# Talk:Echmarcach mac Ragnaill

Benjamin Hudson (Viking Pirates and Christian Princes, pp. 142–143) says that that Margad represents Murchad (i.e. Murchad, son of Diarmait mac Mail na mBo). He doesn't connect Echmarcach with Gutthorm Gunhildarson and the expedition to Wales. Angus McLellan  (Talk) 17:08, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Margad is equated with Echmarcach in a footnote in my copy of Heimskringla and that is all I know about this matter.   Fornadan (t) 20:22, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

There has been some very good work done on this article since I last read it, kudos to Brianann for excellent work. One small matter, I'm not sure wording like "possibly the most likely of all" in the paragraph "Uncertain parentage" is beneficial - might be better to just list the 3 (4) possibilities suggested by scholars without adding more weight than that already given by these scholars. Best regards, Finn Rindahl (talk) 17:19, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

Another point to the same paragraph, Downham p 29 is given as a reference after "One possibility[1] is that he was Ragnall mac Amlaíb (d. 980), son of Amlaíb Cuarán, King of Dublin and Northumbria (d. 980 or 981)[2]" - the figure on p 29 does not mention Echmarcach at all however. On the contrary, Downham p 193, figur 12, list Echmarcach as a son of Ragnall (Rögnvaldr) Gudrødsson (d. 1005), albeit with a questionmark. Finn Rindahl (talk) 18:43, 5 November 2012 (UTC)
Thanks Finn. OK, I understand what you mean, I'll try to make it more neutral. I guess I figured that her book was the more recent of the others I've used, and that she seems to have atleast leant towards Ragnall mac Gofraid. I think that the only sources I've read arguing for a Waterford connection are listed in her bibliography, and I figured that she must have taken these sources into account and yet still favoured that Ragnall mac Gofraid. From the little I've read atleast, the number of arguments seemed to have been weighted against a Waterford connection: Duffy/Oram vs Hudson/Etchingham/Woolf.
There are snippets of a 2006 source on GoogleBooks which I can barely get a glimpse of: Duffy's "The royal dynasties of Dublin and the isles in the eleventh century". It's not listed in Downham's bibliogprahy. I wish I could see what Duffy wrote in it, and I wonder if he added more to his argument for the Waterford Ragnalls. One thing I can just make out is that he seems to have considered rex innarenn to equate to "King of the Isles" rather than "King of the Rhinns" (p.57 "The difficulty lies in proposing '-inna-' as the Gaelic preposition in na ('in the [plural]') since a Latin form should follow rex, as in rex de Hibernia. It may therefore be more sensible to view it as a corruption or misreading of rex insularum, 'king of the Isles', not unlike the title given Echmarcach in the Irish annals"). It made me wonder what it would mean if the evidence for a Gallowegian connection was totally nixed. Could it tie into an argument for a Waterford connection somehow? It would seem to make it less likely that Echmarcach was a native of that region atleast.--Brianann MacAmhlaidh (talk) 10:48, 6 November 2012 (UTC)
Regarding Downham, she does indeed lean to Ragnall mac Gofraid - but the current version of this article could give the impression that she supports Ragnaill mac Arailt (d 980) (reference 2). As far as I can tell, only Todd (and Connon, probably(?) quoting Todd uncritically) are supporting this , by calling Echmarcach Sigtrygg Silkenbeards nephew. It seem to me that there are two main alternatives among modern scholars: one of the 2 Waterford Ragnalls or Ragnall mac Gofraid. Perhaps it would be better to present these two alternatives with the scholars supporting them (incorporating in the text what you have already written in note 1), and instead leave Todds outdated(?) proposition in a note?
Interesting that Duffy questions "Rex Innarenn"; I note that Etchingham (who often picks at this kind of details) translates it "King of the Rhinns" and also quotes Marianus as rex Inna Renn - not Innarenn fwiw. Finn Rindahl (talk) 13:15, 6 November 2012 (UTC)
The second ref just supports the range of dates and the relationship between the two men: "<ref>[[#D1|Downham 2007]]: p. 29 ''fig 6''. See also: [[#H1|Hudson 2005b]]: p. 49 ''fig 2''.</ref><!-- These references are for Ragnall mac Amlaíb and Amlaíb Cuarán's death-dates.-->" The first ref, right after "One possibility", supports the possibility that these two men were Echmarcach's ancestors. I didn't mean for the article's refs to lend any weight to statements, or to link names to certain viewpoints, I only meant to show where the presented info came from. I figured that the note identifying the scholars would illustrate who thinks what. OK, I'll get to reworking the section.
Etchingham gives this as his source for Marianus' quotation: "Waitz, MGH SS 5, 559=PL 147, 788". Waitz's book is viewable on GoogleBooks, and reads "rex innarenn" on page 559. Do you know who/what "PL 147, 788" refers to? I'm not having much luck pinning it down on Google. When I Googled the transcription given by Etchingham, I turned up footnote 95 of Ó Corráin's Vikings in Scotland and Ireland in the ninth century, here [1], but he cites Waitz page 559.--Brianann MacAmhlaidh (talk) 10:24, 7 November 2012 (UTC)
Ok, I understand what you mean regarding the refs, but I'm not sure we really need a ref on these two mens death dates. Secondly, the way I understand placement of refs, "(d. 980 or 981).[2]" means that it is a ref for the whole sentence, while (d. 980 or 981)[2]. would imply that it is a ref only for the last statement in the sentence. Minor details for sure, but I got confused initially. Finn Rindahl (talk) 13:33, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

This review is transcluded from Talk:Echmarcach mac Ragnaill/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Reviewer: Miyagawa (talk · contribs) 08:48, 9 August 2016 (UTC)

I've enjoyed reviewing articles on similar subjects before, so I may as well grab this for a review as well. Miyagawa (talk) 08:48, 9 August 2016 (UTC)

I would modify the lead very slightly - "The precise identity of Echmarcach's father Ragnall is uncertain." (without the italics, that's just so you can see the change). I just found that there was a difference from the way it was presented in the lead to that in the body of the article. The impression I got from the lead was that it wasn't known at all, and I found it surprising that a name was known in the body. This minor change would bring that all together.
Uncertain parentage: I would add a couple of words (with a cite) at the end of the paragraph following a comma, so it'd be something like "the Uí Ímair, a Royal Norse dynasty." It just makes it more obvious for the reader without having to click through to find out some very basic information about what this is. There will be plenty of other examples elsewhere in the article where readers will need to click through, but this would be a simple addition that doesn't wreck the flow of the paragraph.
Downfall: Would it be appropriate to pipe a link via Fine Gall to Fingal?
That's all I've got - this is an extremly well sourced and extremly well written article. Miyagawa (talk) 11:43, 9 August 2016 (UTC)

Hi, Miyagawa. I've tweaked the lead, the Uí Ímair bit, and have "Fine Gall" redirecting to Fingall.--Brianann MacAmhlaidh (talk) 01:09, 16 August 2016 (UTC)
Great, that was all that was needed. Happy to support promotion to GA now. Miyagawa (talk) 10:35, 16 August 2016 (UTC)
Thanks Miyagawa.--Brianann MacAmhlaidh (talk) 00:44, 17 August 2016 (UTC)