Talk:Battle of Mercredesburne

	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 articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Military history: British / European C‑class

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

C

This article has been rated as C-class on the project's quality scale.

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:
/
	British military history task force
	European military history task force

Sussex Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Sussex, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Sussex 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.SussexWikipedia:WikiProject SussexTemplate:WikiProject SussexSussex-related articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

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 articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Anthropology: Oral tradition

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Anthropology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Anthropology 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.AnthropologyWikipedia:WikiProject AnthropologyTemplate:WikiProject AnthropologyAnthropology articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale.
	This article is supported by Oral tradition taskforce.

Untitled

The only sources that mention Ælle of Sussex were written 3 to 4 centuries later and are too uncertain to put dates to these events. I am doubtful if there is any evidence to support this article.--Charles (talk) 17:17, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've put forward two links to well trusted websites. I don't really see what your problem is. (Seafordrulez (talk) 16:20, 21 April 2009 (UTC))[reply]

I don't know about trusted websites, they talk about Arthur for goodness sake. More like a regurgitation of old myths.--Charles (talk) 16:47, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

And he has his own Wikipedia page. Should that be deleted. (Seafordrulez (talk) 17:57, 21 April 2009 (UTC))[reply]

Of course not. It is perfectly acceptable to write about mythical characters and events as long as the lack of contemporary sources is made clear, as it is on the Arthur page. There just are not the records to attribute precise dates or places to possible events in the post Roman period. A lot of history that was taught in schools and found in reference books fifty years ago has seen been proved to be bunk.--Charles (talk) 21:47, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well prove it to be a bunk and I'll delete it. But at the moment its just your opinion. If you think this article can be improved, please do so. (Seafordrulez (talk) 16:50, 22 April 2009 (UTC))[reply]

The usual foundation legend of Sussex is provided by the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle, A.D. 477. This year came Ælle to Britain, with his three sons, Cymen, and Wlenking, and Cissa, in three ships; landing at a place that is called Cymenshore. There they slew many of the Welsh; and some in flight they drove into the wood that is called Andred'sley. The chronicle goes on to describe Ælle's battle with the British in 485 near the bank of Mercredesburne, and his siege of Pevensey in 491 after which the inhabitants were massacred. Morris speculated that the name Mercredesburne meant boundary of the treaty area this is about the Anglo Saxons being given land and goods in return for defending against the Pictish raiders see Gildas Ruin of Britain for example. From the archaeology the settlement area is believed to have been between the Ouse and the Cuckmere valleys. The main candidate for Cymenshore is off Selsey completely in the wrong place, however the support for this is derived from a couple of charters a few centuries later that refere to Cymenshore (and one of those is a forgery). Mercredesburne is an important battle as part of the foundation myth of Sussex, however it also is part of the Anglo Saxon foederati rebellion story which has more substance. Wilfridselsey (talk) 18:16, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"Mythical"

The article begins with the words "The mythical foundation of the Kingdom of the South Saxons is provided by the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle...". May I suggest that we replace 'mythical' with, for example, 'legendary' or 'historically disputed'? I think 'mythical' is too strong an adjective, bearing in mind that the notion that the AS Chronicle's version is false is still only a theory. We simply don't know. Butcherscross (talk) 10:40, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Legend is probably nearer the mark, Ælle is mentioned by Bede in his history as bretwalda, but nothing about battles or where he landed. It is likely that the early history was taken from oral sources according to Jones (see citation in article). I think if nothing else as the Welch citation, in the article, says legend rather than myth perhaps legendary foundation would work better? Wilfridselsey (talk) 11:57, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Wilfridselsey, I've taken the plunge and altered it to 'legendary'. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Butcherscross (talk • contribs) 17:31, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Battle of Mercredesburne. 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) 18:52, 28 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]