Talk:Great Heathen Army

message: This article really needs a major rewrite, with proper references to the primary sources, in an attempt to separate the historical facts from the unreliable accounts of later chroniclers.
In the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle the invaders are referred to as Danes, but Aethelweard Chronicon Fourth Book states clearly that the fleet arrived in East Anglia "from the north". If the leader of the army (Hingwar, Ingwar, Iguuar, Inwaer, depending on the source) is Ívarr, the son of Guðrøðr the King of Laithlind (a Viking kingdom in Scotland), then this would make sense. Is there really any compelling evidence to link the army with the raiders of northern France (845 ff.)? As for Ivar the Boneless, Halfdann Ragnarsson etc, these figures are taken from much later Norse sagas and are not mentioned in any contemporary sources. The historicity of their father Ragnar Lodbrok is highly dubious. Eroica (talk) 12:51, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: This problem is propagated in other related articles, e.g. Alfred the Great and Battle of Edington (and probably others, that was as far as I got). All of these articles need a consistent POV on the sons of Ragnar, probably reflecting the scholarly consensus that their involvement is purely literary. Czetie (talk) 12:29, 24 September 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Separating fact from fiction 

message: Yes I know its been debated, but its the wrong title, its biased: Heathen is a POV term. Heathen comes from Old English hæðen ("not Christian or Jewish"); cf. Old Norse heiðinn and this to 'an irreligious, uncultured, or uncivilized person'. Its subjective. Its the POV from the Christain view. Not objective. Its like calling Cromwells army that invades Ireland a local Irish slang name with a religious bias. To the Vikings the Christians were different as they had non Viking mythology beliefs. Sure mention what the invaded called the Great Viking Army, but it was a Great Viking Army. That should be the title. Lets face it the Vikings smashed England and such a name as Heathen is like some derogatory revenge. Blade-of-the-South (talk) 01:50, 20 August 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: I think that a nearer analogy would be the Nazis. Modern historians would say that the Nazis invaded Poland for example. So the Anglo-Saxon chronicle usually referred to  Viking raiders as hæðen men. I believe that it is only the MS B ASC for 867 that actually calls it the micel hæðen here (Great Heathen Army). It is usually referred to as the hæðen here (heathen army) or the micel here (great army) or simply the here (army). However, although  here is generally translated as meaning army a group of marauders or raiders would probably be more accurate. I agree with your points on the whole, although I am not convinced that the chroniclers used the term out of revenge, more as shorthand as we do with nazi. I would say  that as most of the history books use the term Great Heathen Army, this is what anyone researching the subject would look for and we should stick with it on that basis.Wilfridselsey (talk) 08:01, 20 August 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: History books can be an ass, even close history like WW2 is biased. Humans are by and large taken in easily. Blade-of-the-South (talk) 01:48, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

text: Comment- The name "Great Heathen Army" (micel hæðen here) is what the Anglo-Saxon contemporary records of the time called them, as the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle was commissioned in Alfred the Great's time. It maybe derogatory, but so is viking, however it is the only name we have that is historically correct as we don't know what the vikings called their Great Army at the time. It certainly would not have been Great Viking Army or Great Danish Army as they are later historical references. The Anglo-Saxon chronicle referred to raiding parties as þa Deniscan (the Danes). Guthrum, who was defeated at Edington, went on to found Danelaw, suggesting that he was Danish. Having said that the army itself would have contained probably any spare freebooter from northern Europe. The army probably would have consisted of Scandinavian and non Scandinavian. The burial site at Repton contains the remains of Danes and Norwegians. If you google Great Danish Army then you will see that there are quite a few references to it. I guess that people try and soften history by coming up with nicer names but Great Heathen Army is the only one we have from contemporary records. If other names are in general use I see no reason why we should not refer to them in the article. But there should be a reliable reference for it. Wilfridselsey (talk) 10:22, 5 May 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Your long reply to 23.116 is commendable, unfortunately that IP editor has a longer history of POV based edits to Norse history articles, with numerous attempts at introducing their own homemade historical bias, some of which can be read in their comment on this, which contains numerous erronous claims about early Danish history as well as Scandinavian history in general. So it is rather doubtful they are interested in any well worded and well sourced reply such as yours is. --Saddhiyama (talk) 16:48, 6 May 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh well you can but try! Thankyou for your compliments and concern. I had noticed that the IP address  in question  has a definite anti-Danish bias across several articles. Anyone who thinks that Heathen (meaning non-Christian or Jew) is more derogatory  than Viking(that came to mean pirate, freebooter, kidnapper and protection racket specialist) is a bit deluded I suppose. Regards Wilfridselsey (talk) 18:36, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

text: A quick search turns up a number of reliable sources using the term Great Danish Army. That is the deciding factor here.  If you have sources disputing that usage, please raise them. But stop deleting the term without authority. Laszlo Panaflex (talk) 03:57, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

text: Old English sources do not call them Vikings but generally use the terms Danes, Pagans or Northmen interchangeably. Other sources, specifically the Irish ones,  do differentiate between them. I have added a note along these lines to the article in an attempt to address the constant vandalism of the article. Wilfridselsey (talk) 15:02, 8 December 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: The very first sentence of the article states that the warriors originated from Sweden, Norway, and Denmark.  Now it says this twice.  All the vandalism comes from one user, who has now been asked to raise the question here to gain consensus and has not done so.  The note is unnecessary for all but one user who will not finish the first sentence, and it is redundant. Laszlo Panaflex (talk) 15:29, 8 December 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: You're right of course. However the note does explore the subject a bit more with an explanation that the ASC does not differentiate between the different countries and just calls them all Danes. The note is also used  for the Northmen term so it is not entirely redundant! Wilfridselsey (talk) 15:47, 8 December 2014 (UTC)
thread_title: Wrong Name, Great Heathen Army

message: Someone added "Britonnic kingdoms" and "other Welsh states" to the infobox, but I didn't notice that they were mentioned in any article about the battles of the Great Heathen Army. They are not mentioned in the article, also the map does not show that the army invaded Wales. Is there any explanation for this? Dragovit (talk) 08:50, 20 October 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: The Welsh were attacked by Norse from Dublin, not the Great Heathen Army. I have deleted them from the infobox. Dudley Miles (talk) 10:06, 20 October 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, but be careful, the kingdom of Alba and Strathclyde weren't Anglosaxon, I will fix it. Dragovit (talk) 11:11, 20 October 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Britonnic kingdoms 

message: There are a number items wrongly in the infobox which I will delete. They can of course be restored if there are reliable sources that they are correct. 1. Vikings of Friesland. Friesland was a Viking victim, not a Viking territory.  2. Other Vikings. This is of no use to the reader. 3. Anglo-Saxon puppet rulers and defectors. There is no evidence that they fought on the side of the Vikings. 4. Kent. This was no longer a separate kingdom. 5. Imar. He was probably the same person as Ivar. 6. Rorik of Dorestad. He operated on the Continent. 7. Hæstenn. He was a leader post-Great Army. 8. Several Earls. Vague and useless. 9. Ceolwulf II of Mercia. No evidence he fought on the side of the Vikings. 10. Æthelwulf of Berkshire and Odda of Devon. These were two of many junior leaders and there is no reason to single them out. Dudley Miles (talk) 08:44, 26 October 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Or your assumptions are not correct, perhaps in part. The Anglo-Saxon defectors under Ceolwulf II of Mercia fought in the battle of Tamworth (see the article) on the side of the Vikings and then he installed as king of Mercia, which means a puppet ruler, so what yours there is no evidence. I don't know if the content of the article is correct, I took this information from here. If this is not correct, it need to fix this article. Also Kentish fought against the Vikings of Great Army, which is mentioned in the article Kingdom of Kent (see), which does not necessarily mean that they were still an independent kingdom, apparently not, probably they were vassals of Wessex, but that also does not mean that they would not participate. Also according to lifespan the kingdom, it disestablished in 871 which is still the period of the Great Army. And Ímar, I also added him to the article next to Ivar, but the anonymous wikipedist deleted it without explanation. The truth is that Ímar is considered identical to Ivar by some scholars, but that does not mean that it is a certain fact, it's not excluded, that they are two different persons and that's why I used both names. And finally, yes, Friesland was the victim of a Viking invasion, but in the infobox was the form of the "Vikings of Friesland", not Friesland or Frisia itself, which means that the Vikings settled in Friesland or used it as a base for further invasions, not local Frisians. Dragovit (talk) 15:28, 26 October 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Including Ceolwulf II is definitely wrong and I have corrected the Battle of Tamworth article. Historians think that he was unfairly portrayed by the West Saxons as a puppet of the Vikings. See for example his DNB article at . You need a UK public library card to access this source. Kent was one of a number of former kingdoms which fought against the Vikings. There is no reason to list it and not the others. I have only looked briefly at Ivar/Imar, but so far as I can see the question is whether the Imar in Ireland is the same as the Ivar who was part of the GHA. If there are reliable sources which say that they were two separate people both of whom were part of the GHA please cite the source. Ditto with Friesland - if there is evidence that the GHA included Frisian Vikings please cite the source. Any items I have deleted should be restored if there are reliable sources for them, but not just because an editor in the past included them without citing sources. Dudley Miles (talk) 16:41, 26 October 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Well. By the way Ivar identified with Ímar is in the article Battle of York (867) and there are few sources. After this battle also was set up Anglo-Saxon puppet king named Ecgberht. Perhaps the puppet kings were not directly involved in the campaign of the Great Army, but at least they supported it. Dragovit (talk) 17:27, 26 October 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Wikipedia articles are not valid sources according to Wikipedia rules. You have to cite external sources. As to Imar, it is likely that he was the same man as Ivar and that is worth discussing in the article, but not as an entry in the infobox. Puppet kings no doubt supported the Vikings, but they were not 'Commanders and leaders' of the GFA, the heading in the infobox. Dudley Miles (talk) 20:20, 26 October 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: No, I didn't mean an article of Wikipedia as source itself, but external sources in the article Battle of York which I noticed there before adding information to infobox here, is there citation mentioning Ímar and it used "Bessell 2018" and "Sawyer 2001" as sources, maybe is there something else. Dragovit (talk) 07:03, 27 October 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: The Battle of York article just says that Imar was probably the same person as Ivar, which is what I said above. As I also said, that is a reason for mentioning the likelihood in the text, but not for listing him in the infobox. Dudley Miles (talk) 10:21, 27 October 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Infobox