Talk:Battle of Brunanburh

2544:

likely have chosen to minimize risk by making landfall in the Dee or Mersey estuaries, both of which are close to Ireland, ideal for running ships ashore, and easily reached with the prevailing wind. It needs to be remembered that AEthelstan had a large and competent fleet, and was (nominally) in control of the seas. 3) The local names of Bromborough and Thingwall come closer to matching the descriptions in the chronicles than anything else; 4) The location is consistent with the likely timeline and the accounts of the pre-battle activities of the invading armies; 5) The location seems logical, given that AEthelstan would have needed to march north and may very well have chosen to base himself at Chester. Later events, such as the homage paid to King Edgar at Chester by "eight kings" suggests that the area came to assume an exceptional (and symbolic) importance in subsequent years. 6) The elevated ground in the vicinity of Bebbington golf course would have offered a classic defensive position such as was favored by armies of the period; furthermore, relics consistent with the period have been found in the area. None of the above are proof as such, but their consistence with the known narrative is quite striking. Other locations usual fail on one or more points.

3031:

kept the photo of Brackenwood golf course (though I don´t think this is relevant). I have looked into Dudley Miles´ objection that this constitutes OR, but I disagree. Setting aside the debate about whether the medieval texts are primary or secondary sources (see above), the new Location section does not refer to material for which no reliable, published sources exist - all the cited medieval texts are available online, in university libraries and in the Casebook. I have cited reliable, published sources that are directly related to the topic of the article, and directly support the material being presented. It does not include any analysis or synthesis of published material that serves to reach or imply a conclusion not stated by the sources; there is in fact no analysis, just quotation from the sources. There is no novel interpretation of primary sources; the proposal merely lists all the location information available in the medieval sources to make straightforward, descriptive statements of facts that can be verified by any educated person with access to the primary sources but without further, specialized knowledge.

2953:. This article does not make clear that there is insufficient evidence for anyone to be confident of their opinions at this time. All we have are the ancient texts and conjecture over what is plausible. I support expansion of the Primary accounts (surely Ancient accounts would be a better name?) section with more relevant material and further discussion (as found in reliable sources) of the texts and their author's proximity to the event. For example part of the chronicle that mentions Dingesmere and all mention Egil´s Saga are omitted despite them being used to justify battle-sites in the Location section. I would also support prefacing the Location section with a summary highlighting that this is a long-running puzzle that has attracted a range of authors. And some generally accepted theory would be good i.e. Burh is probably a fortification and Dingesmere was probably close to the sea. I also support the addition of more proposed sites (again as found in reliable sources). And I also support expansion of the Humber issue currently mentioned in the Background section. 3115:

Firstly, early October is an implausibly precise deduction from the information in the annals, which only give the month Anlaf left Dublin (August) and the year of the battle (937). If the annals are correct it is thus a certain fact (given that Æthelstan had to muster a vast army and march north) that the battle was fought in the autumn or winter of 937. Secondly, Livingston has been widely criticised by historians and reviewers for his pro-Wirral bias (see e.g. Neil McGuigan, Tim Clarkson, Michael Wood), so the fact that only his opinion is quoted at various places in the article could be perceived as a lack of neutrality (as noted by other editors). To redress the balance I had kept the original reference to Livingston (as a note) and added a reference to Wood, who surmised that the battle could have been fought in late October, in November, or even early December. Thirdly, the style of the original text was awkward. Perhaps another editor could find a compromise solution which improves the style and acknowledges our inability to be more precise than autumn/winter.

1933:

entered via the Humber. I know this would be a strange way to enter England, especially if you were coming from Ireland, but I believe someone once noted that John is considered a reliable source for immediately preceding events, so there's no reason why he shouldn't be considered reliable in the case of Brunanburh. I think, personally, that a battle site at Durham would be consistent with a Humber entry. I recall that someone arguing for a different location suggested that Æthelstan may have pursued the army and cornered them. I don't see why that wouldn't be applicable to a Durham location as well. The invaders may have entered the Humber, and Æthelstan rapidly traveled north with his forces, pursued them, and finally fought them at Durham. In any case, this is sort of off-topic and in any case is entirely my own opinion (and therefore OR), so obviously it is not suitable for inclusion in the article. I just think speculation on such things is rather interesting, though.

2152:

that some may overlap, and the resulting need for even further hard work, I would counter, "That's why we're here, isn't it?" I came to this talk page originally stating that there are large gaps in the article. I felt frustrated, and regrettably, perhaps I let it show a little too much. Now that I have delved into a very few sources, I think that sifting through those various complex arguments, uncovering their common threads and presenting them at greater length would be of great benefit to the lay reader. Unfortunately, I personally have nearly zero access to those sources (I can only read those that are offered free on the internet). In this way I am quite representative of the vast bulk of Knowledge readership, I would assume, who lack either the time (everyone is busy) or the actual resources (just as I do) to read any further than this page.

1908:

just remove it completely. Finally, it should be noted that (I believe) only William of Malmesbury recorded that the invaders extensively plundered England. His reliability is questionable; he repeated the same tale he told about Alfred the Great, added some legend-like details, etc. I think Durham is an extremely strong candidate because of the place name; for instance, "Brunanburh" could have derived from "Browneynburh" (or, "fortification near the Browney"). You would just need to change "ow" to "u" and "ey" to "a" to get "Brunanburh". I may not have my theorized original name ("Browneynburh") exactly right (there may not have been a "y", for example), but I think it's easy to imagine how "Brunanburh" could be related to the OE word for "fortification near the Browney".

1893:. The statement that he and his army were on the south coast in August 937 is cited to Cavill 2001. I suggest checking this as it is extremely unlikely. Anglo-Saxon kings did not have standing armies, and there is no known threat on the south coast which would have made it necessary to raise one. Æthelstan's movements before the battle are not known. Foot in her biography has an appendix listing his known locations at different dates, and the only one she could find in 937 was Brunanburh. BTW I do not personally think Durham is likely. The allies are reported to have plundered Æthelstan's territory while he was gathering his forces, which suggests a location further south. 3065:´s suggestions for improving the Primary Accounts section, I´m working on a very brief summary of about 15 of the most important medieval sources in approximately chronological order, endeavouring to avoid anything which could be seen as OR. I´m also adding some comments by modern historians for some of these sources. Neil McGuigan mentioned that the Casebook omits the Beverley accounts, so I´m adding William Ketel and expanding Pseudo-Ingulf. Otherwise all the texts are published in the Casebook. I´d also like to change the section header to “Medieval sources” (or "Medieval texts"). Before I edit the Primary Accounts section, any comments anyone? 1864:

noted that he does seem to have some biases; for instance, it appears that he prefers Bromborough over the other locations, since he included essays in the book (such as Cavill's) dedicated to showing that the battle site was likely Bromborough. Personally, I'm not entirely convinced that the battle site was at Bromborough; I do disagree with most of the other alternatives, but I'm very impressed by Breeze's argument for Durham. So, personally, I think those are the two most likely locations. Back to the point, though, I do think we should make it clear that the statement is Livingston's personal opinion.

4325:

none of these 12th century chroniclers was an eyewitness to events of the 10th century; they all based their accounts on other sources, some lost, some extant. If we were to discredit every chronicle which was the first or only source to mention a fact, we would open up a whole can of worms. Do we discard Dingesmere because it was only mentioned in the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle, or Weondune because it was only mentioned by Symeon of Durham? Clearly not in both cases. By the same token there is no justification for discarding the Humber entry merely because it was first mentioned by John of Worcester.

604: 583: 2372:

to this, that I wonder why this article is a GA nom? I feel the section should open with the history and then the methodology of the search: Burh and Werc = fortress, Dun = hill, Brun = brown or Bruna, that the presumed goal was to liberate Northumbria from English control, how the campaigns of 927 and 934 affect the thinking, discussion on the Humber, where is Dingesmere and how close was it to the battle site. Then we move on to how the limited evidence and often questionable science has generated a large number of possible sites, usually involving a fortification on a hill.

4028:

eventually prove a pivotal find. As the Mersey estuary is thought to have been a Viking stronghold at the time, the discovery could also be utterly unrelated. I bet it turns out to be inconclusive. However my primary concern is that you are just repeating content already in the article, with extra confidence. Aside from the Telegraph, which you've not linked, the only source I kind of thought was OKish is already used in the earlier section. So it is a delete from me also I'm afraid. If you want to expand the existing prose with a bit more detail on the finds, I won't oppose.

4491:@Dudley Miles: I am trying to understand why you think my edit counts as OR, but in all good faith I can’t see the problem. We have had this discussion before. A primary source may be used on Knowledge to make straightforward, descriptive statements of facts that can be verified by any educated person with access to the primary source but without further, specialized knowledge. This is the case here. Furthermore, the primary sources are quoted verbatim in the referenced secondary source (Casebook) and I cited a further secondary source (Marren) supporting the statement. 4549:“The tale of the Humber landing cannot be John´s own invention. His statement is repeated verbatim by several other annalists of the twelfth century and later, who have transmitted a set of tenth-century northern annals from York, among them the Liber de Exordio, the Chronicle of Melrose, Roger of Howden, Ailred of Beverley, the Chester annalist Higden and the Bridlington chronicler Langtoft, . The relationship of these annals has never been worked out, but they must all depend on the common northern source they share with John of Worcester, 2127:

be OR. (By the way, I ordered the different locations alphabetically, which I think readers would find more logical. Since the two types may overlap at times, I think it would be very difficult and complex to attempt to divide these arguments into two categories.) Also, Knowledge is intended to be a summary of information. Some arguments for a location are very long or complicated, and I put quite a bit of work into understanding the most important or relevant points and summarizing them in the article.

4057:. We already have this story covered, in the location section, it is not new it is just an update. The presentation indicates that the Wirral location is still not proven. I think that the 'self interest ' bit is rather disingenuous as there are some serious historians and archaeologists involved. However as the presentation says there is no universal agreement, with Michael Wood particularly dissenting. I think the location section covers it adequately, I don't think that we need a new section. 128: 107: 1424:(that article notes it isn't always reliable) has heavier usage. Some historical sources are mentioned in the first paragraph as wikilinks with little else (eg. Annals of Clonmacnoise, Egil's Saga etc). Others pop-up in odd spots or only as 'Primary Source' links (eg. Æthelweard and Henry of Huntingdon, etc.) What about summarising the historical sources chronologically with any footnoted qualifications about their value? (eg. only account to say this, later & less reliable, etc.) 3004:. I´d be happy to take on board your comments (and any others appearing here in the next few days) and then be bold. As you say, some of the other sections need a little tweaking, especially the comments about the Humber in the Background section. I suggest moving the alternative names for the battle site from the Battle section to the Location section. There are a lot more medieval sources than those mentioned in the "Primary accounts" section, and I´m not sure this comes across. 1564:

Biblioworm's text to glean what that suggested evidence may be and it appears (and I am open for correction) that he evidence is simply that he, William, presents an account not consistent with the chronicle. This is not logical. The world is full of people with different notions and that is no evidence of their ignorance of the views of others. I urge Bibiloworm to think again and come up with some support for his claim, to modify or delete the reference from the article.

138: 4501:

battlefields to Battlefields Review. If you are really suggesting that we cannot cite “amateur historians” I would point out that Michael Livingston is cited 50 times in the article and Paul Cavill is cited 14 times. Cavill has no academic qualifications in history. Livingston’s highest qualification in history is a BA from Baylor University, whose history department is currently ranked 10th best in Texas. Ironically, Livingston denigrates Michael Wood as “a

2276:

Mersey as a common entry point.") What if they always used it as a common entry point? I think Foot is rather strongly implying that they were using it at the time of the battle of Brunanburh. So, the point is that Vikings from Ireland used it as a common entry point, and since Bromborough is near the Wirral, this is another piece of evidence for a battle site at Bromborough. In regard to your last paragraph, it is not permitted by policy to

614: 522: 2205:

much information as I could from the Google Books preview (and obviously I'm not going to go through too much trouble just to see a couple of pages), but in any case that position is already well-covered in the article, so I don't think that one even needs expansion. I'll probably try to add more information for Barnsdale, Burnley and Durham, since those sections are rather short and I have full access to the needed sources for those.

344: 323: 4382:“According to the 12th century chronicler John of Worcester, the invaders entered the Humber with a large fleet. This information was repeated by other contemporary chroniclers, such as Symeon of Durham. Although the reliability of these sources is disputed by advocates of an invasion from the west coast of England, they are the only historical references that give an indication of where the coalition fleet disembarked.” 1961:

Durham. Cavill argued for Bromborough, Wood for somewhere between York and the Humber, and Woolf for anywhere in England. He said that the accounts may conflate several battles, one of which was fought at Bromborough. He also suggested somewhere near Malmesbury area, stating that there was a medieval tradition that it was fought there, and pointing out that Æthelstan's cousins who died in the battle were buried there.

538: 1849:"In August 937, as Æthelstan and his army were on the southern coast, Olaf crossed the Irish Sea with his army to join forces with Constantine and Owen, suggesting that the battle of Brunanburh probably occurred in early October of that year." How does August imply October? Travel distances and times, given troop strength, terrain and technology level? Please explain in detail. Ditto for philologist's opinions. Tks. 21: 4465:. It is not valid to cite Symeon, since as you accept his account is a copy of John's, not an original source. Your citations are two passages from John and Symeon and Peter Murren (not Paul as you say), who is an amateur historian who has written a book on 'Dark Age' battles, not apparently a specialist on Brunanburh. You have not cited any reliable secondary sources. Darlington and McGurk in their edition of 554: 709: 719: 688: 3641: 3616: 3583: 3531: 3508: 3487: 3466: 3430: 3409: 3380: 3353: 3284: 3263: 76: 1017:

from others, or read elsewhere. Historians who analyse the primary source material, as you correctly put it. Malmesbury is a medieval historian. He analysed the sources available to him, and wrote his account, which is therefore a secondary source. The same goes for the author of Egil's saga, if one chooses to regard that at as history rather than fiction (which I, and most historians, don't).--

852: 354: 797: 1035:

fifteenth century; these can't be realistically treated as secondary sources, which would imply they should be assessed for reliability by the editor of the Knowledge page rather than by a scholar. (I'm not saying you're implying this, just that the fact that William of Malmesbury is not technically a primary source doesn't automatically make him a secondary source.)

3148: 4302:“According to medieval chroniclers such as John of Worcester and Symeon of Durham, the invaders entered the Humber with a large fleet. Although the reliability of these sources is disputed by advocates of an invasion from the west coast of England, they are the only historical references that give an indication of where the coalition fleet disembarked.” 233: 212: 2461:

strongest forces instead of rushing into action prematurely like Harold in 1066. This points to northern Mercia, as Olaf would hardly ravage Northumbria when he was aiming to become its king. As there is no evidence that the allies retreated when Æthelstan attacked, it is likely that the battle was fought in northern Mercia. Of course, this is POV.

2966:'s work, but remain dubious of his assertion that majority opinion favours Bromborough, and would certainly like independent confirmation. However unless a contradictory source is offered there is no reason for it not to be given prominence. At the end of the day, unless someone with access to the relevant sources is willing to put the effort into 460: 428: 984:"Primary sources regarding details of the battle come from the Anglo-Saxon poem of the same name that is in the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle, the writings of Anglo-Norman historian William of Malmesbury, the Annals of Tigernach, the Brut y Tywysogion and Icelandic sagas such as the Saga of Egill Skallagrimsson, who fought for Athelstan." 1432:

geographical sub-sections starting with the west of England (given Wirral's weight of sources). eg. west, south & east coasts of England, then Scotland. The locations in each section ordered by weight of sources so those that are more expansive are at the top and footnoted names without descriptions at the bottom.

1498:. It works as 'Sarah Foot argues in her 2014 work' (follow with quote) but not using Wikimedia's voice, based on one source, to call Malmsbury 'ignorant'. That he, and others didn't mention certain things in their published works is fact but why they didn't is still opinion and should be stated as such if included. 4705:

I see what you mean, though paying attention to the dates does help somewhat: Æthelstan's invasion of Scotland occurred in 934, while the retaliatory invasion led by Constantine et al. happened in 937. Thus the "invaders" at Brunanburh were the non-Æthelstan forces. It seems clear enough to me, but

4505:

journalist for the BBC” (Wood is professor of public history at Manchester University, undertook post-graduate research in Anglo-Saxon history at Oxford University and is a respected historian of the Anglo-Saxon period). That said, I have no axe to grind concerning Marren and would be more than happy

3091:

suggested. For a few sources I have also added some comments or analysis by modern historians. In summarising the works I have tried to point out where specific factual information is supplied, as opposed to the more general background information in the previous quotes. Having said that, I think the

2570:

Would an experienced and neutral editor please rewrite the Location section? It currently reads as “mainstream theory” (Wirral) plus “random fringe theories”, which doesn´t reflect the debate in a neutral manner. The Deacon of Pndapetzim and others have already pointed this out above, but the problem

2126:

That's because I'm only allowed to use what is in the sources. If the original person to argue for a particular location is basing his argument on etymological reasons, then I can only state that in the article. Speculating on the possible goals of the army when none are suggested by the author would

2019:

These are all nice thoughts. Aside from deleting what I added to merely state this is L's opinion (which is not a massively helpful addition), did anyone um... improve the... what's that thing called? Oh yeah, the article? It still has large holes, and none of this on the talk page seems to have made

1907:

It agree that October does seem likely, given the time it would take to receive the news, organize the forces, travel, etc. Concerning Æthelstan's being on the southern coast at this time, I'm wondering as to whether I should state that this "fact" is unique to Cavill ("according to Cavill", etc.) or

1863:

That is Livingston's opinion, not mine. That statement was there even before I started working on the article. However, it is cited to a reliable source. (Livingston is obviously an expert, having written an entire book on the battle which is widely recognized as the authoritative text.) It should be

1431:

If we go for the chronological historical sources summary then their differing location names and indicators (eg. Florence suggesting the Humber) will already be covered. That will leave the 'Location' section to summarise footnoted arguments for each offered candidate. I'd suggest a brief intro then

1357:

Well done, Cynehawke. I have taken out the {{Cleanup}} template but left the {{Refimprove}} one, as better citations are still needed. I am supposing all or nearly all of your improvements rely on the new book by Livingston, so would it be possible for you to add citations? It works like this, to add

999:

I couldn't disagree more. For historical purposes, those are the sources, which means they are primary sources. The secondary sources are historians who analyse the primary source material, along with the other evidence. Tertiary sources are encyclopedia/dictionary articles. Of course, Egil's Saga is

4603:

argue that John of Worcester, Symeon of Durham, et al were in error, otherwise they would get into a logical contradiction. Such arguments fall foul, however, of the historian’s golden rule that he must eschew cherry-picking of the evidence and must weigh the authenticity of all accounts, not merely

4197:

How about "Wirral Archaeology, a local volunteer group, believes that it may have identified the site of the battle in the Wirral. According to Michael Livingston, they have found a field with a heavy concentration of artifacts which may be a result of metal working in a tenth-century army camp. The

4171:

page is "no comment". The Liverpool Uni page, that is used as a reference, headlines "The search for Brunaburh is over.." however when you read the article it does make clear that there is no proof yet and that it will be a few years for a conclusion to be reached. They do not say that the site has

4071:

Anyone who issues a press release about their work has an interest in playing up its importance. This is an obvious fact and pointing it out is not "disingenuous". Whether there are reliable sources to support the claims is a separate issue. In my opinion at present there are not. Wirral Archaeology

4027:

It is hardly surprising that local amateur archaeology group are convinced they are right, or that those who advocate for the Bromborough location would cast any discoveries in a favourable light. IMO a cache of weapon parts, possibly indicating a production site, roughly dating to the same era, may

3984:

There is a newspaper report that archaeologists have found and proved (by a large amount of broken weapons), not merely guessed, the site of the battle. To settle a potential dispute, please discuss here: should we delete (for claimed unreliability and/or repetition), or not, the 3rd-level paragraph

3030:

I have rewritten the Location section based on my above proposal and taking into account Trappedinburnley´s comments. As a compromise I did not delete the conjecture which was in the Location section but moved it to the Notes section; I also retained the favoured status of the Bromborough theory and

2748:

Few other geographical hints are contained in the medieval sources. The poem in the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle recounts that the invaders fled from the battlefield to regain their ships, so a location near a river or the coast is indicated. Egil´s Saga contains more detailed information (a fortified town

2574:

There is no mainstream consensus among historians on the battlefield location. The Deacon of Pndapetzim says above that Sarah Foot has backtracked on her support for the Wirral theory. Frank Stenton and Nicholas Higham both state baldly “location unknown”. Michael Wood has long supported a Yorkshire

2275:

Foot said that Vikings from Ireland (perhaps I should clarify that) commonly used the Mersey as an entry point. Olaf, an invader at Brunanburh, came from Ireland. I do see any need to have an exact date here, as that would be a strange detail (Example: "Between XXX–XXX, Vikings from Ireland used the

2252:

I get the argument but the same can be said for almost ALL the other potential battlesite locations - they were ALL used by Vikings during that broad year range. Why is that a notable point in the Wirral section but nowhere else? If it is a notable point in the Wirral argument lets see the specifics

2248:

I added a 'when' on an existing pro-Bromborough edit with the note 'Added citation needed on unsourced with query on date of historical statement' & received the reply 'the citation for this sentence is at the end of the next one (that is accepted practice); Foot does not give an exact date, but

1960:

and he said nothing like that. Wood said that there is a growing consensus for Bromborough and it is the accepted site. Coming from an opponent, I think that is worth quoting in the article. All three speakers (Cavill, Wood and Woolf) agreed that the battle was fought in England, far to the south of

1670:

This is why I suggested what I did - 'Historical sources' listed based on the chronological time as they are first documented. There are a LOT of Brunanburh refs but they are highly contradictory. So, in 'Historical Sources' lets list them (with wikilinks to each article page - as most have them) in

1285:

My sandbox rewrite is complete, and I think it is a significant improvement on the inaccurate, dated, and misleading information currently here. Given the depth of the overhaul, is it acceptable to just cut and paste the article content from my sandbox over that which is here? Or do this by sections

1093:

Any suggestions on how to account for the fact that all (theoretically) of the primary sources can be found in Livingston's 'Casebook' along with the secondary sources cited elsewhere? I had opted for a headnote explaining this, but I wasn't terribly confident about it and it was edited out. It does

4613:

This is the fundamental problem of the Brunanburh debate: too much credence has been given to people who discredit or ignore inconvenient historical evidence, invent evermore convoluted scenarios to prop up their theory, and have a poor grasp of military tactics, early medieval warfare, history and

4075:

does not name any officers, address, phone number or email address, only a contact form. It describes excavations and surveys going back to 1990, but so far as i could discover does not claim to have ever published any reports on its work. Even the comments in the press release are attributed to an

2475:

Woolf, McGuigan, and Clarkson all mention this as a problem. The Wirral is OK for an army coming from Dublin, but Scotland in this era is an east coast kingdom that ends at the Forth and Causantin would have to have marched halfway through Britain and into the west coast to help Olaf recover set of

2371:

I really don't want to get involved with this article that the moment, but I feel I need to throw my opinion into the ring. To my understanding, the location of the battle is one of the longest of long-standing conundrums in British history. The current Location section is so far from doing justice

2189:

I see you are an admin and have access to JSTOR so I am probably teaching my grandmother to suck eggs. However, I or another editor should be able to send you a pdf of any journal article. For books you might try inter-library loan through your local library - if this is available where you are. My

2151:

Yes, I'm actually quite grateful that this article exists, and quite grateful for your hard work on it, which is clearly evident to anyone who considers the article for any length of time. The carefulness of your research shines through in your work. As for the complexity of the arguments, the fact

2112:

Well, for things left unsaid, it seems to me that some of the suggestions for possible locations rest solely on etymological lines of reasoning, while others are drawn from examination of the logistics of the relative armies, their goals, etc. I'd consider dividing them up into these two groups and

1620:

Let's just place that wide ranging mass of (often contradictory) primary evidence in there, with footnoted qualifications , such as on Florence's name & Ingulf's credibility, and leave the 'Location' debate to footnoted commentary in that section. There are disagreements in scholarship over all

4623:

Lastly, I am intrigued by your repeated reinstatement of Livingston’s opinion that the battle took place in early October 937, which is pure speculation on his part and has no basis in any historical source. There are more instances of this throughout the text. I don’t understand why you insist on

4324:

You also say that all the other sources are either copies of John or unreliable, which contradicts your argument that John of Worcester is the only chronicler to say the Humber. The question of whether any medieval historian can be considered “reliable” or “independent” is a complex one. Obviously

4106:

is lukewarm, saying that "“Such a large amount of period-dated archaeological material suggests that the Wirral case for Brunanburh can by no means be dismissed.” Cat Jarman is an archaeologist and a Viking expert, so her reference to "exciting progress" is significant. The press release also says

4087:

Livingston says that what has been found is part of a metalworking area associated with a medieval army camp with artefacts which appear to date to the tenth century. This is not a battlefield and it is "disingenuous" to claim to have found the site. It could relate to another episode, such as the

3114:

My edit of the date of the battle (“sometime in the autumn or early winter”) was reverted to “and in Livingston's opinion this suggests that the battle of Brunanburh occurred in early October” with the explanation “It is Livingston's view, not certain fact.” This edit was done for several reasons.

1982:

But the issue is that I do have direct access to the source I'm citing, and therefore I'm certain that Cavill stated that Æthelstan was on the southern coast in August. However, being that he is the only one to mention that and seeing that he did not mention anything of the sort in his more recent

1781:

The article says that 'there is widespread agreement among historians that it was somewhere on the Wirral Peninsula'. I think that's overstating it quite a bit, and the assertion appears to be contradicted by the article. It might be true that the most powerful historians are more likely to favour

1731:

WP:PRIMARY says "A primary source may only be used on Knowledge to make straightforward, descriptive statements of facts that can be verified by any educated person with access to the primary source but without further, specialized knowledge." In a historical article like this, it is much safer to

1645:

I'm not sure exactly what you mean by "chronological". Of course I know the meaning of the word, but I have tried to combine all the primary sources into one chronological narrative of the battle, to the best of my ability. I was already well aware of all the credibility issues surrounding certain

1563:

Biblioworm is insistent on retaining a statement of William's awareness of the contents of a chronicle of the time. The word "evidently" is used by Biblioworm. This suggests that there is evidence of William's awareness at that time. No support is provided for this claim. One can only rely on

1111:

As the primary and secondary sources are listed separately, I should say it's better not to mention Livingston's 'casebook' under the primary sources, even as a location for finding them, but where the work is properly listed under 'Secondary sources' I suggest adding a short note to say "(In this

988:

This is a misunderstanding of the meaning of the term "primary sources" William of Malmesbury was not alive at the time of the battle, his writings are a secondary source, as are Icelandic sagas that may mention the battle. A primary source is a source which was present at the battle. This must be

3858:

On 30 August 2019 user Drmies unilaterally reverted to a 2016 version, thereby deleting 20kB of work by dozens of historians and experts over a 3 year period. This work was pertinent, impeccably referenced, verifiable, concise and neutral. Drmies's actions and his/her comment that the intervening

2336:

I understand the reasoning but not the Wirral as a 'special snowflake'. Why should use of that area by Vikings be used as an argument for Bromborough when equal (or greater) Viking uses of other areas isn't? Either: (1) include the same Viking argument for all relevant candidates, (2) establish a

2204:

With this particular article, it's mostly small portions of books that are needed. For example, I can't expand the paragraph on Bromswold, since I only have access to that book via snippet view on Google Books. I also can't do much more with the paragraph on Brinsworth, since I extracted about as

1932:

I would also note that the OE word for "brown" is actually "brun", so in OE "Browneynburh" would have been written "Bruneynburh", so now all you have to do is change "ey" to "a" (which could easily happen) to get "Brunanburh". As an additional factoid, John of Worcester recorded that the invaders

1800:

and should not be the basis for this assertion; i.e. Livingston's views are worth hearing, but he is a proponent of one view and is not the best source for a NPOV assertion. Even Sarah Foot, who was once had unrestrained confidence in the Wirral location, backtracked quite a bit in her monograph.

1016:

Well, I would respectfully argue that your definition is wrong. A primary source is a source composed by someone who has witnessed the events he/she describes. The poet of the Anglo-Saxon poem may well be a primary source. A secondary source is someone who bases his narrative on what he has heard

4320:

I disagree with your argument that “John of Worcester is the only chronicler to say the Humber”. The Humber entry is mentioned by several 12th century sources, from memory: John of Worcester, Symeon of Durham, the Chronicle of Melrose, Aelred of Rievaulx and Roger of Howden, none of whom had any

4151:

These papers are on the case for Bromborough. That is widely accepted and is not the issue. The issue is whether we should cover the claim of Wirral Archaeology to have found the actual site of the battle. I find this less convincing the more I read about it. They appear to have found a military

3905:

I've always felt that getting from 'Brunan' to 'Brom' must have required some toponymical gymnastics. I've also commented before on the lack of evidence to support the Bromborough location. The source is interesting, however until it is published or otherwise peer-reviewed, it is too early to be

3849:

Changed some uses of the term Kingdom/King of Alba to Kingdom/King Scotland, since the article uses both terms interchangeably which is needlessly confusing to people who don't understand that they mean the same thing. This is a problem that plagues a ton of Scotland related historical articles.

2543:

Short of any evidence to the contrary, the Wirral is likely to remain the front runner for a number of very good reasons: 1) The area has long been established as a Viking stronghold, as borne out by the preponderance of Norse place names; 2) A large invasion force sailing from Dublin would very

2519:

Not sure why you think this, that objection is quite recent. I think it's more a case of 'most historians haven't realised it's a problem' rather than 'don't think it's a problem', and you know only a couple of handfuls of historians actually work in this area so that's a sizable sample. If you

1888:

I do not currently have access to Livingston's book, but early October does seem plausible. Æthelstan was criticised for being slow to react to the invasion, which Wood attributed to his wisdom in taking his time gathering his forces instead of being provoked to precipitate action like Harold in

4584:

historian to mention the Humber in an extant chronicle. As John (death c. 1140) was obviously not an eye-witness to events from the 10th century he must have based his statement on a lost source. Symeon may have based his account on John, but it is likely that they both copied verbatim the same

4570:

Therefore, with all due respect, Darlington, McGurk and Cavill are very mistaken if they indeed believe that the statement that the fleet sailed up the Humber is peculiar to John of Worcester. But again, why is this relevant? Why would this invalidate the information anyway? There are countless

3082:

I have changed the section header to “Medieval Sources” (because of the controversy above over primary vs. secondary sources) and replaced the existing quotes from Æthelweard, ASC, William of Malmesbury, Wulfstan of Winchester and Geoffrey Gaimar by a chronological summary of a broader range of

2375:

Now as it happens I rather like Bromborough as a location and am comfortable with it having prominence, but the evidence is still very slight. Arguments against (which are available in sources already used), should be included. Obviously the list of alternatives needs work, apparently Paul Hill

1540:

may be 'just an essay' but it seemed the most appropriate summation of issues related to the uses of 'Reliable sources' & the principle of 'Due weight' as it applies to the difficulties of this article. As I stated previously on this page - the location is contentious and that means certain

4316:

I disagree with your deletion of this paragraph because it was factually correct. It also had the merit of giving a succinct and even-handed summary of the Humber debate. It is therefore important to retain it in the Background section if we are to maintain the necessary neutrality of position

4650:, calling him both Owen and Owain. It's not the worst thing in the world, and we do offer some cross references, but I think it would clearly be better to unify our spelling. Given the biographical article, I would vote for 'Owain,' but I'd like to know if others agree or are happy with the 4427:“the invading armies entere d England in two waves, Constantine and Owen coming from the north, possibly engaging in some skirmishes with Æthelstan's forces as they followed the Roman road across the Lancashire plains between Carlisle and Manchester, with Olaf's forces joining them on the way” 1338:

Any objections to the removal of the "cleanup" and "refimprove" tags atop the page? Given the major changes to the article, these do not pertain to the current text (or so it seems to me). Still, I'd prefer that this "final" alteration be done by someone of more experience than me (perhaps an

1034:

Technically you are correct, but there is of course a real difference between William of Malmesbury and modern secondary sources. Malmesbury gets analysed by modern historians as if he were a primary source. Some information on Anglo-Saxon history is not found in any source earlier than the

4500:

It is interesting that you reverted my edits on the grounds that Marren (not Murren) is an “amateur historian” and neither a reliable secondary source nor an expert academic. Marren has authored three books on British battles with Pen & Sword Military and contributes articles on medieval

2460:

I am not clear why the presence of Constantine makes the Wirral unlikely. According to William of Malmesbury, Æthelstan was criticised for being slow to react while the allies were ravaging his territory, and this is accepted by Michael Wood, who praises him for taking the time to gather his

1134:

While I have the mike, two suggestions. First, the all-too brief and somewhat strained 'background' section needs to be rewritten, with for instance Peter Hunter Blair's book as a cue (mentioned at the bottom of the article though never cited). I may do this at some point. Second, there is a

2582:

The only medieval chroniclers to give concrete information on the battlefield location are John/Florence of Worcester and Symeon of Durham, who both say that Olaf´s fleet sailed up the Humber (i.e. towards York). Yet these early accounts are dismissed by the proponents of the Wirral theory.

2351:

To add: Primary sources can be a problem due to the risk of original research. I believe a 'Historical Source' section drawing from secondary source scholarship of the general worth of each source would be useful. Then there can be a section on speculative (still unresolved) modern location

1746:

I'll do it if I need to, but it would be much more useful for editors to research for themselves what is a primary/secondary source in modern, medieval & prehistory and contemporary times . On this article I've always used primary/secondary in terms of the article subject (& history

1427:

While the Wirral location has strong support at present, the debate on the location continues. As the article is weighted towards Wirral supporting authors (Livingston, Cavill etc), the location issue is popping up in the body of the article, and isn't confined to the 'Location' sub-head.

2640:

Here is a proposal for the text of the Location section, attempting to strip it back down to basics: i.e. what do the medieval source texts say? Another paragraph could be added on archaeological evidence (or reasons for lack of). The information in the medieval sources can be checked in

4689:

Paragraph two of the opening section starts by saying that Æthelstan invaded Scotland. Later it says '"…but the invaders were routed in the battle against Æthelstan"' So just which side was doing the invading? This is just one confusing element in the intro that could be cleaned up.

2492:

Some historians see it as a problem - most do not. Æthelstan marched his army much further in 934, from Wessex to Scotland, to humiliate Constantine, who had every motive to ravage Mercia in revenge. Who could have stopped him marching there, or stopped him fleeing back to Scotland?

3859:

edits "made a mockery of the GA tag" demonstrate a fundamental misunderstanding of the purpose of Knowledge. Furthermore, there is no evidence that Drmies is an expert in Anglo-Saxon history. The article has therefore been reverted to the last version before his/her deletions.

1707:, it is permissible to use primary sources in articles as long as they are summarized straightforwardly without commentary by the editor. I could probably cut down on the amount of direct quotes, but as I mentioned I have an idea for formatting the article more neatly. -- 1135:

reference to Alistair Campbell in the 'location' section, but whoever wrote that failed to give any kind of specific information. Campbell was in fact an editor of the poem--way back in 1938. This is the kind of gratuitous reference that gives Knowledge a bad name...

1541:

authors carry bias - that can be stated as opinion but not in Knowledge's voice. The same goes for author's favouring a location who have to 'shoot down' historical sources to do it. Knowledge needs to stay neutral and avoid buying into an ongoing academic fight.

4101:

The comments of experts also need examination. Steve Harding praises their work, but he expresses frustration of the failure of experts to accept his place name evidence for Bromborough and would naturally favour supporting evidence. Cornwell is not a historian.

2657:"The location of the battle is unknown and continues to be a subject of lively debate. Over thirty locations have been proposed, from the south-west of England to Scotland, although most historians agree that a location in the north of England is the most likely. 4110:

states that they are short of funds to continue their researches, so it is unclear when there will be any further progress. I think a sentence on the project would be justified, but the current paragraph is not justified in view of the lack of reliable sources.

2190:

library, Barnet in London, says it is available for non-fiction books, although I have not used it for years as I subscribe to the London Library. You could also apply to the Wikimedia Foundation to pay for a subscription to a journal you need access to.

2256:

Once again, without archaeology, the Wirral has the present fashionable vote, but, I'd suggest, statements for the Wirral shouldn't be included if they just as easily apply to other locations (such as - Vikings had a port here around the general time).

1671:

chronological (date first appearing) order. Once we have that we've documented the primary source documents. Everything after that is more easily defined as 'secondary source' debate, or commentary, & can be incorporated under topical sub-heads.

3370:

I'd recommend the citations are consolidated into the Sources (just for appearances sake). ie just the shortened footnote in the References section and the full citations in the Sources section. Contrast the appearances of fns 10 (a book) and 11 (a

2928:. Knowledge should summarise reliable modern sources. The proposed rewrite is also unreferenced and does not make clear that majority opinion favours Bromborough. Few if any other suggestions have attracted support beyond their original proposer. 1646:

authors well before I began re-working the article, but I couldn't think of any better way to do it. However, I have an idea that I'd like to try out, and I'd be more than happy to collaborate with those who are also interested in the topic. --

1193:'...crushed the Brythons...' - Um, how exactly did it crush the Brythons? They may have suffered a major defeat but they weren't 'crushed'. Brythonic rule in the British isles wasn't crushed until the conquest of Wales by the Normans in 1283.-- 2406:

Beginning to think the only way we'll get a 'Battle of Brunanburh' article based on historical sources is to allow over development to the point that a 'Location of the battle of Brunanburh' can be split off as the debate article. Sad that...

1983:

talk, I'm inclined to remove it. Secondly, the Wood quote is very interesting, but how can it be cited if it's in a video lecture? I've never seen anything of that sort before in a high-quality article (except ones that new users create).

4079:, probably published in 2017 (it refers to 2016 as in the future and 2017 in the past) says that they displayed a selection of their Brunanburh finds at a public event in 2011/11 and a book is in preparation. Their 2019 press release, 1435:

I'm in two minds about a 'battle' section mainly because the historical sources differ so much and we don't want to repeat the 'Historical sources' section. Maybe if the rest is organised then a brief paragraph or two could be useful?

2586:

There are further problems with the Location section: it is written in an awkward/heterogenous style; it gets bogged down in too much speculative detail in the Wirral section; and it assumes too much knowledge of English geography.

1630:

I expect many of us with enough interest to post here have a favoured location (or at least region). Let's use that energy & stick to the factual middle ground & take the time to create a wonderful, informative article. :)

943:. They are confident that they have found the site but are not saying where it is yet. They are getting various experts to study their findings and thus will not know for sure whether their theory is correct, for a fews years yet! 529: 438: 4083:

quotes experts who have been given "privileged access to the artefacts recovered". Restricting access to finds was common in the past, but nowadays it is regarded with hostility and suspicion. In his Medievalists.net article at

4152:

metal working site which may be related to Brunanburh but may be related to the Norse invasion in c.903. But I am no expert and may have got it wrong. We need reliable sources which examine the evidence and we do not have any.

2442:

As another point, the Burnswark site in Dumfriesshire is a bit unfairly relegated. It's not now generally in much favour, at least not outside Scotland, but was I believe the long-standing leading candidate before Bromborough.

1818:

I removed the statement. I actually didn't add the sentence itself; I just copy edited it and didn't give too much thought to removing it, since I was busy reworking the other parts of the article. Thanks for bringing this up.

545: 442: 4523:“Relevant to is John of Worcester’s assertion that Olaf and Constantin, king of the Scots, entered the mouth of the Humber with a strong fleet, causing Æthelstan and his brother Edmund to go and meet them at Brunanburh. 4370:

in the Humber; he says that the invaders “entered the mouth of the river Humber with a strong fleet”. The implication is indeed that they landed somewhere along the Humber or the Ouse, but this is not stated explicitly.

3092:

original quotes gave a nice sense of atmosphere, so some of them could perhaps be reinstated in the Battle section. The Battle section also needs to be harmonised with the Medieval Sources section to avoid repetition.

2391:

Hill said there are over 30, but he only listed 21, and most of them with only a few words and no source or detailed examination. I think the discussion should be confined to locations advocated in detail by experts.

2033:

Well, I'm thinking about removing that statement (see my comment to Dudley above). Also, what other holes are there in the article? I'd like to know so that I can fix them (one person can't see everything, you know).

4473:, p. 338, who suggests an explanation for John's error. Knowledge articles should be a summary of reliable sources. Your interpretation of original sources gives a misleading account of expert academic opinion. 561: 446: 4434:

These are just one person’s imagining of how it “could” have happened. However, we should be aiming for factually correct content and a neutral stance on the Bruna nburh debate, not speculative narrative.

4166:

OK. I think that we are on the same page. I do not believe that Wirral Archaeology has actually said that they have found Brunaburh. On their website they are pretty guarded. The best they can do is on their

4313:

The second time you commented “This is covered in the location section below. Also the comment is not in the Cavill source cited, and Symeon is a copy of John of Worcester, not an independent source.”

4734:

That's an improvement, but it might be clearer if the the article gave a name to the initial invasion of Scotland. This would make it clearer that the Battle of Brunanburh was a retaliatory invasion.

4553:, and a tradition which was current in the early-twelfth century when the general area of the war was perhaps still remembered, especially by annalists in the north, and in Yorkshire in particular.” ( 2950:

has left-out the refs in this version to save time. I don't think the section needs to be entirely rewritten, but there are several elements of this that fit with comments I've previously made here

3739: 4594:

Concerning your mention of Cavill’s “explanation for John’s error”, Cavill argues that John was in the habit of writing a formulaic “the pagans entered the mouth of <random river name: -->

4107:

that they are preparing a bid for the National Lottery Heritage Fund, but this was unsuccessful, suggesting that the Fund may have found their case unconvincing. Their summary of progress at

4792: 2593:(1) An introduction stating (in a neutral manner) the concrete location information given in the medieval sources relating directly to the battle (i.e. John of Worcester, Symeon of Durham). 295: 3400:, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose). 1377:

Thanks again, Cynehawke, now that you have sorted the references I have taken out the {{Refimprove}} template, too. (I have tidied some repetitions of the whole of Livingston's new title.)

3954:

Absolutely. OUP meets all of the requirements of an RS. And would be considered a (very) high quality RS. (There is no requirement for an RS, even a high quality RS, to be peer reviewed.)

4398:“Few medieval texts refer to a known place, apart from John of Worcester (and accounts based thereon) who says that the invaders entered the mouth of the river Humber with a large fleet.” 1957:

I would remove the south coast comment unless you have access to the source and confirm that Cavill has been correctly quoted. I have just listened to his talk at Nottingham in 2011 at

3850:

There is really no reason or justification for using Alba in lieu of Scotland anywhere in the English Knowledge other than in articles specifically about the Gaelic word for Scotland.

2731:”. Pseudo-Ingulf (ca. 1400) says that as Aethelstan led his army into Northumbria (i.e. north of the Humber) he met on his way many pilgrims coming home from Beverley. Hector Boese´s 4822: 844: 4527:

Otherwise one might have assumed that the attack came from the west, Constantin meeting up with a Norse fleet from Dublin to attack at some point on England’s western seaboard.” (

4777: 3397: 194: 184: 4832: 4817: 4787: 3153: 271: 4782: 4310:

The first time you commented “John of Worcester is the only chronicler to say the Humber. All the other sources are either copies of John or unreliable. See the Cavill ref.“

2619:(4) Within each region, state the various proposed locations and cite a reference for each. The interested reader can then decide for themselves on the merits of each case. 1621:

of this - Knowledge's 'voice' shouldn't editorialise towards any battle site (but we should recognise that weight of current scholarship just as we include what has passed).

4827: 2476:

territories to the north and east. It's hard to make sense of why the Scottish king would be there, how he got there unopposed and, if he did get there, how he escaped.

472: 4802: 3272: 1300:

I think the greatest difference between the two approaches is that if you do it section-by-section it may be easier to follow the changes made, so may I suggest that?

400: 4328:

The fact remains that the Humber is mentioned as the point of entry by John of Worcester and other 12th century chroniclers (who evidently believed in its veracity),

2670:

The earliest relevant document is a poem in the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle (version A), written within two decades of the battle, which names the battlefield location as “

2280:

base this article on primary sources (especially when trying to get an article to GA), and I tried very hard to maintain a good balance on that. We are also to give

1360:

where you want the superscript number to go. The numbering of the footnotes is automatic. To use the same citation more than once, use <ref name=livingston12: -->

1190:'...the resilience of the English...' - A massive generalization! Anyway, resilience wouldn't have won them the battle, only strength in numbers and/or good tactics. 4772: 3936:, where the source is to be published, is not peer reviewed but it is published by the Oxford University Press and I assume that it is therefore a reliable source. 3309: 3186: 1611:

Both Sirlanz & Dudley Miles make strong points. Its why I argued in an earlier Talk section for 'Historical Sources' to be a chronological (wikilinked) summary.

305: 267: 241: 217: 160: 3118:

On a more general note, it will be a challenge to achieve an article which satisfies both the west coast and the east coast camps, but it is something to aim for.

3791: 3787: 3773: 1249:

The more I've poked around, the more it looks like this needs almost complete re-writing in light of recent scholarship. I'm doing the work in a sandbox for now:

3740:

https://web.archive.org/web/20160304192433/http://www.english.uga.edu/~jdmevans/Personal/Kevin%20Halloran%20-%20The%20Brunanburh%20Campaign%20A%20Reappraisal.pdf

4842: 4585:

contemporary account, now lost. This is certainly Michael Wood’s opinion in “Searching for Brunanburh: The Yorkshire Context of the Great War of 937”, p.147-8.

1512:

RSUW is actually just an essay, but you make a good point. I'll re-add the statement with the clarification that it is mentioned exclusively in Foot's book. --

1271:. As a peer-reviewed academic study, it's clearly a reliable source and should enable you to do good things for the article. Glad to see someone taking it up. 1000:

fiction, and Malmesbury is a medieval chronicler, so they are not quite the same as the ASC or the Irish and Welsh annals. Still not secondary sources though.

4852: 3176: 670: 660: 4837: 4812: 1589:

I have revised to reflect Foot's comment, which is not definite that William did not know the poem. Another issue is that the article frequently refers to

2678:” for Dublin. Most of the numerous medieval sources relating to the battle give little geographical information beyond variations on the name Brunanburh ( 2245:

I've commented before on the problem of developing this article given a bias towards a location that has partial academic (mainly placename) acceptance.

1782:

the Wirral than another location, but the middle ground is probably the 'we don't know' crowd--it's certainly moved there in the last few years. See this

4862: 4797: 3743: 3600: 2113:

mentioning something more about respective theories etc. MMmm, Tim Clarkson has refined his suggestions in a more recent book...mmm I'm still looking...

151: 112: 4580:

I do not “accept that Symeon’s account is a copy of John’s” as you claim. If you read my argument carefully you will see that I stated that John is the

2719:(mid-12th C) and the Chronicle of Melrose (late 12th C) all state that Olaf´s fleet entered the mouth of the River Humber, while Robert of Gloucester´s 2376:

identified over thirty possibilities yet we list six (seven with Bromborough)? And why do Barnsdale and Brinsworth seem to have the same justification?

2284:

to opinions, and apparently even Michael Wood (a person who has argued for alternative sites) said that Bromborough is becoming the accepted location.

4872: 3158: 2352:

arguments. This article should be a summary of information about the historical battle not reduced to a sly promo for particular location candidates.

775: 765: 1703:

Surely we could just have a section which documents what the primary sources say. After all, we're not endorsing them by doing so. And, according to

4877: 4450: 4406:

To overcome your objection about the Cavill reference I have added a better source. On a side note, we should be careful to distinguish between the

3887: 3313: 3305: 840: 410: 2577:

we must reject Bromborough on the Wirral… the weight of the Yorkshire argument may yet prove Bromborough to be one of history´s great red herrings.

2260:

I would prefer this article to be shaped around surviving historical sources rather than more recent fashionable trends but that's another story.

919:

on such matters, and even the article refers only to archaeologists' "claims". We await their findings, and the views of their academic peers.

2596:(2) Mention the geographical hints provided in the medieval sources (e.g. Anglo-Saxon Chronicle, possibly Egil´s Saga), e.g. proximity to coast. 2425:(e/c)To be fair, it might be worth adding that a number of commentators have used the presence of the Scottish king to argue against the Wirral. 4469:, p. 393, n. 9 says that the statement that the fleet sailed up the Humber is peculiar to John, and this is quoted approvingly by Cavill in the 1323:

Moments ago completed a thorough overhaul of the entire article. I tried to do it in pieces (as suggested above) to ease following the changes.

4847: 4515:

Your statement “Your interpretation of original sources gives a misleading account of expert academic opinion” is contentious to say the least.

4076:

unnamed "spokesperson". I do not remember ever seeing such claims being made without a person being named. A web page describing their work at

3297: 636: 467: 433: 3324:

seems to me that the paras in the lead could easily be combined into two. Four should only be needed to summarise a long and detailed article.

2698:. None of the placenames Brunanburh (or variants), Dingesmere, Weondune, Othlyn, Vinheiðr or Vinuskóga is known in that form in Britain today. 4172:

been definitely found so neither should we. BTW - There's info on Wirral Archaeology at Companies House, if you want to check it's officers.

476: 2165:

I only have limited access to some sources, so I simply can't expand some. However, I'll try to (reasonably) expand those that I'm able to.

2711:

Few medieval texts refer to a placename still in use today, although the River Humber is mentioned by several sources. John of Worcester´s

1240: 1136: 1073: 939:

on the Liverpool University website, about this. They are confident that the have found the battle site. This is already referenced in the

900: 1461:

Hi AnonNep. Please note that William of Malmesbury's ignorance of the poem is actually mentioned by Sarah Foot in her authoritative book

4867: 4350:“Few medieval texts refer to a known place, and John of Worcester is the only chronicler to say that the invaders landed in the Humber.” 2551: 1236: 1155: 741: 46: 4857: 4807: 3629: 3225: 1194: 1094:

strike one as odd (1) to privilege a few of the sources over others and (2) not to mention that there's a new one-stop shop for them.

376: 4414:

Paul Cavill of the School of English at the University of Nottingham. The “Brunanburh” Cavill is the toponymist, not the historian.

4215: 4080: 627: 588: 1417:

This article will remain messy without sorting out a couple of things: the historical sources and that the battle site is unknown.

936: 4762: 3301: 3688:, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section. 1363:. NB, I see there are some existing citations from the new book, but not all with page numbers, you may be able to supply them. 3518: 3181: 38: 32: 1794: 4767: 3439: 3418: 2526: 2482: 2449: 2431: 1807: 1783: 1286:(I kept the same sections as the original article)? Again, I'm new to the WikiLife and so would love to know how to proceed. 1154:

This is written entirely subjectively, with poor referencing and citation. What are the large stretches of poems doing here?

732: 693: 4053: 1797: 1169:

Badly in need of a rewrite with sources placed in proper places and grammatically corrected. Too many subjective sentences.

4624:

keeping unfounded speculation in the article and yet object to a factual statement substantiated by two secondary sources.

4339:

is disputed by advocates of an invasion from the west coast of England, and this should suffice to put them into context.

1958: 3592: 3204: 1580: 1466: 603: 582: 367: 328: 53: 1494:

Hi, Over 1000 years of evidence. One recent author reading Malmsbury's mind and deciding he was 'ignorant' does not meet

4629: 4446: 4342:

In your second comment you say, “This is covered in the location section below”, but in fact the Location section said:

3883: 3864: 3834: 3123: 3097: 3070: 3036: 3009: 2914: 2626: 883: 87: 4595:”, but then goes on to cite 20 such instances, all of which are accepted by historians; so it would seem that John was 882:

The location of the Battle has been discovered but not yet announced by archaeologists. A link to the article is here:

3994: 3744:

http://www.english.uga.edu/~jdmevans/Personal/Kevin%20Halloran%20-%20The%20Brunanburh%20Campaign%20A%20Reappraisal.pdf

2749:

north of a heath, a camp pitched between a forest and a river), but its usefulness as historical evidence is disputed.

2645:” (ed. Michael Livingston). The proposed locations come from the present Knowledge article combined with Paul Hill´s “ 2575:

location. Paul Hill, author of “The Anglo-Saxons at War 800-1066” and “The Age of Athelstan”, states in the latter: “

4038: 3919: 3604: 3389: 2980: 2381: 143: 1391:

Thank YOU for helping a new person out. I figured that the references could be better sorted than I was managing!

4230: 4085: 4055: 3907: 3393: 3293: 2521: 2477: 2444: 2426: 1802: 3790:

to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the

3699: 2067: 1140: 1077: 911: 896: 250: 4332:. This is an important (indeed, essential) point, and it should be stated clearly in the Background section. 4245: 4108: 1420:

At the moment some earliest historical sources have been cut back or are missing while 15th century Ingulf's

4625: 4442: 4277: 4177: 4142: 4062: 3879: 3860: 3825: 3731: 3596: 3496: 3338: 3119: 3093: 3066: 3032: 3005: 2947: 2910: 2622: 2555: 1232: 1198: 1159: 1052: 1004: 948: 471:. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a 4725: 4674: 4478: 4417:

The article could be improved further by deleting the passages containing unfounded speculation, such as:

4260: 4157: 4116: 4012: 3990: 3959: 3945: 3661: 3544: 3475: 3219: 3200: 2933: 2498: 2466: 2397: 2337:

special argument for the Wirral, in detail (hence my 'be more specific' edit), or (3) remove it from all.

2195: 2075: 1966: 1898: 1737: 1694: 1602: 1332: 1250: 1221: 1163: 1048:

Perhaps we could avoid the question by changing it to be "Early sources regarding details of the battle"?

892: 20: 4739: 4695: 4599:

in the habit of making up his history. It should be pointed out that any proponent of the Wirral theory

4335:

The second sentence of the deleted paragraph stated correctly that the reliability of John of Worcester

4029: 3979: 3910: 3809:

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with

3797: 3088: 3062: 3001: 2971: 2377: 1787: 1590: 869: 812: 246: 93: 3730:. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit 4506:

to cite Sarah Foot (professor of early medieval history at Oxford University) or Michael Wood instead.

3902: 4438: 3986: 3875: 3764: 3723: 3443: 2547: 2294: 2215: 2175: 2137: 2044: 1993: 1943: 1918: 1874: 1829: 1812: 1791: 1717: 1656: 1568: 1522: 1479: 940: 888: 828: 156: 3695: 1396: 1382: 1368: 1344: 1328: 1305: 1291: 1276: 1258: 1217: 1117: 1099: 127: 106: 4551:

and they constitute a medieval tradition – in fact the only tradition – on the location of the war

4134: 4130: 4126: 740:

on Knowledge. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join

635:

on Knowledge. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join

375:

on Knowledge. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join

159:

on Knowledge. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join

4273: 4173: 4138: 4058: 3625: 2963: 2326: 2317:

the Wirral, not near it. It is very close to the boundary of the accepted Norse settled area at

1421: 1228: 1049: 1001: 966: 944: 924: 833: 832:, fought in 937, has been described as "the greatest single battle in Anglo-Saxon history before 619: 4410:

Paul Cavill, specialist in early modern British history at the University of Cambridge, and the

4007:

We should delete. There are no reliable sources, just self-interested claims and press reports.

3794:

before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template

3694:

Decent start, needs more references, in-text citations and some rewriting (some of which I did).

796: 4358:

The second half of this sentence is wrong on two counts: Firstly, John of Worcester is not the

3810: 2253:

referenced. To include such detail, when it applies to others, for ONE location is misleading.

266:

If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the

4721: 4711: 4670: 4659: 4474: 4256: 4153: 4112: 4008: 3955: 3941: 3937: 3657: 3361:. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with 3215: 2929: 2494: 2462: 2412: 2393: 2357: 2342: 2265: 2191: 2157: 2118: 2089: 2071: 2025: 1977: 1962: 1894: 1854: 1752: 1733: 1704: 1690: 1676: 1636: 1598: 1594: 1576: 1546: 1503: 1444: 1208:

This article still needs revision, especially in light of Michael Livingston's just-published

1174: 868:

I don't want to edit the actual article as I have little knowledge of Anglo-Saxon history but

42: 1593:, although historians now think that the chronicle formerly attributed to him was written by 4735: 4691: 4647: 3569: 3565: 2318: 253: 3817: 872:

to a BBC News article detailing a recent claim to establishing the location of the battle.

3573: 2285: 2206: 2166: 2128: 2107: 2035: 1984: 1934: 1909: 1865: 1820: 1708: 1689:, which is against Knowledge rules. Articles must be based on reliable secondary sources. 1647: 1513: 1470: 724: 632: 613: 3522:: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each. 2735:(1527) claims that the battle was fought by the River Ouse (which flows into the Humber). 4571:

instances in early medieval history of narratives relying on a single historical source.

4133:

a useful discussion but with the conclusion on p.156. There is also some background in

2723:(late 13th C) says the invading army arrived “south of the Humber”. Peter of Langtoft´s 4272:

Looks good to me. I think that it updates the original message very well. Best wishes.

3776:, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by 3362: 3240: 2967: 1537: 1495: 1392: 1378: 1364: 1340: 1324: 1301: 1287: 1272: 1254: 1213: 1113: 1095: 521: 359: 3816:

If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with

3711:

Last edited at 23:36, 4 October 2008 (UTC). Substituted at 09:08, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

2520:

read/listen to the references above, you'll see the problem explained in more detail.

4756: 4462: 4103: 3685: 2322: 2281: 1112:

the primary sources listed above are quoted at length)". Does anyone object to that?

962: 920: 884:

https://www.thesun.co.uk/tech/10202513/battleground-england-battle-brunanburh-wirral/

4707: 4655: 4199: 3084: 3058: 2925: 2408: 2353: 2338: 2261: 2153: 2114: 2085: 2021: 1850: 1790:

Livingston's presentation of the situation was criticised in several reviews (e.g.

1748: 1686: 1672: 1632: 1572: 1542: 1499: 1440: 1170: 916: 537: 343: 322: 261: 2249:

her point is that Bromborough is situated near a river that Vikings often used'.

2084:

Yes. Audio should be fine, if you can establish/defend the speaker's credibility.

1890: 1253:. I'm still new to all this, so I'd be happy for feedback/help on how to proceed. 817: 4525:

Simeon of Durham claimed similarly that the attacking fleet sailed up the Humber.

1227:

Please go ahead -- if you have a good source, I'm sure you can help the article.

3972:

Claim that the site has been found and proven by archaeology? :: keep or delete?

3783: 1018: 990: 553: 257: 4743: 4729: 4715: 4699: 4678: 4663: 4633: 4482: 4454: 4281: 4264: 4181: 4161: 4146: 4120: 4066: 4045: 4016: 3998: 3963: 3949: 3926: 3891: 3868: 3839: 3703: 3665: 3229: 3127: 3101: 3074: 3040: 3013: 2987: 2970:

and changing the article prose, these discussions are unlikely to achieve much.

2937: 2918: 2630: 2559: 2531: 2502: 2487: 2470: 2454: 2436: 2416: 2401: 2385: 2361: 2346: 2330: 2303: 2269: 2224: 2199: 2184: 2160: 2146: 2121: 2092: 2079: 2053: 2028: 2002: 1970: 1952: 1927: 1902: 1883: 1857: 1838: 1756: 1747:

scholarship) of an early 10th century, pre-history, battle (NOT WP nerdspeak).

1741: 1726: 1698: 1680: 1665: 1640: 1606: 1550: 1531: 1507: 1488: 1448: 1400: 1386: 1372: 1348: 1309: 1295: 1280: 1262: 1244: 1212:, of which I have just received a copy. Any objections to a thorough overhaul? 1202: 1178: 1144: 1121: 1103: 1081: 1055: 1021: 1007: 993: 970: 952: 928: 904: 876: 718: 708: 687: 4294:@Dudley Miles, I’m not sure why you have twice deleted the following passage: 4168: 3782:. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than 3327:

John of Worchester is linked more than once, as are the Annals of Clonmacnoise

714: 609: 349: 133: 3656:

Passing, none of my comments are an obstacle to promotion to GA. Well done,

873: 807: 3495:. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see 3207:. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review. 989:

rewritten. William of Malmesbury etc are secondary, not primary, sources.--

4073: 4202:. As of 2020, they are seeking funds to pursue their research further." 3987:

Battle of Brunanburh#Site discovery claim: near Bromborough in the Wirral

3543:: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing 737: 4374:

To address your objections, I have replaced the passage you deleted by:

4077: 4555:

Searching for Brunanburh: The Yorkshire Context of the Great War of 937

4330:

and no other point of entry is mentioned in any other historical source

2674:” (around Brunanburh) and says that the fleeing Norsemen set out upon “ 372: 4424:“the battle site at Brunanburh was chosen in agreement with Æthelstan” 1358:

a footnote reading "Livingston (2011), pp. 98-99" you add <ref: -->

1183:

I agree. It seems nationalistic at first with the following sentences:

4366:

chronicler to mention it. Secondly, he doesn’t say that the invaders

2686:, while the Annals of Clonmacnoise say the battle took place on the “ 2924:

I would oppose this. Going back to the original medieval sources is

1467:

See this link to page 182 on Google Books, near the top of the page.

4706:

it could always be improved, if you have any suggestions! Cheers.

2682:, etc). Symeon of Durham (early 12th C) gives the alternative name 459: 427: 232: 211: 2874:

Bamber; Bourne (Lancs); Brindle; Bromborough; Bromfield; Burnley

1788:

Woolf's 'we don't know' position is treated as the middle ground

4461:

Your arguments are original research, which is forbidden under

2790:

Aldborough; Barnburgh; Barnsdale; Brinsworth; Elslack; Kirkburn

4198:

location of the field is being kept secret to protect it from

2599:(3) Group the proposed locations into the following regions: 791: 69: 15: 1362:

the first time and after that <ref name=livingston12/: -->

4646:

We're a bit inconsistent in this article when talking about

3749:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the

850: 552: 536: 520: 4231:"Has the Battle of Brunanburh battlefield been discovered?" 3734:

for additional information. I made the following changes:

270:, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the 2902:

Axminster; Banbury; Bromfield; Burnswark; Dunbar; Dunlow"

3727: 3680: 2951: 1150:

This article is so bad I don't know where to begin.....

958: 59: 845:

Template:Did you know nominations/Battle of Brunanburh

843:. The nomination discussion and review may be seen at 2321:(a Norse place-name meaning "boundary settlement"). 4214:

Wirral Archaeology Press Release (22 October 2019).

2241:

Once again, Wirral advocacy & the source problem

2068:

Knowledge:Citing sources#What information to include

736:, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of 631:, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of 371:, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of 155:, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of 4072:seems to be an odd organization. Their web site at 3786:using the archive tool instructions below. Editors 503: 4654:. Happy to go wherever consensus leads. Cheers. 4216:"The search for the Battle of Brunanburh, is over" 4793:Mid-importance Norse history and culture articles 4081:The search for the Battle of Brunanburh, is over. 3273:understandable to an appropriately broad audience 4317:between the west-coast and east-coast theories. 3909:, should anyone want to read it in the meantime. 45:. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can 3684:, and are posted here for posterity. Following 2846:Bamburgh; Brumford; Durham; Lanchester; Hunwick 280:Knowledge:WikiProject Norse history and culture 3772:This message was posted before February 2018. 1560:William of Malmesbury - Evidence of Awareness 283:Template:WikiProject Norse history and culture 4823:European military history task force articles 3678:The comment(s) below were originally left at 2066:There is guidance on citing audio sources at 8: 4778:Mid-importance Anglo-Saxon Kingdoms articles 4390:The Location Section has been corrected to: 4362:chronicler to mention the Humber: he is the 4833:Nordic military history task force articles 4818:GA-Class European military history articles 4788:GA-Class Norse history and culture articles 3321:Capital 'B" for battle in the lead sentence 4783:All WikiProject Anglo-Saxon Kingdoms pages 4604:those that contradict their favoured view. 3873: 3722:I have just modified one external link on 3136: 2818:Bourne (Lincs); Bromswold; Brumby; Burnham 2566:The Location section still needs a rewrite 2545: 886: 682: 577: 500: 422: 317: 260:and abroad, prior to the formation of the 206: 169:Knowledge:WikiProject Anglo-Saxon Kingdoms 101: 4828:GA-Class Nordic military history articles 4246:"The Search for the Battle of Brunanburh" 3053:Proposal for the Primary Accounts section 2680:Brune, Brunandune, Bruneford, Bruneswerce 1786:, the centre of the Wirral theory, where 1359:Livingston (2011), pp. 98-99</ref: --> 820:). The text of the entry was as follows: 172:Template:WikiProject Anglo-Saxon Kingdoms 3906:using it in the article. Here is a link 3854:Reason for reversion of 1 September 2019 3233: 1149: 841:Knowledge:Recent additions/2016/February 465:This article is within the scope of the 4803:Mid-importance England-related articles 4206: 3167: 3139: 684: 579: 424: 319: 208: 103: 4773:GA-Class Anglo-Saxon Kingdoms articles 4421:“the battle occurred in early October” 4088:Norse invasion of the Wirral in c.903. 961:- which I have now trimmed a little. 485:Knowledge:WikiProject Military history 475:. To use this banner, please see the 4669:I think Owain is the usual spelling. 3761:to let others know (documentation at 2727:(ca. 1300) states the armies met at “ 2643:The Battle of Brunanburh – a Casebook 1361:Livingston (2011), p. 12</ref: --> 941:Battle of Brunanburh location section 839:A record of the entry may be seen at 488:Template:WikiProject Military history 242:WikiProject Norse history and culture 7: 4843:Medieval warfare task force articles 4529:Æthelstan. The First King of England 3275:; spelling and grammar are correct. 1463:Æthelstan: The First King of England 1269:The Battle of Brunanburh: A Casebook 1210:The Battle of Brunanburh: A Casebook 730:This article is within the scope of 625:This article is within the scope of 530:European military history task force 365:This article is within the scope of 239:This article is within the scope of 149:This article is within the scope of 75: 73: 4853:Mid-importance Middle Ages articles 3271:. the prose is clear, concise, and 2715:(early 12th C), Symeon of Durham´s 2690:”. Egil´s Saga names the locations 1776: 92:It is of interest to the following 4838:GA-Class Medieval warfare articles 4813:GA-Class military history articles 4467:The Chronicle of John of Worcester 4218:. Liverpool University Press blog. 3681:Talk:Battle of Brunanburh/Comments 1891:Æthelstan#The Battle of Brunanburh 935:Wirral Archaeology have issued a 546:Nordic military history task force 286:Norse history and culture articles 14: 4863:All WikiProject Middle Ages pages 4798:GA-Class England-related articles 3726:. Please take a moment to review 3686:several discussions in past years 2636:Proposal for the Location section 851: 645:Knowledge:WikiProject Middle Ages 249:related to all activities of the 41:. If you can improve it further, 4873:Low-importance Cheshire articles 3639: 3614: 3581: 3529: 3506: 3485: 3464: 3428: 3407: 3378: 3351: 3282: 3261: 1845:logical connection not explained 1732:use reliable secondary sources. 1072:That is an excellent suggestion. 795: 717: 707: 686: 648:Template:WikiProject Middle Ages 612: 602: 581: 458: 426: 352: 342: 321: 231: 210: 152:WikiProject Anglo-Saxon Kingdoms 136: 126: 105: 74: 19: 4878:Knowledge Did you know articles 4321:difficulty accepting the fact. 2762:The proposed locations include: 1685:Documenting primary sources is 770:This article has been rated as 665:This article has been rated as 405:This article has been rated as 300:This article has been rated as 189:This article has been rated as 3898:From Brunanburh to Bromborough 3398:could reasonably be challenged 3075:22:46, 26 September 2018 (UTC) 3041:08:24, 15 September 2018 (UTC) 3014:22:07, 10 September 2018 (UTC) 2988:18:26, 10 September 2018 (UTC) 2313:Clarification: Bromborough is 750:Knowledge:WikiProject Cheshire 29:has been listed as one of the 1: 4848:GA-Class Middle Ages articles 4744:03:50, 7 September 2023 (UTC) 4730:08:43, 5 September 2023 (UTC) 4716:01:01, 5 September 2023 (UTC) 4700:00:09, 5 September 2023 (UTC) 3892:08:13, 1 September 2019 (UTC) 3869:08:15, 1 September 2019 (UTC) 3601:valid non-free use rationales 3205:Talk:Battle of Brunanburh/GA1 2938:08:58, 9 September 2018 (UTC) 2919:19:26, 8 September 2018 (UTC) 2631:09:20, 2 September 2018 (UTC) 2532:01:49, 24 December 2015 (UTC) 2503:18:41, 23 December 2015 (UTC) 2488:00:46, 20 December 2015 (UTC) 2471:00:34, 20 December 2015 (UTC) 2455:23:05, 19 December 2015 (UTC) 2437:23:05, 19 December 2015 (UTC) 2417:18:18, 23 December 2015 (UTC) 2402:23:00, 19 December 2015 (UTC) 2386:22:40, 19 December 2015 (UTC) 2362:17:31, 19 December 2015 (UTC) 2347:17:13, 19 December 2015 (UTC) 2331:17:06, 19 December 2015 (UTC) 2304:17:01, 19 December 2015 (UTC) 2270:16:46, 19 December 2015 (UTC) 2093:01:08, 30 November 2015 (UTC) 2080:21:52, 29 November 2015 (UTC) 2054:16:38, 29 November 2015 (UTC) 2029:13:31, 29 November 2015 (UTC) 2003:16:38, 29 November 2015 (UTC) 1971:13:06, 29 November 2015 (UTC) 1953:00:44, 29 November 2015 (UTC) 1928:00:28, 29 November 2015 (UTC) 1903:22:35, 28 November 2015 (UTC) 1884:20:32, 28 November 2015 (UTC) 1858:19:51, 28 November 2015 (UTC) 1839:23:03, 25 November 2015 (UTC) 1813:16:08, 25 November 2015 (UTC) 1784:speaker session at Nottingham 1757:18:32, 16 November 2015 (UTC) 1742:17:41, 16 November 2015 (UTC) 1727:17:22, 16 November 2015 (UTC) 1699:17:08, 16 November 2015 (UTC) 1681:16:30, 16 November 2015 (UTC) 1666:16:00, 16 November 2015 (UTC) 1641:15:10, 16 November 2015 (UTC) 1607:11:35, 16 November 2015 (UTC) 1551:17:23, 14 November 2015 (UTC) 1532:17:08, 14 November 2015 (UTC) 1508:17:04, 14 November 2015 (UTC) 1489:16:54, 14 November 2015 (UTC) 1056:23:54, 9 September 2007 (UTC) 1022:23:06, 9 September 2007 (UTC) 971:07:42, 23 November 2019 (UTC) 953:23:34, 22 November 2019 (UTC) 929:22:43, 22 November 2019 (UTC) 905:21:04, 22 November 2019 (UTC) 753:Template:WikiProject Cheshire 744:and see a list of open tasks. 639:and see a list of open tasks. 385:Knowledge:WikiProject England 379:and see a list of open tasks. 175:Anglo-Saxon Kingdoms articles 163:and see a list of open tasks. 4720:I have hopefully clarified. 4679:19:38, 31 January 2023 (UTC) 4664:17:38, 31 January 2023 (UTC) 4229:Livingston, Michael (2019). 3840:13:58, 28 October 2016 (UTC) 3666:06:57, 20 January 2016 (UTC) 3640: 3615: 3582: 3530: 3507: 3486: 3465: 3429: 3408: 3379: 3352: 3283: 3262: 3230:04:50, 20 January 2016 (UTC) 3128:22:13, 25 October 2018 (UTC) 2603:(i) Yorkshire and the Humber 2225:01:41, 9 December 2015 (UTC) 2200:00:18, 9 December 2015 (UTC) 2185:17:11, 8 December 2015 (UTC) 2161:21:59, 2 December 2015 (UTC) 2147:16:33, 2 December 2015 (UTC) 2122:13:31, 2 December 2015 (UTC) 1449:05:06, 31 October 2015 (UTC) 816:column on 13 February 2016 ( 468:Military history WikiProject 388:Template:WikiProject England 4544:And to quote Michael Wood: 4244:Wirral Archaeology (2019). 3989:which describes this find? 3704:23:36, 4 October 2008 (UTC) 3102:22:25, 1 October 2018 (UTC) 3000:You make some good points, 1583:) 02:24, 16 November 2015‎ 1008:20:19, 18 August 2007 (UTC) 994:17:25, 18 August 2007 (UTC) 562:Medieval warfare task force 4894: 4868:GA-Class Cheshire articles 3803:(last update: 5 June 2024) 3719:Hello fellow Wikipedians, 3363:the layout style guideline 2560:16:36, 19 April 2017 (UTC) 1179:00:21, 18 March 2009 (UTC) 1164:21:53, 11 March 2009 (UTC) 957:Indeed, and thank you for 776:project's importance scale 671:project's importance scale 411:project's importance scale 306:project's importance scale 195:project's importance scale 144:Anglo-Saxon England portal 4858:GA-Class history articles 4808:WikiProject England pages 4483:14:56, 3 April 2022 (UTC) 4455:15:56, 2 April 2022 (UTC) 4052:Please check these links 3964:14:44, 6 March 2021 (UTC) 3950:14:29, 6 March 2021 (UTC) 3927:11:03, 6 March 2021 (UTC) 3693: 3553: 3452: 3333: 3249: 3239: 1465:; it is not my own work. 1413:Re-organising the article 1401:00:47, 19 June 2011 (UTC) 1387:23:35, 18 June 2011 (UTC) 1373:09:19, 18 June 2011 (UTC) 1349:04:10, 18 June 2011 (UTC) 1333:04:15, 17 June 2011 (UTC) 1310:19:49, 12 June 2011 (UTC) 1296:17:11, 12 June 2011 (UTC) 1281:22:14, 11 June 2011 (UTC) 1263:20:13, 11 June 2011 (UTC) 1122:14:16, 15 July 2011 (UTC) 1104:04:47, 15 July 2011 (UTC) 877:09:24, 19 July 2006 (UTC) 769: 702: 664: 597: 560: 544: 528: 499: 491:military history articles 453: 404: 337: 299: 277:Norse history and culture 226: 218:Norse history and culture 188: 121: 100: 4685:Who were the "Invaders"? 4634:15:34, 21 May 2022 (UTC) 3236: 2776:Yorkshire and the Humber 2729:Bruneburgh on the Humber 2579:” The list could go on… 1245:12:56, 4 June 2011 (UTC) 1222:03:42, 4 June 2011 (UTC) 1203:18:51, 14 May 2009 (UTC) 1145:17:26, 3 June 2008 (UTC) 1082:17:20, 3 June 2008 (UTC) 806:appeared on Knowledge's 391:England-related articles 4763:Knowledge good articles 4282:11:40, 5 May 2021 (UTC) 4265:09:35, 5 May 2021 (UTC) 4182:22:28, 4 May 2021 (UTC) 4162:21:58, 4 May 2021 (UTC) 4147:20:50, 4 May 2021 (UTC) 4121:19:18, 4 May 2021 (UTC) 4067:08:58, 4 May 2021 (UTC) 4046:23:02, 3 May 2021 (UTC) 4017:22:46, 3 May 2021 (UTC) 3999:22:27, 3 May 2021 (UTC) 3715:External links modified 3628:to the topic, and have 3292:. it complies with the 2612:(iv) North West England 2606:(ii) North East England 628:WikiProject Middle Ages 504:Associated task forces: 1777:'Widespread Agreement' 1267:I have now glanced at 1251:User:Cynehawke/sandbox 856: 557: 541: 525: 82:This article is rated 4768:Warfare good articles 4518:To quote Sarah Foot: 3457:Broad in its coverage 1591:Florence of Worcester 1457:William of Malmesbury 854: 556: 540: 524: 57:: January 20, 2016. ( 39:good article criteria 33:Warfare good articles 3784:regular verification 3724:Battle of Brunanburh 3547:or content dispute. 3440:copyright violations 3419:no original research 3344:no original research 2647:The Age of Athelstan 2522:Deacon of Pndapetzim 2478:Deacon of Pndapetzim 2445:Deacon of Pndapetzim 2427:Deacon of Pndapetzim 2020:it onto artic text. 1803:Deacon of Pndapetzim 829:Battle of Brunanburh 804:Battle of Brunanburh 733:WikiProject Cheshire 651:Middle Ages articles 166:Anglo-Saxon Kingdoms 157:Anglo-Saxon Kingdoms 113:Anglo-Saxon Kingdoms 27:Battle of Brunanburh 4290:Edits of 02.04.2022 4233:. medievalists.net. 3934:Notes & Queries 3774:After February 2018 3753:parameter below to 3474:. it addresses the 3396:. All content that 2609:(iii) East Midlands 1130:background/location 368:WikiProject England 4626:Arthurs Grandchild 4443:Arthurs Grandchild 3880:Arthurs Grandchild 3861:Arthurs Grandchild 3845:Naming Consistency 3828:InternetArchiveBot 3779:InternetArchiveBot 3674:Assessment comment 3651:Overall assessment 3597:copyright statuses 3560:, if possible, by 3314:list incorporation 3120:Arthurs Grandchild 3110:Date of the battle 3094:Arthurs Grandchild 3067:Arthurs Grandchild 3033:Arthurs Grandchild 3006:Arthurs Grandchild 2964:Michael Livingston 2948:Arthurs Grandchild 2911:Arthurs Grandchild 2860:North West England 2832:North East England 2721:Metrical Chronicle 2623:Arthurs Grandchild 1422:Croyland Chronicle 864:Location of battle 857: 620:Middle Ages portal 564:(c. 500 – c. 1500) 558: 542: 526: 473:list of open tasks 88:content assessment 4441:comment added by 3991:Anthony Appleyard 3940:is that correct? 3894: 3878:comment added by 3804: 3709: 3708: 3671: 3670: 3630:suitable captions 3603:are provided for 3438:. it contains no 3195: 3194: 2688:plaines of othlyn 2615:(v) Other regions 2590:I would suggest: 2562: 2550:comment added by 2529: 2485: 2452: 2434: 2333: 1810: 1687:original research 1595:John of Worcester 1585: 1571:comment added by 907: 891:comment added by 861: 860: 790: 789: 786: 785: 782: 781: 756:Cheshire articles 681: 680: 677: 676: 576: 575: 572: 571: 568: 567: 477:full instructions 421: 420: 417: 416: 316: 315: 312: 311: 205: 204: 201: 200: 68: 67: 64: 4885: 4648:Owain ap Dyfnwal 4457: 4250: 4249: 4241: 4235: 4234: 4226: 4220: 4219: 4211: 4043: 4036: 3983: 3980:Trappedinburnley 3924: 3917: 3838: 3829: 3802: 3801: 3780: 3768: 3691: 3690: 3683: 3643: 3642: 3618: 3617: 3605:non-free content 3585: 3584: 3533: 3532: 3510: 3509: 3489: 3488: 3468: 3467: 3432: 3431: 3411: 3410: 3390:reliable sources 3382: 3381: 3355: 3354: 3286: 3285: 3265: 3264: 3234: 3149:Copyvio detector 3137: 3089:Trappedinburnley 3063:Trappedinburnley 3002:Trappedinburnley 2985: 2978: 2525: 2481: 2448: 2430: 2378:Trappedinburnley 2312: 2301: 2292: 2222: 2213: 2182: 2173: 2144: 2135: 2111: 2051: 2042: 2000: 1991: 1981: 1950: 1941: 1925: 1916: 1881: 1872: 1836: 1827: 1806: 1724: 1715: 1663: 1654: 1584: 1565: 1529: 1520: 1486: 1477: 915:is not really a 853: 799: 792: 758: 757: 754: 751: 748: 727: 722: 721: 711: 704: 703: 698: 690: 683: 653: 652: 649: 646: 643: 622: 617: 616: 606: 599: 598: 593: 585: 578: 511: 501: 493: 492: 489: 486: 483: 482:Military history 462: 455: 454: 449: 434:Military history 430: 423: 393: 392: 389: 386: 383: 362: 357: 356: 355: 346: 339: 338: 333: 325: 318: 288: 287: 284: 281: 278: 254:Germanic peoples 235: 228: 227: 222: 214: 207: 177: 176: 173: 170: 167: 146: 141: 140: 139: 130: 123: 122: 117: 109: 102: 85: 79: 78: 77: 70: 62: 60:Reviewed version 51: 23: 16: 4893: 4892: 4888: 4887: 4886: 4884: 4883: 4882: 4753: 4752: 4687: 4644: 4436: 4292: 4254: 4253: 4243: 4242: 4238: 4228: 4227: 4223: 4213: 4212: 4208: 4135:EPNS Journal 36 4125:Have a look at 4039: 4030: 3977: 3974: 3920: 3911: 3900: 3895: 3856: 3847: 3832: 3827: 3795: 3788:have permission 3778: 3762: 3732:this simple FaQ 3717: 3679: 3676: 3296:guidelines for 3294:Manual of Style 3245:Review Comment 3199:This review is 3191: 3163: 3135: 3112: 3057:In response to 3055: 2981: 2972: 2672:ymbe Brunanburh 2649:” (pp.141-2). 2638: 2568: 2295: 2286: 2243: 2216: 2207: 2176: 2167: 2138: 2129: 2105: 2045: 2036: 1994: 1985: 1975: 1944: 1935: 1919: 1910: 1875: 1866: 1847: 1830: 1821: 1779: 1718: 1709: 1657: 1648: 1566: 1523: 1514: 1480: 1471: 1459: 1415: 1339:admin?). Help? 1152: 1132: 981: 979:Primary sources 917:reliable source 866: 755: 752: 749: 746: 745: 725:Cheshire portal 723: 716: 696: 650: 647: 644: 641: 640: 633:the Middle Ages 618: 611: 591: 509: 490: 487: 484: 481: 480: 436: 390: 387: 384: 381: 380: 358: 353: 351: 331: 285: 282: 279: 276: 275: 220: 174: 171: 168: 165: 164: 142: 137: 135: 115: 86:on Knowledge's 83: 58: 12: 11: 5: 4891: 4889: 4881: 4880: 4875: 4870: 4865: 4860: 4855: 4850: 4845: 4840: 4835: 4830: 4825: 4820: 4815: 4810: 4805: 4800: 4795: 4790: 4785: 4780: 4775: 4770: 4765: 4755: 4754: 4751: 4750: 4749: 4748: 4747: 4746: 4686: 4683: 4682: 4681: 4643: 4640: 4639: 4638: 4637: 4636: 4618: 4617: 4616: 4615: 4608: 4607: 4606: 4605: 4589: 4588: 4587: 4586: 4575: 4574: 4573: 4572: 4565: 4564: 4563: 4562: 4561: 4560: 4559: 4558: 4539: 4538: 4537: 4536: 4535: 4534: 4533: 4532: 4516: 4510: 4509: 4508: 4507: 4495: 4494: 4493: 4492: 4486: 4485: 4432: 4431: 4428: 4425: 4422: 4404: 4403: 4402: 4401: 4400: 4399: 4388: 4387: 4386: 4385: 4384: 4383: 4356: 4355: 4354: 4353: 4352: 4351: 4308: 4307: 4306: 4305: 4304: 4303: 4291: 4288: 4287: 4286: 4285: 4284: 4252: 4251: 4236: 4221: 4205: 4204: 4195: 4194: 4193: 4192: 4191: 4190: 4189: 4188: 4187: 4186: 4185: 4184: 4094: 4093: 4092: 4091: 4090: 4089: 4049: 4048: 4022: 4021: 4020: 4019: 4002: 4001: 3973: 3970: 3969: 3968: 3967: 3966: 3899: 3896: 3872: 3855: 3852: 3846: 3843: 3822: 3821: 3814: 3747: 3746: 3738:Added archive 3716: 3713: 3707: 3706: 3696:ErikTheBikeMan 3675: 3672: 3669: 3668: 3662:crack... thump 3654: 3644: 3636: 3635: 3633: 3619: 3611: 3610: 3608: 3586: 3578: 3577: 3551: 3550: 3548: 3534: 3526: 3525: 3523: 3511: 3503: 3502: 3500: 3490: 3482: 3481: 3479: 3478:of the topic. 3469: 3461: 3460: 3450: 3449: 3447: 3433: 3425: 3424: 3422: 3417:. it contains 3412: 3404: 3403: 3401: 3383: 3375: 3374: 3373: 3372: 3366: 3356: 3348: 3347: 3331: 3330: 3329: 3328: 3325: 3322: 3317: 3306:words to watch 3287: 3279: 3278: 3276: 3266: 3258: 3257: 3247: 3246: 3243: 3238: 3210: 3209: 3193: 3192: 3190: 3189: 3184: 3179: 3173: 3170: 3169: 3165: 3164: 3162: 3161: 3159:External links 3156: 3151: 3145: 3142: 3141: 3134: 3131: 3111: 3108: 3107: 3106: 3105: 3104: 3054: 3051: 3050: 3049: 3048: 3047: 3046: 3045: 3044: 3043: 3021: 3020: 3019: 3018: 3017: 3016: 2993: 2992: 2991: 2990: 2962:I've not read 2957: 2956: 2955: 2954: 2941: 2940: 2908: 2907: 2906: 2905: 2904: 2903: 2895: 2894: 2893: 2892: 2891: 2890: 2880: 2879: 2878: 2877: 2876: 2875: 2867: 2866: 2865: 2864: 2863: 2862: 2852: 2851: 2850: 2849: 2848: 2847: 2839: 2838: 2837: 2836: 2835: 2834: 2824: 2823: 2822: 2821: 2820: 2819: 2811: 2810: 2809: 2808: 2807: 2806: 2796: 2795: 2794: 2793: 2792: 2791: 2783: 2782: 2781: 2780: 2779: 2778: 2768: 2767: 2766: 2765: 2764: 2763: 2755: 2754: 2753: 2752: 2751: 2750: 2741: 2740: 2739: 2738: 2737: 2736: 2717:Historia Regum 2704: 2703: 2702: 2701: 2700: 2699: 2663: 2662: 2661: 2660: 2659: 2658: 2637: 2634: 2617: 2616: 2613: 2610: 2607: 2604: 2567: 2564: 2541: 2540: 2539: 2538: 2537: 2536: 2535: 2534: 2510: 2509: 2508: 2507: 2506: 2505: 2440: 2439: 2422: 2421: 2420: 2419: 2369: 2368: 2367: 2366: 2365: 2364: 2334: 2307: 2306: 2242: 2239: 2238: 2237: 2236: 2235: 2234: 2233: 2232: 2231: 2230: 2229: 2228: 2227: 2102: 2101: 2100: 2099: 2098: 2097: 2096: 2095: 2059: 2058: 2057: 2056: 2016: 2015: 2014: 2013: 2012: 2011: 2010: 2009: 2008: 2007: 2006: 2005: 1846: 1843: 1842: 1841: 1778: 1775: 1774: 1773: 1772: 1771: 1770: 1769: 1768: 1767: 1766: 1765: 1764: 1763: 1762: 1761: 1760: 1759: 1625: 1624: 1623: 1622: 1615: 1614: 1613: 1612: 1558: 1557: 1556: 1555: 1554: 1553: 1458: 1455: 1453: 1414: 1411: 1410: 1409: 1408: 1407: 1406: 1405: 1404: 1403: 1352: 1351: 1321: 1320: 1319: 1318: 1317: 1316: 1315: 1314: 1313: 1312: 1206: 1205: 1191: 1187: 1186: 1185: 1184: 1151: 1148: 1137:207.157.121.92 1131: 1128: 1127: 1126: 1125: 1124: 1091: 1090: 1089: 1088: 1087: 1086: 1085: 1084: 1074:207.157.121.92 1063: 1062: 1061: 1060: 1059: 1058: 1041: 1040: 1039: 1038: 1037: 1036: 1027: 1026: 1025: 1024: 1011: 1010: 1002:Angus McLellan 980: 977: 976: 975: 974: 973: 933: 932: 931: 893:213.233.148.27 870:here is a link 865: 862: 859: 858: 848: 838: 837: 800: 788: 787: 784: 783: 780: 779: 772:Low-importance 768: 762: 761: 759: 742:the discussion 729: 728: 712: 700: 699: 697:Low‑importance 691: 679: 678: 675: 674: 667:Mid-importance 663: 657: 656: 654: 637:the discussion 624: 623: 607: 595: 594: 592:Mid‑importance 586: 574: 573: 570: 569: 566: 565: 559: 549: 548: 543: 533: 532: 527: 517: 516: 514: 512: 506: 505: 497: 496: 494: 463: 451: 450: 431: 419: 418: 415: 414: 407:Mid-importance 403: 397: 396: 394: 377:the discussion 364: 363: 360:England portal 347: 335: 334: 332:Mid‑importance 326: 314: 313: 310: 309: 302:Mid-importance 298: 292: 291: 289: 236: 224: 223: 221:Mid‑importance 215: 203: 202: 199: 198: 191:Mid-importance 187: 181: 180: 178: 161:the discussion 148: 147: 131: 119: 118: 116:Mid‑importance 110: 98: 97: 91: 80: 66: 65: 50: 24: 13: 10: 9: 6: 4: 3: 2: 4890: 4879: 4876: 4874: 4871: 4869: 4866: 4864: 4861: 4859: 4856: 4854: 4851: 4849: 4846: 4844: 4841: 4839: 4836: 4834: 4831: 4829: 4826: 4824: 4821: 4819: 4816: 4814: 4811: 4809: 4806: 4804: 4801: 4799: 4796: 4794: 4791: 4789: 4786: 4784: 4781: 4779: 4776: 4774: 4771: 4769: 4766: 4764: 4761: 4760: 4758: 4745: 4741: 4737: 4733: 4732: 4731: 4727: 4723: 4719: 4718: 4717: 4713: 4709: 4704: 4703: 4702: 4701: 4697: 4693: 4684: 4680: 4676: 4672: 4668: 4667: 4666: 4665: 4661: 4657: 4653: 4649: 4641: 4635: 4631: 4627: 4622: 4621: 4620: 4619: 4612: 4611: 4610: 4609: 4602: 4598: 4593: 4592: 4591: 4590: 4583: 4579: 4578: 4577: 4576: 4569: 4568: 4567: 4566: 4556: 4552: 4548: 4547: 4546: 4545: 4543: 4542: 4541: 4540: 4530: 4526: 4522: 4521: 4520: 4519: 4517: 4514: 4513: 4512: 4511: 4504: 4499: 4498: 4497: 4496: 4490: 4489: 4488: 4487: 4484: 4480: 4476: 4472: 4468: 4464: 4460: 4459: 4458: 4456: 4452: 4448: 4444: 4440: 4429: 4426: 4423: 4420: 4419: 4418: 4415: 4413: 4409: 4397: 4396: 4395: 4394: 4393: 4392: 4391: 4381: 4380: 4379: 4378: 4377: 4376: 4375: 4372: 4369: 4365: 4361: 4349: 4348: 4347: 4346: 4345: 4344: 4343: 4340: 4338: 4333: 4331: 4326: 4322: 4318: 4314: 4311: 4301: 4300: 4299: 4298: 4297: 4296: 4295: 4289: 4283: 4279: 4275: 4274:Wilfridselsey 4271: 4270: 4269: 4268: 4267: 4266: 4262: 4258: 4247: 4240: 4237: 4232: 4225: 4222: 4217: 4210: 4207: 4203: 4201: 4183: 4179: 4175: 4174:Wilfridselsey 4170: 4165: 4164: 4163: 4159: 4155: 4150: 4149: 4148: 4144: 4140: 4139:Wilfridselsey 4136: 4132: 4128: 4124: 4123: 4122: 4118: 4114: 4109: 4105: 4104:Kelly DeVries 4100: 4099: 4098: 4097: 4096: 4095: 4086: 4082: 4078: 4074: 4070: 4069: 4068: 4064: 4060: 4059:Wilfridselsey 4056: 4054: 4051: 4050: 4047: 4044: 4042: 4037: 4035: 4034: 4026: 4025: 4024: 4023: 4018: 4014: 4010: 4006: 4005: 4004: 4003: 4000: 3996: 3992: 3988: 3981: 3976: 3975: 3971: 3965: 3961: 3957: 3953: 3952: 3951: 3947: 3943: 3939: 3935: 3931: 3930: 3929: 3928: 3925: 3923: 3918: 3916: 3915: 3908: 3904: 3897: 3893: 3889: 3885: 3881: 3877: 3871: 3870: 3866: 3862: 3853: 3851: 3844: 3842: 3841: 3836: 3831: 3830: 3819: 3815: 3812: 3808: 3807: 3806: 3799: 3793: 3789: 3785: 3781: 3775: 3770: 3766: 3760: 3756: 3752: 3745: 3741: 3737: 3736: 3735: 3733: 3729: 3725: 3720: 3714: 3712: 3705: 3701: 3697: 3692: 3689: 3687: 3682: 3673: 3667: 3663: 3659: 3655: 3652: 3648: 3645: 3638: 3637: 3634: 3631: 3627: 3623: 3620: 3613: 3612: 3609: 3606: 3602: 3598: 3594: 3590: 3587: 3580: 3579: 3575: 3571: 3567: 3563: 3559: 3556: 3552: 3549: 3546: 3542: 3538: 3535: 3528: 3527: 3524: 3521: 3520: 3515: 3512: 3505: 3504: 3501: 3498: 3497:summary style 3494: 3491: 3484: 3483: 3480: 3477: 3473: 3470: 3463: 3462: 3458: 3455: 3451: 3448: 3445: 3441: 3437: 3434: 3427: 3426: 3423: 3420: 3416: 3413: 3406: 3405: 3402: 3399: 3395: 3391: 3387: 3384: 3377: 3376: 3369: 3368: 3367: 3364: 3360: 3357: 3350: 3349: 3345: 3341: 3340: 3336: 3332: 3326: 3323: 3320: 3319: 3318: 3315: 3311: 3307: 3303: 3299: 3298:lead sections 3295: 3291: 3288: 3281: 3280: 3277: 3274: 3270: 3267: 3260: 3259: 3255: 3252: 3248: 3244: 3242: 3235: 3232: 3231: 3227: 3224: 3221: 3217: 3214: 3208: 3206: 3202: 3197: 3196: 3188: 3185: 3183: 3180: 3178: 3175: 3174: 3172: 3171: 3166: 3160: 3157: 3155: 3152: 3150: 3147: 3146: 3144: 3143: 3138: 3132: 3130: 3129: 3125: 3121: 3116: 3109: 3103: 3099: 3095: 3090: 3086: 3081: 3080: 3079: 3078: 3077: 3076: 3072: 3068: 3064: 3060: 3052: 3042: 3038: 3034: 3029: 3028: 3027: 3026: 3025: 3024: 3023: 3022: 3015: 3011: 3007: 3003: 2999: 2998: 2997: 2996: 2995: 2994: 2989: 2986: 2984: 2979: 2977: 2976: 2969: 2965: 2961: 2960: 2959: 2958: 2952: 2949: 2946:I'm assuming 2945: 2944: 2943: 2942: 2939: 2935: 2931: 2927: 2923: 2922: 2921: 2920: 2916: 2912: 2901: 2900: 2899: 2898: 2897: 2896: 2889: 2888:Other regions 2886: 2885: 2884: 2883: 2882: 2881: 2873: 2872: 2871: 2870: 2869: 2868: 2861: 2858: 2857: 2856: 2855: 2854: 2853: 2845: 2844: 2843: 2842: 2841: 2840: 2833: 2830: 2829: 2828: 2827: 2826: 2825: 2817: 2816: 2815: 2814: 2813: 2812: 2805: 2804:East Midlands 2802: 2801: 2800: 2799: 2798: 2797: 2789: 2788: 2787: 2786: 2785: 2784: 2777: 2774: 2773: 2772: 2771: 2770: 2769: 2761: 2760: 2759: 2758: 2757: 2756: 2747: 2746: 2745: 2744: 2743: 2742: 2734: 2730: 2726: 2722: 2718: 2714: 2710: 2709: 2708: 2707: 2706: 2705: 2697: 2693: 2689: 2685: 2681: 2677: 2673: 2669: 2668: 2667: 2666: 2665: 2664: 2656: 2655: 2654: 2653: 2652: 2651: 2650: 2648: 2644: 2635: 2633: 2632: 2628: 2624: 2620: 2614: 2611: 2608: 2605: 2602: 2601: 2600: 2597: 2594: 2591: 2588: 2584: 2580: 2578: 2572: 2565: 2563: 2561: 2557: 2553: 2552:185.108.92.22 2549: 2533: 2528: 2523: 2518: 2517: 2516: 2515: 2514: 2513: 2512: 2511: 2504: 2500: 2496: 2491: 2490: 2489: 2484: 2479: 2474: 2473: 2472: 2468: 2464: 2459: 2458: 2457: 2456: 2451: 2446: 2438: 2433: 2428: 2424: 2423: 2418: 2414: 2410: 2405: 2404: 2403: 2399: 2395: 2390: 2389: 2388: 2387: 2383: 2379: 2373: 2363: 2359: 2355: 2350: 2349: 2348: 2344: 2340: 2335: 2332: 2328: 2324: 2320: 2316: 2311: 2310: 2309: 2308: 2305: 2302: 2300: 2299: 2293: 2291: 2290: 2283: 2279: 2274: 2273: 2272: 2271: 2267: 2263: 2258: 2254: 2250: 2246: 2240: 2226: 2223: 2221: 2220: 2214: 2212: 2211: 2203: 2202: 2201: 2197: 2193: 2188: 2187: 2186: 2183: 2181: 2180: 2174: 2172: 2171: 2164: 2163: 2162: 2159: 2155: 2150: 2149: 2148: 2145: 2143: 2142: 2136: 2134: 2133: 2125: 2124: 2123: 2120: 2116: 2109: 2104: 2103: 2094: 2091: 2087: 2083: 2082: 2081: 2077: 2073: 2069: 2065: 2064: 2063: 2062: 2061: 2060: 2055: 2052: 2050: 2049: 2043: 2041: 2040: 2032: 2031: 2030: 2027: 2023: 2018: 2017: 2004: 2001: 1999: 1998: 1992: 1990: 1989: 1979: 1974: 1973: 1972: 1968: 1964: 1959: 1956: 1955: 1954: 1951: 1949: 1948: 1942: 1940: 1939: 1931: 1930: 1929: 1926: 1924: 1923: 1917: 1915: 1914: 1906: 1905: 1904: 1900: 1896: 1892: 1887: 1886: 1885: 1882: 1880: 1879: 1873: 1871: 1870: 1862: 1861: 1860: 1859: 1856: 1852: 1844: 1840: 1837: 1835: 1834: 1828: 1826: 1825: 1817: 1816: 1815: 1814: 1809: 1804: 1799: 1796: 1793: 1789: 1785: 1758: 1754: 1750: 1745: 1744: 1743: 1739: 1735: 1730: 1729: 1728: 1725: 1723: 1722: 1716: 1714: 1713: 1706: 1702: 1701: 1700: 1696: 1692: 1688: 1684: 1683: 1682: 1678: 1674: 1669: 1668: 1667: 1664: 1662: 1661: 1655: 1653: 1652: 1644: 1643: 1642: 1638: 1634: 1629: 1628: 1627: 1626: 1619: 1618: 1617: 1616: 1610: 1609: 1608: 1604: 1600: 1596: 1592: 1588: 1587: 1586: 1582: 1578: 1574: 1570: 1561: 1552: 1548: 1544: 1539: 1535: 1534: 1533: 1530: 1528: 1527: 1521: 1519: 1518: 1511: 1510: 1509: 1505: 1501: 1497: 1493: 1492: 1491: 1490: 1487: 1485: 1484: 1478: 1476: 1475: 1468: 1464: 1456: 1454: 1451: 1450: 1446: 1442: 1437: 1433: 1429: 1425: 1423: 1418: 1412: 1402: 1398: 1394: 1390: 1389: 1388: 1384: 1380: 1376: 1375: 1374: 1370: 1366: 1356: 1355: 1354: 1353: 1350: 1346: 1342: 1337: 1336: 1335: 1334: 1330: 1326: 1311: 1307: 1303: 1299: 1298: 1297: 1293: 1289: 1284: 1283: 1282: 1278: 1274: 1270: 1266: 1265: 1264: 1260: 1256: 1252: 1248: 1247: 1246: 1242: 1238: 1234: 1230: 1229:Mike Christie 1226: 1225: 1224: 1223: 1219: 1215: 1211: 1204: 1200: 1196: 1192: 1189: 1188: 1182: 1181: 1180: 1176: 1172: 1168: 1167: 1166: 1165: 1161: 1157: 1156:87.127.178.28 1147: 1146: 1142: 1138: 1129: 1123: 1119: 1115: 1110: 1109: 1108: 1107: 1106: 1105: 1101: 1097: 1083: 1079: 1075: 1071: 1070: 1069: 1068: 1067: 1066: 1065: 1064: 1057: 1054: 1051: 1050:Mike Christie 1047: 1046: 1045: 1044: 1043: 1042: 1033: 1032: 1031: 1030: 1029: 1028: 1023: 1020: 1015: 1014: 1013: 1012: 1009: 1006: 1003: 998: 997: 996: 995: 992: 986: 985: 978: 972: 968: 964: 960: 956: 955: 954: 950: 946: 945:Wilfridselsey 942: 938: 937:press release 934: 930: 926: 922: 918: 914: 913: 909: 908: 906: 902: 898: 894: 890: 885: 881: 880: 879: 878: 875: 871: 863: 849: 846: 842: 835: 831: 830: 826:... that the 825: 822: 821: 819: 815: 814: 809: 805: 801: 798: 794: 793: 777: 773: 767: 764: 763: 760: 743: 739: 735: 734: 726: 720: 715: 713: 710: 706: 705: 701: 695: 692: 689: 685: 672: 668: 662: 659: 658: 655: 638: 634: 630: 629: 621: 615: 610: 608: 605: 601: 600: 596: 590: 587: 584: 580: 563: 555: 551: 550: 547: 539: 535: 534: 531: 523: 519: 518: 515: 513: 508: 507: 502: 498: 495: 478: 474: 470: 469: 464: 461: 457: 456: 452: 448: 444: 440: 435: 432: 429: 425: 412: 408: 402: 399: 398: 395: 378: 374: 370: 369: 361: 350: 348: 345: 341: 340: 336: 330: 327: 324: 320: 307: 303: 297: 294: 293: 290: 273: 269: 265: 263: 259: 255: 252: 248: 244: 243: 237: 234: 230: 229: 225: 219: 216: 213: 209: 196: 192: 186: 183: 182: 179: 162: 158: 154: 153: 145: 134: 132: 129: 125: 124: 120: 114: 111: 108: 104: 99: 95: 89: 81: 72: 71: 61: 56: 55: 48: 44: 40: 36: 35: 34: 28: 25: 22: 18: 17: 4722:Dudley Miles 4688: 4671:Dudley Miles 4651: 4645: 4600: 4596: 4581: 4557:, pp.147-8). 4554: 4550: 4528: 4524: 4502: 4475:Dudley Miles 4470: 4466: 4437:— Preceding 4433: 4416: 4411: 4407: 4405: 4389: 4373: 4367: 4363: 4359: 4357: 4341: 4336: 4334: 4329: 4327: 4323: 4319: 4315: 4312: 4309: 4293: 4257:Dudley Miles 4255: 4239: 4224: 4209: 4196: 4154:Dudley Miles 4113:Dudley Miles 4040: 4032: 4031: 4009:Dudley Miles 3956:Gog the Mild 3942:Dudley Miles 3938:Gog the Mild 3933: 3921: 3913: 3912: 3901: 3874:— Preceding 3857: 3848: 3826: 3823: 3798:source check 3777: 3771: 3758: 3754: 3750: 3748: 3721: 3718: 3710: 3677: 3658:Peacemaker67 3650: 3646: 3624:. media are 3621: 3591:. media are 3588: 3561: 3557: 3554: 3540: 3536: 3517: 3513: 3492: 3476:main aspects 3471: 3456: 3453: 3435: 3414: 3394:cited inline 3385: 3358: 3343: 3337: 3334: 3289: 3268: 3254:Well-written 3253: 3250: 3222: 3216:Peacemaker67 3212: 3211: 3198: 3187:Instructions 3117: 3113: 3056: 2982: 2974: 2973: 2930:Dudley Miles 2909: 2887: 2859: 2831: 2803: 2775: 2732: 2728: 2724: 2720: 2716: 2712: 2695: 2691: 2687: 2683: 2679: 2675: 2671: 2646: 2642: 2639: 2621: 2618: 2598: 2595: 2592: 2589: 2585: 2581: 2576: 2573: 2569: 2546:— Preceding 2542: 2495:Dudley Miles 2463:Dudley Miles 2441: 2394:Dudley Miles 2374: 2370: 2314: 2297: 2296: 2288: 2287: 2277: 2259: 2255: 2251: 2247: 2244: 2218: 2217: 2209: 2208: 2192:Dudley Miles 2178: 2177: 2169: 2168: 2140: 2139: 2131: 2130: 2072:Dudley Miles 2047: 2046: 2038: 2037: 1996: 1995: 1987: 1986: 1978:Dudley Miles 1963:Dudley Miles 1946: 1945: 1937: 1936: 1921: 1920: 1912: 1911: 1895:Dudley Miles 1877: 1876: 1868: 1867: 1848: 1832: 1831: 1823: 1822: 1780: 1734:Dudley Miles 1720: 1719: 1711: 1710: 1691:Dudley Miles 1659: 1658: 1650: 1649: 1599:Dudley Miles 1567:— Preceding 1562: 1559: 1525: 1524: 1516: 1515: 1482: 1481: 1473: 1472: 1462: 1460: 1452: 1438: 1434: 1430: 1426: 1419: 1416: 1322: 1268: 1209: 1207: 1195:81.156.13.43 1153: 1133: 1092: 987: 983: 982: 910: 887:— Preceding 867: 827: 824:Did you know 823: 813:Did you know 811: 803: 802:A fact from 771: 731: 666: 626: 466: 406: 366: 301: 268:project page 262:Kalmar Union 240: 238: 190: 150: 94:WikiProjects 52: 43:please do so 31: 30: 26: 4736:MiguelMunoz 4692:MiguelMunoz 4642:Owain/Owen? 3932:I see that 3903:1066Thinker 3765:Sourcecheck 3595:with their 3558:Illustrated 3201:transcluded 1536:Thank you. 818:check views 642:Middle Ages 589:Middle Ages 258:Scandinavia 247:WikiProject 4757:Categories 4652:status quo 4614:geography. 4412:toponymist 4200:nighthawks 3835:Report bug 3444:plagiarism 3339:Verifiable 3154:Authorship 3140:GA toolbox 3083:texts, as 2968:being bold 2676:Dingesmere 2282:due weight 2278:completely 2108:Biblioworm 1889:1066. See 1705:WP:PRIMARY 1439:Thoughts? 272:discussion 256:, both in 37:under the 4531:, p.174). 4503:historian 4408:historian 4129:p.106 or 3818:this tool 3811:this tool 3371:journal). 3241:Attribute 3213:Reviewer: 3177:Templates 3168:Reviewing 3133:GA Review 2725:Chronique 2713:Chronicon 2696:Vinuskóga 2571:remains. 1393:Cynehawke 1379:Moonraker 1365:Moonraker 1341:Cynehawke 1325:Cynehawke 1302:Moonraker 1288:Cynehawke 1273:Moonraker 1255:Cynehawke 1214:Cynehawke 1114:Moonraker 1096:Cynehawke 959:this edit 855:Knowledge 808:Main Page 264:in 1397. 4471:Casebook 4451:contribs 4439:unsigned 3888:contribs 3876:unsigned 3824:Cheers.— 3626:relevant 3564:such as 3545:edit war 3226:contribs 3182:Criteria 2733:Historia 2692:Vinheiðr 2684:Weondune 2548:unsigned 2323:Ghmyrtle 1798:Clarkson 1795:McGuigan 1581:contribs 1569:unsigned 1237:contribs 963:Ghmyrtle 921:Ghmyrtle 901:contribs 889:unsigned 834:Hastings 747:Cheshire 738:Cheshire 694:Cheshire 447:Medieval 439:European 84:GA-class 47:reassess 4708:Dumuzid 4656:Dumuzid 3751:checked 3728:my edit 3519:Neutral 3310:fiction 3085:AnonNep 3059:AnonNep 2409:AnonNep 2354:AnonNep 2339:AnonNep 2262:AnonNep 2154:Lingzhi 2115:Lingzhi 2086:Lingzhi 2022:Lingzhi 1851:Lingzhi 1749:AnonNep 1673:AnonNep 1633:AnonNep 1573:Sirlanz 1543:AnonNep 1538:WP:RSUW 1500:AnonNep 1496:WP:RSUW 1441:AnonNep 1241:library 1171:White43 912:The Sun 810:in the 774:on the 669:on the 409:on the 382:England 373:England 329:England 304:on the 193:on the 4463:WP:NOR 4368:landed 4131:Higham 4127:Cavill 3759:failed 3599:, and 3593:tagged 3566:images 3541:Stable 3312:, and 3302:layout 2289:Biblio 2210:Biblio 2170:Biblio 2158:(talk) 2132:Biblio 2119:(talk) 2090:(talk) 2039:Biblio 2026:(talk) 1988:Biblio 1938:Biblio 1913:Biblio 1869:Biblio 1855:(talk) 1824:Biblio 1712:Biblio 1651:Biblio 1517:Biblio 1474:Biblio 1053:(talk) 1019:Barend 1005:(Talk) 991:Barend 443:Nordic 90:scale. 54:Review 4582:first 4364:first 4337:et al 3574:audio 3572:, or 3570:video 3562:media 3342:with 3237:Rate 3203:from 2926:WP:OR 251:North 4740:talk 4726:talk 4712:talk 4696:talk 4675:talk 4660:talk 4630:talk 4601:must 4479:talk 4447:talk 4430:etc. 4360:only 4278:talk 4261:talk 4178:talk 4158:talk 4143:talk 4117:talk 4063:talk 4041:chat 4013:talk 3995:talk 3960:talk 3946:talk 3922:chat 3884:talk 3865:talk 3755:true 3700:talk 3392:are 3220:talk 3124:talk 3098:talk 3087:and 3071:talk 3061:and 3037:talk 3010:talk 2983:chat 2934:talk 2915:talk 2694:and 2627:talk 2556:talk 2527:Talk 2499:talk 2483:Talk 2467:talk 2450:Talk 2432:Talk 2413:talk 2398:talk 2382:talk 2358:talk 2343:talk 2327:talk 2319:Raby 2298:worm 2266:talk 2219:worm 2196:talk 2179:worm 2141:worm 2076:talk 2048:worm 1997:worm 1967:talk 1947:worm 1922:worm 1899:talk 1878:worm 1833:worm 1808:Talk 1792:Wood 1753:talk 1738:talk 1721:worm 1695:talk 1677:talk 1660:worm 1637:talk 1603:talk 1577:talk 1547:talk 1526:worm 1504:talk 1483:worm 1445:talk 1397:talk 1383:talk 1369:talk 1345:talk 1329:talk 1306:talk 1292:talk 1277:talk 1259:talk 1233:talk 1218:talk 1199:talk 1175:talk 1160:talk 1141:talk 1118:talk 1100:talk 1078:talk 967:talk 949:talk 925:talk 897:talk 874:Oska 245:, a 4597:not 4169:FAQ 4033:TiB 3914:TiB 3792:RfC 3769:). 3757:or 3742:to 3499:). 3442:or 2975:TiB 1239:- 766:Low 661:Mid 401:Mid 296:Mid 185:Mid 49:it. 4759:: 4742:) 4728:) 4714:) 4698:) 4677:) 4662:) 4632:) 4481:) 4453:) 4449:• 4280:) 4263:) 4180:) 4160:) 4145:) 4137:. 4119:) 4065:) 4015:) 3997:) 3962:) 3948:) 3890:) 3886:• 3867:) 3805:. 3800:}} 3796:{{ 3767:}} 3763:{{ 3702:) 3664:) 3653:. 3649:. 3632:. 3622:6b 3607:. 3589:6a 3576:: 3568:, 3555:6. 3539:. 3516:. 3493:3b 3472:3a 3459:: 3454:3. 3446:. 3436:2d 3421:. 3415:2c 3388:. 3386:2b 3365:. 3359:2a 3346:: 3335:2. 3316:. 3308:, 3304:, 3300:, 3290:1b 3269:1a 3256:: 3251:1. 3228:) 3126:) 3100:) 3073:) 3039:) 3012:) 2936:) 2917:) 2629:) 2558:) 2530:) 2501:) 2486:) 2469:) 2453:) 2435:) 2415:) 2400:) 2384:) 2360:) 2345:) 2329:) 2315:on 2268:) 2198:) 2156:♦ 2117:♦ 2088:♦ 2078:) 2070:. 2024:♦ 1969:) 1901:) 1853:♦ 1819:-- 1811:) 1755:) 1740:) 1697:) 1679:) 1639:) 1605:) 1597:. 1579:• 1549:) 1506:) 1469:-- 1447:) 1399:) 1385:) 1371:) 1347:) 1331:) 1308:) 1294:) 1279:) 1261:) 1243:) 1235:- 1220:) 1201:) 1177:) 1162:) 1143:) 1120:) 1102:) 1080:) 969:) 951:) 927:) 903:) 899:• 836:"? 510:/ 445:/ 441:/ 437:: 63:). 4738:( 4724:( 4710:( 4694:( 4673:( 4658:( 4628:( 4477:( 4445:( 4276:( 4259:( 4248:. 4176:( 4156:( 4141:( 4115:( 4061:( 4011:( 3993:( 3982:: 3978:@ 3958:( 3944:( 3882:( 3863:( 3837:) 3833:( 3820:. 3813:. 3698:( 3660:( 3647:7 3537:5 3514:4 3223:· 3218:( 3122:( 3096:( 3069:( 3035:( 3008:( 2932:( 2913:( 2641:“ 2625:( 2554:( 2524:( 2497:( 2480:( 2465:( 2447:( 2429:( 2411:( 2396:( 2380:( 2356:( 2341:( 2325:( 2264:( 2194:( 2110:: 2106:@ 2074:( 1980:: 1976:@ 1965:( 1897:( 1805:( 1751:( 1736:( 1693:( 1675:( 1635:( 1601:( 1575:( 1545:( 1502:( 1443:( 1395:( 1381:( 1367:( 1343:( 1327:( 1304:( 1290:( 1275:( 1257:( 1231:( 1216:( 1197:( 1173:( 1158:( 1139:( 1116:( 1098:( 1076:( 965:( 947:( 923:( 895:( 847:. 778:. 673:. 479:. 413:. 308:. 274:. 197:. 96::

Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.

Index