Talk:Wulfhere of Mercia

message: The map recently added that shows the extent of Mercia is interesting, but I'd like to know more about how the boundaries were put together.  I don't know of much in the way of boundary information, though I know there's some.  Is this based on map given in a secondary source?
How about a version of the map that doesn't use boundary lines, but just places the names in the approximate positions that they should occupy?  I think the definiteness of the boundaries might be misleading.  Mike Christie (talk) 16:44, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The map is based on the one in Sarah Zaluckyj & Marge Feryok. Mercia: The Anglo-Saxon Kingdom of Central England (2001) . The boundaries are largely based on ecclesiastical boundaries that survived into the later Middle Ages unchanged, supplemented by information in the Tribal Hidage, because each Mercian sub-unit was given its own bishop (e.g. Hwicce = Worcester, etc.). TharkunColl 16:58, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks.  I don't have that book, so I've gone ahead and ordered it, along with a couple of others.  I'll have a crack at a couple more Mercian kings when it arrives -- probably Wulfhere or Offa to start with.  Mike Christie (talk) 17:13, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Question about the map 

message: Can I ask for the background on this: "The date at which Lindsey passed from Oswiu's control to Wulfhere's is not certain, but cannot be later than 669"?  It's reffed to Williams, p. 12; I ask because Kirby is pretty definite that there isn't any evidence that Wulfhere exercised authority in Lindsey, and refers only to episcopal authority.  Is Williams talking about Chad?  That would fit.  Mike Christie (talk) 23:01, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Apologies, it's p. 21 not p. 12, but yes: "Wulfhere's ability to grant this land [to Chad] demonstrates his control of the province [of Lindsey]". Angus McLellan  (Talk) 08:40, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No apologies needed; thanks.  I've put a note about the date back in and reffed Williams for it. Mike Christie (talk) 04:21, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lindsey 

message: The passage from Eddius about Wulfhere refers to the period 667–9, when Wilfred was excluded from his diocese in Northumbria:
"He returned to an abbot's monastic seat and again lived humbly at Ripon for three years, except that King Wulfhere of the Mercians often invited him into his territory with real affection to perform various episcopal functions. The Lord raised up for himself this most kindly king, who among other things gave for his soul's healing many tracts of land in various places to our bishop, in which he soon established minsters for servants of God."
This is quoted on page 92 of The Church in Anglo-Saxon Society by John Blair, Oxford University Press, 2006, .
--qp10qp (talk) 20:39, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Wilfred

message: Perhaps the meaning of his name could be included. Wulfhere (Wulf+Here) in Old English literally translates into Wolf Army. See Wiktionary:wulf and Wiktionary:here. Just an idea. --Dictionman (talk) 12:25, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Etymology of "Wulfhere" 

message: I probably shouldn't wait until a few hours before the article goes on the main page to suggest this, but I'd like to remove the map showing the extent of Mercia.  It's not sourced, for one thing, but I'm more concerned by the fact that it implies definite boundaries, which can't be supported by sources except perhaps very late in Mercia's history.  Diocesan boundaries are known reasonably well, or at least can be sourced, but there is no particular reason to believe they corresponded exactly to the boundary of Mercian control, especially at early dates.  There was a similar discussion over a map of Britain that ended with the removal of the map with boundaries, so I feel there is precedent for this.  If I hear no reasons to leave it, or at least if there's more support than opposition, I'll remove it later today. Mike Christie (talk) 10:18, 24 April 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: It's derived from the map of the Tribal Hidage that appears in Mercia: The Anglo-Saxon Kingdom of Central England (2001), Sarah Zaluckyj & Marge Feryok. ðarkuncoll 10:40, 24 April 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I've added that to the image file as a source.  Zaluckyj says it is based on Cyril Hart's work; based on her bibliography the original source is probably Hart's "The Tribal Hidage" in Transactions of the Royal Historical Society, Fifth Series, Vol 21, Royal Historical Society, 1971.  I'd like to see if Hart gives the specific boundaries that Zaluckyj draws, or if he expresses any reservations about the accuracy.  I'd prefer to source this to Hart if possible; I don't know anything about Zaluckyj's background but I don't know that she holds an academic post -- I think she's an interested amateur.  I've generally avoided sourcing to her if I have a better source.  Anyway, at least we have a source for the map now, which helps.  Since you created the map, TharkunColl, I assume you'd prefer it stays?  If so I'll leave it in the article unless someone else comments. Mike Christie (talk) 11:14, 24 April 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: It adds useful info I think, though it wasn't designed for this particular article. ðarkuncoll 11:23, 24 April 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Here's a JSTOR link to the article: ; I can only see the first page.  If someone else can see the whole article, please report here on what it says. Mike Christie (talk) 11:27, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

text: Interesting; I don't have the Dornier.  You can see snippets of the map on Google Books by searching for "Dornier Mercian Studies" and then searching for "england in the late eighth century" or "minor political boundaries".  It does look as though Hart was using definite lines on the map, rather than labels without boundaries.  However, he does say "approximate", so I've added that to the caption. I also checked the two maps referenced in the caption and one uses no boundaries, while the other (Higham) does, for part of the area, but also says approximate; and Higham's boundaries do not correspond exactly to Zaluckyj's.  I would like to see the Hart article, but am still in favour of removing the map completely since it gives a misleading impression of definiteness.  Let's see if anyone else comments. Mike Christie (talk) 13:35, 24 April 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: It would be better without the lines, but the caption says it is "approximate". I wouldn't think anyone who is paying attention should be misled. Anyone who isn't paying much attention probably won't register the lines on the map anyway. Angus McLellan  (Talk) 22:39, 24 April 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Remove map?  Opinions requested 

message: An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Of Mercia Wulfhere. Please participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so.  -- Tavix (talk) 20:25, 15 December 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Of Mercia Wulfhere" listed at [[Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion|Redirects for discussion]]