstly, the article was titled such because the Constantine II of Scotland article linked to it as such. Secondly, what is the basis for Gaelicising the names of the Scottish and Briton rulers? They are never referred to as such in English and nobody who doesn't speak Gaelic knows how to pronounce them. Finally, why change the name of the Viking rulers to other hard-to-pronounce forms not common in English? Srnec00:17, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
As a rule, following most serious scholars in the area, I give medieval Gaelic rulers their Gaelic names (and Norse ones their Norse names [Raegnald is neither the common modern English name, nor a contemporary one; the reasons you used that form are best known to you and, i'm guessing, your source]). I do likewise with Norse names, and the reason is because these were actually their names. No offence or anything, but the statement "They are never referred to as such in English" is simply wrong, and reveals how narrowly you've read, and, moreover, that you don't know what you're talking about. The names are not Gaelicized, they are deanglicized. None of these rulers spoke English, and certainly not modern English. I could cite dozens, in fact, scores of articles and books in which these forms are used (one example, an American author, is Benjamin Hudson's Celtic Kings of Scotland). - Calgacus16:22, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I think your "rule" is a silly one. The Scottish kings' articles are all titled with their English names. Your opening statement about "serious" scholars betrays to me that we have very different perceptions about serious scholarship. Why not title Henry II of England Henri II because he was a Francophone? Why not give them all Latin names, since that is what would have appeared in most chronologies and charters and other contemporary documents? When I wrote that "they are never referred to as such in English", I thought it was obvious that I did not mean never referred to as such since you had referred to them as such. I mean that that is not how they are referred to in next to all "popular" works, like Wikipedia. We do not call medieval rulers by their contemporary names in most cases. We give them English names. I could site as many references, I am sure, for their English names, but that is pointless. I concede that my use of the word "never" was sloppy. But I do not concede that their names should remain that way unless you plan on changing every article mentioning such Scottish monarchs or Viking rulers or any other medieval rulers who are called by noncontemporary names on Wikipedia. Finally, to state that I am narrowly read is precisely absurd. I am narrowly read only in the sense that I do not read Scottish history. My source was, as stated, Anglo-Saxon history by a very distinguished (please, do not say outdated) author. I surmise that you are as narrowly read on other topics, so who cares? The Gaelic and Norse forms are hard-to-pronounce and not common (though please note that in recognition of the fact that I have seen such hard-to-pronounce Scandinavian names many times in most Viking-related works I did not cite their rarity as a reason for abandoning them, only the fact that they are too difficult to pronounce). Though I will only continue to assert that the Gaelic ones should be abandoned for more usual forms for a popular encyclopedia. Srnec03:08, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I don't mind if you're narrowly read in this area. As you say, everyone is narrowly read somewhere. But you seemed to be claiming otherwise, authoratively stating that these forms are never used. You've admitted that this claim was not true, so there is no problem. One of the problems of giving "English" (or rather, modern Anglicized names) is that they are not available for most medieval Gaelic names. So while Máel Coluim can be Malcolm, what on earth does one do with "Máel Snechtai"? And you can't have Malcolm and Máel Snechtai on the same page (both names consist of the same Gael first element, Máel (i.e. "tonsured one" + genitive)). As I've written about more obscure figures in Scottish Gaelic history on wiki, I've discovered that Anglicization is simply not practical; besides, most people who are concerned with guys like Máel Snechtai will recognized and prefer his original name. Ignoring all that, Anglicization is only irregularly applied on wikipedia; a good example is Władysław II Jagiełło. Despite the fact that the man was Lithuanian (I'm not even sure how much Polish he ever learned), he is given his Polish name and title, which are Polonized with letters that do not even exist in English. Jogaila, unlike many Scottish Gaelic figures from the Middle Ages, is famous in English and frequently written about, yet no-one has objected to his absurd title. Henry II is interesting. Norman Davies, for instance, does render him as Henri. This is a little different though. In English historiography, this practice is taken for granted; and at least with Henry II, most of his subjects as King of England were English-speakers, and the names are relatively close; in Scottish historiography, perhaps following their Irish colleagues, it is becoming increasingly unacceptable to use Anglicizations, one of the reasons being is that there is an implication that doing so divorces them misleadingly from their actual culture. In the wiki world, giving Anglicized forms means that these forms proliferate on non-English wikis; the whole situation turns into a nightmare; you get things like "Earl of Moray" on the German wiki for the 11th century rulers of northern Scotland; there's simply no reason to do this in German; Earl was neither the title these rulers took (Mormaer or ri), nor the German equivalent (Graf, Herzog, etc), and English was neither the language of the 11th century Scottish Gaels, nor of modern Germans. Anyways, these are just a few reasons why Anglicizing Gaelic names is no simple matter, and requires much more thought than the "Anglicize Everything" policy. In general, it's more acceptable to anglicize the names of Scottish kings, but not as far as turning Aed into Hugh [as medieval Anglo-Norman latin scribes would do] and a couple of others, but the rest you just give Gaelic names (this is accepted wiki policy); however I personally will never or rarely do even this, for all the reasons mentioned and because it's just crude; it doesn't mean, though, that I'll get into a revert war if you change back Constantine in a page were it doesn't provoke inconsistencies. So you needn't worry that this is a dispute. And another thing, wikipedia is only as popular as each individual article; although the quality of many of the most popular articles is limited by the lowest common denominator of editor, there is little basis for calling many of the other articles "popular" (e.g. the many fine medical articles written and consulted by med. students and doctors; many of the more obscure historical articles; etc ). Have a good evening. - Calgacus15:09, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that there are issues here that are not so easily settled. Should Moslem rulers such as Saladin (Yusuf ibn Ayub) be referred to by the English Joseph son of Job? Or what of rulers with no real English equivalents, such as the Spanish Sanchos? Should the ñ be retained in the Ordoños, though it isn't an English letter? However, aside from these, we refer to Spanish monarchs with names like Henry, Philip, Ferdinand, and many other English versions of their Spanish names. While I have no problem referring to Scottish rulers by their Gaelic names when there is no Anglicisation in use, I object to referring to a king named with a name so well known in English as Constantine by his Gaelic name. It may be prevailing, but where does it stop? Do we Gaelicise William the Lion and Edgar and Edmund? I think the Gaelic preference leads to illogical conclusions and thus Anglicisations are preferred. I also decided, while I was at the library today, to look up something about the use of Gaelic versus English in the Oxford Companion to Scottish History (by Michael Lynch). It, like Wikipedia, titles articles with the English names of Scottish kings and gives their Gaelic names in brackets. It also refers, as far as I have read, to the kings by their English names in other articles. I looked up the Battles of Corbridge and it interestingly informed me that Gaelic was probably a minority language within the kingdom at that time. I have one question, therefore. Did Constantine II speak Gaelic or Pictish or both? Finally, the Oxford companion refers to Raegnald as Regnald, an obvious simplification of the ae in Raegnald. Thus, I believe we should change the Norse names to more easily pronounced English equivalents and the name of Causantín should be Anglicised. I will make these changes, but I will leave Domnall alone because Wikipedia consistently titles the kings of Strathclyde as such (are they Gaelic? I thought Strathclyde was Brythonic). As an aside, it's sad that the English encyclopedia is sometimes translated without actually being translated, but that should not control how it is written. Srnec02:36, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Like I said before, I'm not going to get into a revert war or anything over Constantine. Yes, he was a Gaelic speaker, there is no doubt about that whatsoever. We don't know if the majority of people in northern Britain were Gaels in 900; the assumption is generally that they were (i looked up Corbridge in this book, and I can't find the claim; the claim is a baseless one in any case), but as for everything in this period, the evidence is so miniscule that we can't really know for certain. The decline of "Pictish", whatever that was (we only have one source that tells us there even was a Pictish language [i.e. Bede]) isn't in itself datable, but the beginnings of the Gaelicization of eastern Pictland date to the early 8th century (if not earlier), and not to the 9th century as is often supposed (if you would like references for this, I'll happily supply them), and there were Gaelic praise poems written for Pictish king in the later 7th century (see Clancy, Triumph Tree). As for Strathclyde, this more controversial. The evidence is even slimmer. There are two schools of thought on the matter; one led by Alfred Smyth has Gaelic rulers of Strathclyde from the mid to late 9th century onwards; the other, led by Alan MacQuarrie, holds that, except for a couple of Gaelic rulers, Strathclyde retained its native rulers. It should be noted that the name for the Kingdom after the Norse-Gaelic sack of Dumbarton changes in the sources from Al Clut to Strathclyde. Welsh would be Ystrad Clud, but it is the version of the name in Gaelic which turns up in sources (compare the occurence of Srath Nid and Ystrad Anent for Gaelic Nithsdale and Cumbric Annandale in the 12th century). The wiki strathclyde list is silly; it does the Strathclyde kings of the 10th century in Gaelic names, but needn't do so necessarily; we know for certain, even MacQuarrie agress, that Domnall I mac Áeda was a Gael; but not Domnall II. Domnall corresponds to Welsh Dyfnwal, and there is no reason to regard these names as different (for instance, a Welsh poem refers to Domnall Brecc of Dalriada as Dyfnwal Frecc). If they were to do Welsh names, they'd have to fix the numbering (this ought to be done anyways, since it is the same name). However, Donald is only an anglicization of Domnall, not of Dyfnwal. Anyways, wiki policy on the matter is that famous guys (such as the kings of Scotland and Spain) ought to be anglicized, but that less common names can appear in native forms. Fair enough, but what does one do when two of these guys appear on the same page? Like I said, I have no problem you anglicizing Causantin to Constantine, but I'm just not going to do it. Anglicization causes more problems than it solves. The simplest thing to do would be to give everyone his or her native name, but I accept its periodic existence (it's just a shame it happens disproportionally to Scots)
The section in the Oxford Companion which I referred to was that on "Anglo-Saxon Relations". For curiosity's sake, why not supply those references? You should edit the Strathclyde list if you can, but how would you do it in such a confusing circumstance as that? I am changing Causantín and Rogvaldr, but not Domnall or the other Viking (what would I change them too?). Thankyou for this constructive (I hope) discussion. Srnec04:03, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
There were two Battles of Corbridge in 914 and 918, see [1], but this article is called Battle of Corbridge and is about the 918 one. First Battle of Corbridge and Second Battle of Corbridge both redirect to this article, even though the First Battle is not mentioned. I am inclined to copy and past the text of this article to the Second Battle page (adding a mention of the first battle) and make this article a redirect to the Second Battle. However, I suspect this is against Wiki rules, so how should I deal with the situation? Dudley Miles (talk) 21:20, 31 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
That very definitely isn't against policy. Reading elsewhere on this talk page I suspect this may have had that problem for several years. I have placed a note on the top of Second Battle of Corbridge to that effect. I'll take care of the disambiguation/movement stuff; can I leave it to you to write an article about First Battle of Corbridge?--Launchballer21:34, 31 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. I doubt whether there is much information about the first battle, but I have plenty of sources so I should be able to find enough for a stub. Dudley Miles (talk) 21:45, 31 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Copy-paste moves are not the way it should be done because they break the page history. There once was content about both battles of Corbridge at this page, but it seems rather doubtful if there ever was a "first battle" distinct from the "second battle". Compare for example newer scholarship here: [2]. Maybe the theory that there were two battles should be mentioned in this article? Huon (talk) 21:59, 31 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
It is certainly worth mentioning that there is a theory that there was only one battle, but it is not true that (as stated in the source you cite) it is just "some historians" who think there were two battles. The two battles are mentioned by all the leading sources I have checked - Stenton's, Anglo-Saxon England p. 333, DNB articles on Ragnall and Æthelflæd, Biographical Dictionary of Dark Age Britain - cited above, Higham, Kingdom of Northumbria. Smyth in Scandinavian York and Dublin discusses the two battles at considerable length. It needs more than a casual phrase to dismiss the leading historians of the period. Dudley Miles (talk) 22:34, 31 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Sources are somewhat ambiguous, but there are plenty explicitly refuting the two-battle theory: [3] and [4], for example. Does any of the others explicitly dismiss the one-battle theory? Huon (talk) 23:10, 31 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
All the sources I have cited state that there were two battles, but you are right that there are more than I thought which argue that there was only one battle - particularly Woolf's From Pictland to Alba. It is curious that Walker and Woolf attack Wainwright's 1950 article, but do not discuss Smyth's detailed analysis of the two battles. At the present stage, I would accept that a single article which makes clear that until recently the consensus was two battles but this has been challenged is the best solution. Dudley Miles (talk) 23:33, 31 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Having checked further, so far as I can see all sources before 2005 say there were two battles, all after then that there was one battle. I will add an explanation of the change of view to the article. Apologies for the confusion. Launcherballer I withdraw my proposal to move the article to Second Battle of Corbridge. Dudley Miles (talk) 09:04, 1 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Downham covers the battle in her book Viking Kings of Britain and Ireland: The Dynasty of Ívarr to A.D. 1014 on pages 91-95, noting the older scholarship of Wainwright, Campbell, and Smyth. She thinks there was likely only one battle, and quotes the modern editor of Historia de Sancto Cuthberto, Johnson-South, who states: the reference to Ragnall’s second victory is extremely cursory ... on the strength of the single word iterum the majority of scholars have supposed that there must have been two battles of Corbridge ... we must consider the possibility that a single battle is being recorded twice here. McGuigan, in his PhD thesis Neither Scotland nor England: Middle Britain, c.850–1150, agrees with Downham and Woolf. Here's a quick quote from page 40 n. 124: Historia de Sancto Cuthberto simply mentions the battle twice because of two distinct acts of territorial dispossession by its victor (the compiler's main interest), HSC, 58–62: c.22, 24; a modern edition and translation, as well as better use of Irish sources by recent historians, seems to have killed the ‘two battles’ of Corbridge theory"; South, HSC, 105–07, Downham, Viking Kings, 91–94; Woolf, Pictland-Alba, 143–44; see Downham, ibid., 92, n.179 for references to earlier interpretations.
