Talk:Battle of Glenmama/GA1

GA Review[edit]

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Comments:

It fails the MILHIST B-class criteria because it lacks any discussion of the sources. See the GA Battle of Artemisium for comparison. Wandalstouring (talk) 16:51, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I wasn't aware of that first criterion (it has been a while since I've written an article on a battle), but it shouldn't be too hard to do. I'll get right on it. --Grimhelm (talk) 19:26, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Done. It's not as long as at the Battle of Artemisium article, but it covers the main sources. --Grimhelm (talk) 22:53, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The archaeological claims aren't referenced with reliable sources. Remove this section completely or find new sources. Wandalstouring (talk) 16:51, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Is there any particular reason why Todd is an unreliable source, or is it simply because the source itself is not specialist in archaeology? Todd was certainly one of the most influential of 19th century Irish historians, and the source for the archaeological material (now discussed in the "Sources" section) appears in a lengthy note. --Grimhelm (talk) 22:53, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - He's not a specialist and it dates from a time when archaeological remains were forcibly combined with historic events. Any source after 1950 on the archaeological remains is presumably more trustworthy, however, I'd have to check it in detail (I have two archaeological libraries at hand). Wandalstouring (talk) 10:38, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - I've commented them out until you can find something. Any modern archaeological commentary on the battle that I found was cursory and not in sufficient detail for inclusion. If you can't find anything, we'll have to remove it outright. --Grimhelm (talk) 18:41, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      - You have to use WP:reliable sources. This isn't a reliable source. Please point you to the modern works you found and where information on this topic is contained. Like every scientific book they cite on which sources they rely even for a cursory comment. Wandalstouring (talk) 08:49, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        Point taken. The sources seem to point to an article on the battle in an academic journal, Medieval Dublin II: proceedings of the Friends of Medieval Dublin symposium 2000, although I have been unable to locate the journal for that particular year. (The closest I could locate near me was the third volume in the series, for 2001.) I don't know if you'd have any better luck. --Grimhelm (talk) 17:55, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        I've ordered the book. It will arrive on Tuesday or earlier. Wandalstouring (talk) 10:52, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The claims "crushing" and "decisive" are unsourced and questionable. The battle takes place 999 AD and the war goes from 999 AD till 1000 AD. This gives the defeated plenty of time to continue fighting and reach an agreement with the victors after the battle. Furthermore 14 years later they fight the same thing over again. Thus the victors were stupid because they didn't impose sanctions upon the defeated that hindered them from rebelling again or the defeat wasn't crushing at all. That leads again to a thorough review of the sources and the slight possibility of exaggeration. Wandalstouring (talk) 16:51, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I can see why there might be confusion regarding the length of the war. The revolt started in December 999. The battle was fought in late December, and Dublin was occupied in January 1000. The war was effectively over with the occupation in January. One of the revolt's leaders had been captured in the battle, and the other fled. He was unable to find support and submitted three months later.
  Maybe the battle wasn't as influential compared to Clontarf, but it was the decisive battle of the First Leinster Revolt. For a conflict which only lasted a few weeks and had its peace terms concluded three months later, the battle sounds pretty decisive to me. Glenmama was the only battle of the revolt, and removed all resistance from Dublin. I think another reason why the battle itself can be considered so crushing is that (based on the sources) thousands of Danes were killed in a single battle in a time and place of limited warfare, where an army of a hundred or so was considered large. (On consideration, I can probably add that to the article).
  As for not imposing sanctions of the defeated, the armies of the defeated were forced to serving under Boru for more than a decade after. Bear in mind that the second Leinster revolt was caught up with external influences, including the simultaneous revolt in the North and the addition of allies and mercenaries from Man, Orkney, Normandy, Scandinavia, etc. (see also Sigtrygg Silkbeard#Second Leinster revolt against Boru) Also, at that point Máel Sechnaill refused to support Boru. In that regard, maybe you are right that the victors were "stupid", but that stupidity seems to have been after the first Leinster revolt rather than during it. --Grimhelm (talk) 19:26, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - And to have saved all that talk, Ó Corráin refers to it as a "crushing defeat" of the Leinstermen. Figures. --Grimhelm (talk) 01:04, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Argumentation is OK, but you should stress the briefness of this affair in the article. Still, that one side was able to escape and travel abroad makes the whole war less crushing. The external influences should be highlighted. Wandalstouring (talk) 10:38, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - The external influences were in the second revolt (Clontarf). To my knowledge there were no external influences in the first revolt (Glenmama). --Grimhelm (talk) 15:08, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I doubt the accuracy of the flags. Where can I verify that these flags were actually used back then? Wandalstouring (talk) 17:11, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The problem with the flags of the Irish provinces is that, in their modern incarnation, most of them can only be found with absolute certainty around 1600. However, the motifs are "without question considerably older." The crown on the arms of Munster, "forms an integral element of a thirteenth century crozier head found near Cormac's Chapel on the Rock of Cashel", which was the seat of the Kings of Munster from early Christian times. The harp on the flag of Leinster dates back to what "from mediaeval times… [was] regarded as the heraldic symbol of Ireland". While we may never say for certain exactly what form the flags of the Kingdoms of Munster and Leinster took at the time of Clontarf, it is clear that the motifs of their corresponding provinces were in use at the time (refer to this article from the National Library of Ireland).
  There is less doubt about the Flag of Mide. This flag is accurate since the former province of Meath, which was the the seat of the High Kingship at Tara, was historically shown "by a representation of a royal personage… seated on a throne". As for the Raven banner, this was common among the Vikings of the time. We know from Njál's saga that it was used at Clontarf, and from earlier coinage that it was used as a symbol of the Kingdom of Dublin (see here). --Grimhelm (talk) 19:26, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - That doesn't convince me that exactly these flags were used. Please remove anything that's not sourceable and as you pointed out there's no source for Irish flags before the 16th century. Wandalstouring (talk) 10:26, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - Well, flags seem to have been rarely used by the Irish at this time fullstop. The symbols on the flags, however, were used by the Kingdoms at this time. In any case, the main use of the flags was to clarify who commanded which army, but if the flags themselves are open to question, it is best to remove them. --Grimhelm (talk) 15:24, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What makes these reliable sources?
- MacManus, Seumas (1921). The Story of the Irish Race: A Popular History of Ireland. Ireland: The Irish Publishing Co. ISBN 0-517-06408-1. Wandalstouring (talk) 17:11, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - The chapter relevant to this battle, Chapter 30, was written by Dr. Joseph Dunn, translator of the Táin bo Chuailgne and Professor of Celtic Philology at the Catholic University of America. That would seem reasonably reliable. --Grimhelm (talk) 22:53, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Todd, James Henthorn (1867). Cogadh Gaedhel re Gallaibh: The war of the Gaedhil with The Gaill, or, The invasions of Ireland by the Danes and other Norsemen. Longmans, Green, Reader, and Dyer. Wandalstouring (talk) 17:11, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Although biased, the Cogadh Gaedhel is earlier than the other sources (the annals). Its biases and merits are now discussed in the "Sources" section. Todd's translation is the most recent edition of that manuscript. I have already referred to its uses for archaeology above. --Grimhelm (talk) 22:53, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - A perfectly valid source for the the translation of the historic material, no source for archaeology and you should balance his statements with more recent scholarly opinions. Wandalstouring (talk) 10:38, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Chiming in here if I may: I've seen no indication that the present day flags for Munster and Leinster (or Mide) that was used at this time. While the raven banner was used by many norse leaders (including Amlaíb Cuarán, I've seen no evidence that this was used as a permanent symbol of viking-Dublin. AFM 994 could be interpreted as if "The ring of Tomar and the sword of Carlus" was some sort of royal symbol of Dublin (but for Wikipedia that conclusion borders original research I suppose ;). While it is worth while to mention what sources like Cogadh says about the battle, it can hardly be used an historic reference. Doyle.com depends on Morgan Llewellyn's novel "The Lion of Ireland", and while possibly entertaining not a source for anything but a "In popular culture" section. Even if Harald Olafson, probably Sigtrygg Silkbeards brother, is reported to have died at Glen Mama, I'm not convinced that he was the norse leader (instead of Siggtryggr) but I may have missed some sources here. Finn Rindahl (talk) 19:29, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Doyle page is now removed. The biases and merits of the Cogadh Gaedhel are now discussed in the section on "Sources". I couldn't find any reference in the medieval sources to Sigtrygg being present at the battle, although I don't have Clare Downham's Viking Kings of Britain and Ireland yet so perhaps you have some information that I don't. --Grimhelm (talk) 22:53, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Checked Downhamn, not much to get there I'm afraid. I left a note at the talk page proper. I have not seen any sources that Sigtryggr was present either, I only assume he would eb the natural leader of the "foreigners from Ath Cliath". Regards, Finn Rindahl (talk) 00:13, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Remaining issues[edit]

The sources section mustn't only list source but also discuss them briefly. What are their biases, when were they written.

Todd is totally discredited and given undue weight. His whole theory that there was a battlefield because the clay is dark and there are some bones and a sword is not accepted any more. If you give me an email I can send you pdf of Medieval Dublin II. Wandalstouring (talk) 14:35, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have expanded on the sources section so that it discusses the annals in sufficient detail. I should be able to get a start on the archaeology of the site by the end of the week. --Grimhelm (talk) 16:44, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'll try to explain the legal problem with a simple example: I go into a pub in Dublin and promise free beer for everybody if they support me as highking of Ireland and do everything I want. Most likely I'll find a few fellows who thinks it's a good idea. So I'm as close to being highking of Ireland as Maél. Wandalstouring (talk) 18:13, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You have to remember that political institutions were very different in early medieval Ireland. There was no centralised government in the sense of modern nation states, or even in the sense of the European feudal monarchies that consolidated themselves in the Late Middle Ages. Ireland was divided and subdivided into a plethora of provincial kingdoms and petty kingdoms beneath them. The high-kingship was a title referring to the king at the top of this hierarchy. What your "pub example" lacks is a firm basis in tradition. There was no "legal" problem with Máel holding this high-kingship — the high-kingship of the Uí Néill was a time-honoured tradition. Their high-kingship centred primarily on control of the Kingdom of Meath and more importantly the hill of Tara, the traditional and symbolic seat of the high-kings.

And let's also bear in mind that while later high-kings of the 11th and 12th centuries were very often termed "kings with opposition", contemporaries and later writers still recognised them as "kings of Ireland". While historians have faulted the defects of viewing the High-Kingship as any sort of central government in real terms, they have recognised the fact that the Uí Néill, Máel Sechnaill and later Boru held some title as "King of Ireland". Ó Corráin refers to the "hegemony of the Uí Néill which had lasted for centuries" before Boru, and the "Uí Néill primacy of honour" (p 125). Even the more recent Michael Richter notes the "Uí Néill claim to supremacy over the whole of the country", and that with Boru, "the claim of the Uí Néill to the monopoly of the kingship of Tara had been broken effectively for the first time" (p 113). It was Máel who held the kingship of Tara before Boru started seriously undermining him.

And yet, according to Ó Corráin, it was only by the 1010s that Boru could claim "with some basis in truth" to be King of Ireland. He "offended prejudice and broke with tradition, but he did not break the law". Indeed, the high-kingship could be assumed (and very often was) through strength of arms, just as Máel Sechnaill had done at the Battle of Tara. The title of imperator Scotorum, an 11th century variant of "High-King", was meant "to denote a supremacy founded on the might of the sword" (Richter). Máel was still nominally High-King until Boru invaded the north and forced him to relinquish that title in 1002 - two years after Glenmama.

Short of saying, "the High-Kingship was at times a contested title but recognised by tradition", I don't see what you expect the article to say that Máel's high-kingship after Tara was more "dubious" than that of his predecessors or his successors (the latter of whom had much more opposition). In this case, we have to go with what the sources say, medieval and modern, and anything else would constitute original research. --Grimhelm (talk) 20:31, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Your quotes aren't complete enough to prove your point. I would accept claimant to high kingship, but not highking in a pre-Glenmama context as in the article. If he still claims the title and has some agreements with the other influentials to not contest his claim, we may say highking with a footnote where the meaning is sourced. Wandalstouring (talk) 13:08, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In that case, MacManus refers to Máel Sechnaill as becoming "emperor of the Irish" in 980 (p 276) and later as "the then Ard Righ" in 1001 (p 291), with both terms referring to the high-kingship. It was only in 1002 that he "was compelled to resign his supremacy to the superior force of Brian and to step down to the position of a provincial king" (p 276). He recovered the highkingship in 1014 and "reigned for eight years… he was the last Irish king to reign without opposition" (p 282). --Grimhelm (talk) 17:37, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Can this sentence be fixed so it's not dubious? "The valley was believed to be the ancient Glenmama, and a road known locally as "St. Kevin's Road" was said to have run through the glen from mid-Leinster to Glendalough from the earliest period.[14][dubious – discuss]" After doing a review myself this is the only outstanding issue. Wizardman 18:28, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I just removed the dubious sentence, since it doesn't really add to the article - now i'll pass it as a GA. Wizardman 14:45, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]