Talk:Battle of Brunanburh

message: I don't want to edit the actual article as I have little knowledge of Anglo-Saxon history but here is a link to a BBC News article detailing a recent claim to establishing the location of the battle. Oska 09:24, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The location of the Battle has been discovered but not yet announced by archaeologists. A link to the article is here: https://www.thesun.co.uk/tech/10202513/battleground-england-battle-brunanburh-wirral/  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.233.148.27 (talk • contribs) 21:04, 22 November 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: The Sun is not really a reliable source on such matters, and even the article refers only to archaeologists' "claims".  We await their findings, and the views of their academic peers.   Ghmyrtle (talk) 22:43, 22 November 2019 (UTC)

text: Wirral Archaeology have issued  a press release on the Liverpool University website, about this. They are confident that the have found the battle site. This is already referenced in the Battle of Brunanburh location section. 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! Wilfridselsey (talk) 23:34, 22 November 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: Indeed, and thank you for this edit - which I have now trimmed a little.  Ghmyrtle (talk) 07:42, 23 November 2019 (UTC)
thread_title: Location of battle

message: 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 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 Wikipedia a bad name...207.157.121.92 (talk) 17:26, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  background/location 

message: This is written entirely subjectively, with poor referencing and citation. What are the large stretches of poems doing here? 87.127.178.28 (talk) 21:53, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Badly in need of a rewrite with sources placed in proper places and grammatically corrected. Too many subjective sentences. White43 (talk) 00:21, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
replies: text:  I agree. It seems nationalistic at first with the following sentences: 
*'...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.
*'...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.--81.156.13.43 (talk) 18:51, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

text: Please go ahead -- if you have a good source, I'm sure you can help the article. Mike Christie (talk - contribs -  library) 12:56, 4 June 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: 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: User:Cynehawke/sandbox. I'm still new to all this, so I'd be happy for feedback/help on how to proceed. Cynehawke (talk) 20:13, 11 June 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I have now glanced at The Battle of Brunanburh: A Casebook. 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. Moonraker (talk) 22:14, 11 June 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: 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 (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. Cynehawke (talk) 17:11, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: 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? Moonraker (talk) 19:49, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

text: 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 admin?). Help? Cynehawke (talk) 04:10, 18 June 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Well done, Cynehawke. I have taken out the  template but left the  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 a footnote reading "Livingston (2011), pp. 98-99" you add Livingston (2011), pp. 98-99 where you want the superscript number to go. The numbering of the footnotes is automatic. To use the same citation more than once, use Livingston (2011), p. 12 the first time and after that . 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. Moonraker (talk) 09:19, 18 June 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks again, Cynehawke, now that you have sorted the references I have taken out the  template, too. (I have tidied some repetitions of the whole of Livingston's new title.) Moonraker (talk) 23:35, 18 June 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank YOU for helping a new person out. I figured that the references could be better sorted than I was managing! Cynehawke (talk) 00:47, 19 June 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  This article is so bad I don't know where to begin..... 

message: This article will remain messy without sorting out a couple of things: the historical sources and that the battle site is unknown.
At the moment some earliest historical sources have been cut back or are missing while 15th century Ingulf's Croyland Chronicle (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.)
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.
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 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.
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?
Thoughts? AnonNep (talk) 05:06, 31 October 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Re-organising the article 

message: 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 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 speaker session at Nottingham, the centre of the Wirral theory, where Woolf's 'we don't know' position is treated as the middle ground Livingston's presentation of the situation was criticised in several reviews (e.g. WoodMcGuiganClarkson 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. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 16:08, 25 November 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: 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. --Biblioworm 23:03, 25 November 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  'Widespread Agreement' 

message: "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.  Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 19:51, 28 November 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: 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 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. Biblioworm 20:32, 28 November 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: 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 1066. See Æthelstan#The Battle of Brunanburh. 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. Dudley Miles (talk) 22:35, 28 November 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: 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 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". Biblioworm 00:28, 29 November 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: 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 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. Biblioworm 00:44, 29 November 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: 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  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 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. Dudley Miles (talk) 13:06, 29 November 2015 (UTC)
replies: text:  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 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). Biblioworm 16:38, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

text: There is guidance on citing audio sources at Wikipedia:Citing sources#What information to include. Dudley Miles (talk) 21:52, 29 November 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes. Audio should be fine, if you can establish/defend the speaker's credibility. Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 01:08, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  logical connection not explained 

message: I've commented before on the problem of developing this article given a bias towards a location that has partial academic (mainly placename) acceptance. 
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 her point is that Bromborough is situated near a river that Vikings often used'. 
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 referenced. To include such detail, when it applies to others, for ONE location is misleading.
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).
I would prefer this article to be shaped around surviving historical sources rather than more recent fashionable trends but that's another story. AnonNep (talk) 16:46, 19 December 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: 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 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 completely 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 due weight to opinions, and apparently even Michael Wood (a person who has argued for alternative sites) said that Bromborough is becoming the accepted location. Biblioworm 17:01, 19 December 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Clarification: Bromborough is on the Wirral, not near it.  It is very close to the boundary of the accepted Norse settled area at Raby (a Norse place-name meaning "boundary settlement").  Ghmyrtle (talk) 17:06, 19 December 2015 (UTC)

text:  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 special argument for the Wirral, in detail (hence my 'be more specific' edit), or (3) remove it from all. AnonNep (talk) 17:13, 19 December 2015 (UTC)
replies: text:  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 arguments. This article should be a summary of information about the historical battle not reduced to a sly promo for particular location candidates. AnonNep (talk) 17:31, 19 December 2015 (UTC)

text: 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. Dudley Miles (talk) 23:00, 19 December 2015 (UTC)
replies: text:  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... AnonNep (talk) 18:18, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

text: (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. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 23:05, 19 December 2015 (UTC)

text: 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 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. Dudley Miles (talk) 00:34, 20 December 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: 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 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. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 00:46, 20 December 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: 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? Dudley Miles (talk) 18:41, 23 December 2015 (UTC)
replies: text:  Not sure why you think this, that objection is quite recent. I think it's more a case of 'most historians [working on this issue] 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 read/listen to the references above, you'll see the problem explained in more detail. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 01:49, 24 December 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Once again, Wirral advocacy & the source problem 

message: In response to  and ´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?  Arthurs Grandchild (talk) 22:46, 26 September 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: 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 texts, as  and  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 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. Arthurs Grandchild (talk) 22:25, 1 October 2018 (UTC)
thread_title: Proposal for the Primary Accounts section 

message: 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. 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.
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. Arthurs Grandchild (talk) 22:13, 25 October 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Date of the battle 

message: Substituted at 09:08, 29 April 2016 (UTC)
thread_title: Assessment comment

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified  on Battle of Brunanburh. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160304192433/http://www.english.uga.edu/~jdmevans/Personal/Kevin%20Halloran%20-%20The%20Brunanburh%20Campaign%20A%20Reappraisal.pdf to http://www.english.uga.edu/~jdmevans/Personal/Kevin%20Halloran%20-%20The%20Brunanburh%20Campaign%20A%20Reappraisal.pdf
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 13:58, 28 October 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: 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 edits "made a mockery of the GA tag" demonstrate a fundamental misunderstanding of the purpose of Wikipedia. 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. Arthurs Grandchild (talk) 08:15, 1 September 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reason for reversion of 1 September 2019 

message: 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 using it in the article. Here is a link , should anyone want to read it in the meantime.TiB chat 11:03, 6 March 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: I see that Notes & Queries, 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.  is that correct? Dudley Miles (talk) 14:29, 6 March 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: 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.) Gog the Mild (talk) 14:44, 6 March 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  From Brunanburh to Bromborough  

message: We're a bit inconsistent in this article when talking about Owain ap Dyfnwal, 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 status quo.  Happy to go wherever consensus leads.  Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 17:38, 31 January 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: I think Owain is the usual spelling. Dudley Miles (talk) 19:38, 31 January 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Owain/Owen? 

message: 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. MiguelMunoz (talk) 00:09, 5 September 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: 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 it could always be improved, if you have any suggestions!  Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 01:01, 5 September 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: I have hopefully clarified. Dudley Miles (talk) 08:43, 5 September 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: 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. MiguelMunoz (talk) 03:50, 7 September 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Who were the "Invaders"?