Talk:Offa of Mercia

message: I hesitate to ask this, because I'm worried that, as so often happens on Wikipedia, it might result in the issue coming to occupy a far more prominent place in the article than it deserves, but—do we really want the theory that Offa was Moslem and its opposing viewpoint being given such equal weight when they're mentioned?  My understanding (and I'm far from an expert on the Anglo-Saxon period) is that this theory is given pretty short shrift by specialists of the period; if this is so, the article should say so.  If I'm mistaken and it's not so, then it needs to be backed up better than the article, as the external link on the subject leads only to a vaguely crackpot-sounding essay that provides no references for its assertions other than having "asked several Englishmen (male and female alike)" for their opinions (I'm very curious as to a female Englishman's opinion!), and whose spelling and punctuation do not do anything to shore up its credibility.  Binabik80 16:10, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree completely. I'm working on a PhD on eighth- and ninth-century Anglo-Saxon coinage, and no serious scholar of the period would take this theory seriously for a second. The one piece of pertinent evidence belongs to a completely different but no less fascinating tradition of monetary and economic interaction, and should be taken on those terms. For all that this case illustrates how people can (mis)interpret the evidence to suit their own ends, it would definitely be safer to remove any reference to Offa's 'conversion'. Arichis 10:08, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Offa and Islam 

message: These rather obstruct the article's contents at the moment. I'd suggest that, if they are to be kept, that only one side is displayed, with a link to the reverse in the image caption. I'll be bold and change them in a day or so if there's no objections. --Whamilton42 18:27, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Coin images 

message: What does the name OFFA actually MEAN??  Thankx  —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.143.68.244 (talk) 23:02, August 20, 2007 (UTC) 
:It's one of many Old English hypocorisms (nicknames) for the common Germanic naming element Wulf and doesn't mean anything by itself. Other variants included Yffe, Uffa and Wuffa. 17:40, 4 February 2023 (UTC)
thread_title: Etymology

message: Just a note to say I'm hoping to take this article to FA, and plan to make some edits over the next few days or weeks to bring it up to the FA criteria.  I'll try to keep the edit summaries informative but if anyone thinks I'm making a hash of the article, let's talk before I go too far off track.  Mike Christie (talk) 13:02, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Editing for FA 

message: I can't find a cite for this quote I just removed from the section on Wessex: "The border or Wessex and Mercia in this period seems to have been peaceful; recent archaeological excavations at Oxford have revealed an important Middle Saxon bridge, but no fortifications comparable to those at Hereford."  It was added by an anon, some time ago.  If anyone has a cite for it, please re-add it. Mike Christie (talk) 16:37, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No idea myself, but I wonder if it might be from Haslam's "Market and Fortress in England in the Reign of Offa" World Archaeology, Vol. 19, No. 1. I didn't check Vince's article in Brown & Farr's Mercia. This page on Bristol might be worth a look. Angus McLellan  (Talk) 17:18, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't see anything in Vince; I don't have access to JSTOR so I can't check Haslam, though I agree it looks possible.  I quickly scanned the Bristol page, which looks interesting: I don't see a direct source there but there is other possibly usable material.  Thanks for the pointers.  Mike Christie (talk) 17:45, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

text: The version of the Annales Cambriae in Morris's Nennius shows that the "Devastation by Rheinwg son of Offa" is not in the oldest manuscript, Harleian 3859. Rheinwg is seemingly the kingdom of Dyfed (or perhaps Brycheiniog)  (try Google books for Rheinwg+Offa and Rheinwg). I must find a decent book on early medieval Wales. Angus McLellan  (Talk) 10:17, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, if you do, let me know what you find.  I think I'll just remove the 796 date until I can understand that entry better; it really doesn't have much impact on the force of the comment and I hate to put it in without knowing what's going on there. Mike Christie (talk) 01:38, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: …and as soon as I cut it I find it in Stenton.  He says it's a raid into Dyfed; I've re-added it just as a date without mentioning the location. Mike Christie (talk) 02:26, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Uncited material 

message: I removed this: "Wormald argues that they may reflect Offa's lost law codes, referred to by Alfred the Great" in reference to the records of the legatine mission.  I can't find this in his "The Age of Offa and Alcuin", in Campbell et al., eds., The Anglo-Saxons.  If anyone has a source, please let me know, as I'd like to use this. Mike Christie (talk) 17:18, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I found this in the Penguin Asser and have reffed it from that. Mike Christie (talk) 02:53, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Unsourced comment from Wormald 

message: Yorke, Kings and Kingdoms, p. 117, says "When Jaenbert died in 792 Offa was careful to have a more compliant individual installed as his successor."  I'd like to include some reference to this, but I'm not sure what the evidence is Yorke is basing this on.  All I know of is subsequent evidence in charters that Aethelheard was indeed more compliant. Does anyone know if there is more than that?  Mike Christie (talk) 17:47, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The F Chronicle says that Æethelheard was "of the monastery of Louth". The location does make it likely he would be more compliant and that Offa had some influence on the appointment. It reminds me of Æthelbald and Tatwin, who had been abbot of Breedon-on-the-Hill. This is all I can think of to explain Yorke's wording. qp10qp (talk) 02:49, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Offa and Aethelheard 

message: I cut the following:
Other substantial construction projects of a similar date do exist, however, such as Wat's Dyke and the Danevirke, in what is now Denmark, as well as such sites as Stonehenge from millennia earlier.  The dyke can be regarded in the light of these counterparts as the largest and most recent great construction of the preliterate inhabitants of Britain.
It's awkwardly written (trying to kill two different birds—size and age—with one stone) in my opinion, but copyediting it does not seem to me worth it. The article already said that we do not know if Wat's Dyke was built before or after Offa's Dyke, which contradicts the "most recent" part here. Referenced or not, the claim that OD was a larger construction than Stonehenge seems to me arguable (and rather irrelevant), especially as it is known that Stonehenge was part of a larger site and related to a network of other monuments. Also, since there were literate monks in Mercia at this time, and since charters were written, maybe we shouldn't talk of Offa's as a preliterate age, even if the literate were few in number. All in all, I feel such claims are inessential to the article. qp10qp (talk) 02:30, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Works for me.  The quote is taken from a piece by Wormald in which he talks about how historians are astounded at such feats of engineering from a pre-literate society, but "the prehistorian is quite used to such things".  I might be inclined to defend introducing a comment like that in an article on Offa's Dyke; for an article on Offa I agree it's quite peripheral and can just go. Mike Christie (talk) 02:45, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Cut passage

message: I was looking for stuff on Cano mac Gartnáin earlier on and I came across a comment about Offa in the New History of Ireland [Francis John Byrne, "The Viking Age" in Dáibhí Ó Cróinín (ed) Prehistoric and Early Ireland], p. 614, fn 11: "[Coenwulf]'s predecessor, the great Offa, received a more curious tribute from the Irish: not merely do the annals style him 'Offa rex bonus Anglorum' (A.U. 796), but his coinage was remembered in the Old Irish word affaing 'a penny', attested in the saga of Cano mac Gartnait, as well as in Cormac's Glossary (where the Bodl[eian]. copy has the older form ofing); Cormac actually regarded it as a native Irish unit, 'the scripulus of the Gaels'!; see D. A. Binchy (ed.), Scéla Cano meic Gartnáin (Dublin, 1963), pp 22 ff." Angus McLellan  (Talk) 22:25, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for that tidbit, Angus; I'll try to work it in once I'm caught up on FAC comments. Mike Christie (talk) 13:09, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Around the time of Jaenberht's death and replacement with Æthelheard in 792-3, the silver currency was reformed a second time: in this "heavy coinage" the weight of the pennies was increased again, and a standardised non-portrait design was introduced at all mints. None of Jaenberht's or Cynethryth's coins occur in this coinage, whereas all of Æthelheard's coins are of the new, heavier weight. Hi, the first part of the sentence is ok, but where it states that none of Jaenberht's coins were not of the larger weight would be self expanitory as he was dead before its introduction. I believe a rewording is in order to delete the obvious. Enlil Ninlil (talk) 04:29, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not sure that it's self-evident, but perhaps it could be rephrased.  I believe the situation is that it's partly because there are none of Jaenberht's coins in this new coinage that the heavy coinage is thought to have been introduced no earlier than his death.  Deleting the comment that none of his coins are heavy would remove mention of evidence for the dating of the change.  Can you think of a clearer phrasing? Mike Christie (talk) 11:48, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Coinage 

message: The description in the article of the sanctions imposed by Charlemagne isn't right: the Gesta Abbatum Fontanellensium (as in Whitelock) says clearly that the sanctions were never imposed. The whole point is that Gerbert (the abbot in question) managed to dissuade Charlemagne from imposing the sanctions in retaliation for Offa's supposed temerity in suggesting that his (Offa's) son be married to Charlemagne's daughter. This puts Gerbert in a better light since he is therefore seen to have influence with Charlemagne. fluoronaut (talk) 21:37, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: The translation in Whitelock says he was "restrained from doing this", which certainly seems to support what you say; Stenton is unequivocal though.  He says "Charlemagne at once broke off correspondence with Offa, and closed the ports of his territory to English traders.  They were only opened again after long negotiations, in which Alcuin and Gervold of St. Wandrille were the chief agents."  In a note to this Stenton cites both the Gesta Abbatum Fontanellensium and letters of Alcuin's of which he says, "they are so discreet that there is little to be gathered from them beyond the facts that at the end of 790 the ports were still closed and that Alcuin was expecting to be sent into England to make peace (Monumenta Alcuiniana, p. 167)".  I don't have access to Alcuin's letters, but with Stenton so definite I would prefer to trust the secondary source here and not correct the text per a primary source. Mike Christie (talk) 21:49, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks. I had also read Stenton and assumed he was mistaken. I will find the letters and get back to you. It is a curious point. fluoronaut (talk) 09:54, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

text: Yes, I've never had much success trying to second-guess Stenton!  There's another item in this article where some sources disagree with Stenton; the issue of whether Egbert's exile was three or thirteen years.  It seems like an error in the ASC to me, but Stenton and Whitelock say no, and as another editor said to me, where those two agree you can be pretty confident they're on to something. Mike Christie (talk) 23:42, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Trade dispute with Charlemagne

message: I've cut the recent addition giving the meaning of the Arabic text as it was unsourced.  I tried sourcing this from Google Books and wasn't sure it was completely accurate; Sinclair's "The Pound: A Biography" is only visible in snippet view but seems to say there is more to the text than just "Muhammad is the messenger of God".  The translation isn't particularly relevant to the article anyway, since the moneyer clearly did not understand the text, but it would be an interesting fact to add if we can source it. Mike Christie (talk) 15:08, 21 August 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: My understanding is that it is the first verse of the Koran: "There is no God but Allah and Mohammed is his messenger" (something I do not believe).  However I too have no source for this.  It is thought to have been copied from a dinar.  This presumably arrived in England by way of trade, but I doubt that we will ever really know.  Peterkingiron (talk) 18:06, 21 August 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Meaning of Arabic text on dinar copy 

message: I've just added a new, higher-resolution version of :File:Offa of Mercia.jpg and I must say I prefer this image to :File:Offa king of Mercia 757 796.jpg. This may just be my opinion, but shouldn't we change the current head image with Offa of Mercia.jpg? I think the current image is of low resolution and should thus be changed. Any opinions? --Alexcoldcasefan (talk) 14:22, 12 April 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Great-looking picture, only it doesn't look like it was created in Offa's own lifetime. In fact, it look rather 14th-century to me. Sure enough, there's a date: 1380. If we're going to go that route, we may as well use :File:Taylor_and_Burton_-_Cleopatra.jpg in the article on Cleopatra. Zyxwv99 (talk) 14:40, 12 April 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: First of all, that is not the same thing. The file you provided is nearly 2000 years older than Cleopatra herself. No life image of Offa survives, so... Alexcoldcasefan (talk) 17:54, 12 April 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Image 

message: User:JoshTaylor1998wiki has added succession info to the infobox for Offa as king of Sussex, East Anglia and Kent.  The sources don't describe him as king of these kingdoms.  I've removed this twice, and Ealdgyth has removed the information for Kent once, but I don't want to edit war about this.  I'd rather reach agreement here.  If there's support for describing Offa as king of these kingdoms, I think it needs to be cited; I am not aware that there is any reference in modern reliable sources to Offa as other than the overlord of these kingdoms. Mike Christie (talk - contribs -  library) 17:44, 30 August 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: A note for anyone who comments here: this change has also been made at Ecgfrith of Mercia and Coenwulf of Mercia and I have started a discussion on those talk pages as well. Mike Christie (talk - contribs -  library) 23:35, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

text: Well, the Handbook of British Chronology (3rd ed.) doesn't list Offa as a king of Kent nor as a king of Sussex or East Anglia. Nor does it list those titles under Offa's entry for Mercia. Mike Ashley's Mammoth Book of British Kings and Queens doesn't list Offa as a king of Kent, Sussex, or East Anglia. Ashley states that Offa "asserted control" of Kent, not that he was "king". Morby's Wordsworth Handbook of Kings & Queens doesn't list Offa as king of Kent, Sussex, or East ANglia. Barbara Yorke in Kings and Kingdoms of Early Anglo-Saxon England doesn't list Offa as a king of Kent or East Anglia (she doesn't list kings of Sussex). The Oxford Dictionary of National Biography article on Offa calls him just "king of the Mercians" ... and does say he was king of anything else. I think it's pretty clear that we cannot call Offa "King of Kent" or of anything other than Mercia. Ealdgyth - Talk 00:31, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

text: I would also favor their removal. Agricolae (talk) 02:16, 10 September 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: I also agree, but we might possibly find a form of words, amking him "ruler of Kent" in succession to the king he replaced there (though without a named successor).  I also do not like succession details in infoboxes.  Succession boxes (if well-used) can be a litle more nuanced, by the use of "as"  or "reason" fields.  Peterkingiron (talk) 15:39, 10 September 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Agricolae did this for Offa and I've reverted the changes at Coenwulf.  Peterkingiron, I think the articles give enough information for the reader to draw their own conclusions, but if you can improve them, go ahead. Mike Christie (talk - contribs -  library) 09:21, 15 September 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Kingships of minor kingdoms 

message: "...and mentions trade in black stones, sent from the continent to England, and cloaks (or possibly cloths), traded from England to the Franks". Question: shouldn't this be the other way around ? black stones ? (coal???) from England to the continent and cloaks form Frankisch lands (Amiens-area) to England ?. Best regards 198.184.231.254 (talk) 18:44, 15 July 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: That's what the source says -- you can see the quote in Alcuin's letter here (page 849). Mike Christie (talk - contribs -  library) 20:19, 15 July 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: European Connection

message: I just partially reverted some edits; here are some notes.
* We can't use Roger of Wendover for anything unless a secondary source covers the same ground.  I took out the place of death in the infobox for the same reason.
* The identification of Aethelswith with Aelfthryth needs to be cited to a secondary source before being added.  PASE doesn't give this, for example.
* I took out the "religion" line; "Roman Catholicism" is a meaningless term for the 700s.
* The birth date is not discussed in the article, so we would need a sourced discussion of his possible birth date in order to add that to the infobox.
* I left in Bedford as the place of burial for now, but I thought about taking it out -- on rereading the relevant charter in EHD I see Whitelock expresses doubts about whether "Bedeford" it refers to Bedford; in fact she says it is unidentified.  Lapidge seems somewhat more certain, so I left it in.
Personally I'd be just as happy if we took the whole infobox out; I don't think it's useful.  If we're going to have one, though, it should be concise and contain only well-sourced information. Mike Christie (talk - contribs -  library) 08:54, 6 August 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: I'd be good with removing the infobox also - but if it stays it should only contain relevant info that is sourced and discussed in the article. And no, we can't use primary sources (Roger in this case) without secondary sources backing him ... and I agree with all the other points. In fact, I'd already reverted their addition once. Ealdgyth - Talk 13:25, 6 August 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Recent edits 

message: Seems to be copyvio from , not an RS in any case. Dougweller (talk) 12:06, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Islamic text on coin 

message: Danevirke does not lie in modern day Denmark, but in Germany -- while it is true that it used to be part of Denmark and, most likely in my opinion, was part of Denmark when it was built, it hasn't been in Denmark since 1864, when Denmark lost Holstein and Slesvig. This article claims that Danevirke is in Denmark.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.130.79.38 (talk) 08:07, 21 August 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Danevirke 

message: In the opening passage (the part which cannot be edited) , Offa is described as a Christian king. However, other kings of England are described as English king (Edward....was an english king). The author of the article seems to know a great deal about the link to islam / controversy of this particular king :) --Maths 19 (talk) 14:07, 21 September 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Offa The Christian king 

message: At present, the article translates the Arabic text on Offa's dirham knock-offs as "There is no god but Allah". On reflection, this seems like needless exoticism: Tahlil offers the translation "There is no diety but God" and Shahada has "There is no god but God". Change it? Link to Tahlil/Shahada? (And for what it's worth, Shahada says the text says something else ...) Angus McLellan  (Talk) 14:59, 18 March 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: Hi, Angus; long time no see.  I didn't mention the Arabic text in the body of the article because it's clear that the moneyer had no idea what it meant, so the meaning seemed irrelevant.  Given the religious nature of the words, and the occasional edit here that implies the coin indicates Offa converted to Islam, I felt it either should be left out, or only included with a clear statement that it had no such implication.  I went with the first option as simpler.  I'd suggest removing the text from the lead for the same reason. Mike Christie (talk - contribs -  library) 15:19, 18 March 2016 (UTC)

text: Personally I'd keep it in the body, as the usual "There is no god but God", with a link. It is after all the proof that the meaning was not understood. Johnbod (talk) 19:29, 18 March 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: That seems reasonable.  However, I just looked in Grierson and Blackburn, and in Gareth Williams' article, the sources I used for this, and they don't give a translation.  If anyone has a scholarly source that gives it, please go ahead and add it in the text.  I'm going to go ahead and remove it from the lead; I think it's clearly undue weight there. Mike Christie (talk - contribs -  library) 15:27, 19 March 2016 (UTC)
replies: text:  Did the "moneyer" tell you that he did not know the meaning ?! 
And do not forget, also, that the Islamic coins in that time was International like $ in these days; so it is worth to think about the coins in terms of having no thing with the faith of king Offa, but in terms of international relationships. -هارون الرشيد العربي (talk) 13:40, 15 July 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  The text on the dirhams 

message: (Due to temporary protection, I can't make this change myself.)  The --Ancestry and family-- section relates that Æthelbald was descended from Eowa, and that Offa's grandfather Eanwulf was grandson of Eowa, making the two seconds cousins.  Based on Mike Christie's 2007 edit summary this appears to derive from the cited source, yet it is factually incorrect - any relationship involving a grandchild of a common ancestor is a first-cousin relationship (either full first-cousins if the two were both grandchildren, or first cousins n-times removed for each generation farther down the pedigree the longer line extends).  Looking at the Anglian Collection in Textus Roffensis leafs 214 & 215, Æthelbald is given as son of Alwih, son of Eowa; Eanwulf is shown as son of Osmod son of Eowa.  Likewise, the ASC (as quoted on Eowa of Mercia page) makes both grandsons of Eowa, and hence full first cousins rather than second cousins. 50.37.113.203 (talk) 15:06, 27 May 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Æthelbald's relationship to Offa 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Offa of Mercia. 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/20071217131452/http://www8.georgetown.edu/departments/medieval/labyrinth/library/oe/texts/prose/laws.html to http://www8.georgetown.edu/departments/medieval/labyrinth/library/oe/texts/prose/laws.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 20:15, 23 September 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified