Talk:Battle of Clontarf

message: The article doesn't cite its sources; is this all from Njál's saga? Also, do we really need the fictioncruft? dab (ᛏ) 07:55, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: One of the most significant things about the Battle of Clontarf is that it's known from both Irish and Norse sources. I'll have a go at tracking down the sources. --Nicknack009 15:17, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Njál's saga and fiction

message: Is it relevant that this took place on Good Friday? Is that even necessarily accurate? Were the Irish even Christian at this time? The Vikings certainly weren't. LordAmeth 12:37, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, it's relevant - it's an important part of the Irish accounts of the battle. And of course the Irish were Christian in the 11th century. --Nicknack009 15:17, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Good Friday 

message: IMO this article is seem to depend to heavily on the accounts in Njal's saga and other later popular accounts. If anybody wants to make some contributions based on other sources, I recommend 
* Downham, Clare: The Battle of Clontarf in Irish History and Legend, History Ireland 13.5 (September/October 2005) 19-23, (University of Aberdeen)
This was a key article for me when I recently wrote an article on Clontarf for no:wiki  With a quotation referred in Downhams article: 
Clontarf was too important to be left to the historians, so passed into the legendmaker’s
hand (Gwyn Jones, A History of the Vikings, London 1973, p. 396).
Finnrind 00:07, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Historically correct?? 

message: It is good that we have moved on from the old story about Boru "expelling the Vikings" from Ireland, but this article seems to rely far too heavily on the medieval romances Cogadh Gaedhel Re Gallaibh and Njal's Saga. The only contemporary sources, the monastic annals, do not support the claim that the power of the 'Vikings' [sic] was broken after 1014. On the contrary, the Scandinavian communities seem to have been thriving (under various Norse and Gaelic overlords) until the Norman invasion of 1169, and even beyond. 80.165.177.93 11:24, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: ...or even were very powerful in a national context, more like small city states often subject to Gaelic regional powers.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.85.218.218 (talk) 04:08, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sources 

message: This article was automatically assessed because at least one WikiProject had rated the article as start, and the rating on other projects was brought up to start class. BetacommandBot 08:57, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  WikiProject class rating

message: Does anyone know why the battle is listed as a Pyhrric victory for the Irish? Every other article I have read on the matter states the battle as decisive for the Irish.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Buachalla77 (talk • contribs) 22:05, 22 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The battle left the forces of Munster leaderless and the Kingdom fell into decline. The subsequent reign of Donnchad mac Briain seems to be a struggle for survival against other Irish forces. Dimadick (talk) 15:15, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Dimadick sums it up well, but I'm nevertheless also not sure "pyhrric" is the right term here. Clontarf was more of a situation where a victorious coalition spilt apart after achieving their decisive victory. Finn Rindahl (talk) 20:44, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: How decisive was that? In 1014 you had 2 armies, each of which was a coalition of Irish and Norse forces. Brian's army wins the battle on the beach but cannot take Viking Dublin beside the beach, which carries on much as before. In the process Brian is killed, and his efforts to unite the Irish come to an end; definitely a pyhrric result.86.42.194.19 (talk) 08:15, 12 April 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Pyhrric Victory 

message: *"If the Vikings were expelled from Ireland in 1014, or at least the looting and raiding stopped after that, then whoever the Irish were fighting had to be either another race of people coming into Ireland, just as the Vikings did, or the Irish were having yet another domestic or civil battle."
Reads like original research to me. As does the following sentences.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.96.49.84 (talk) 20:33, 13 May 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Believe it or not, that edit, and another one by the same editor, were done four years ago and have never been looked at since. I am reverting both of them now.  Scolaire (talk) 17:36, 11 April 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Aftermath 

message: I know Dublin very well but I can't for the life of me discern where exactly in Clontarf the Battle of Clontarf happened? Does anybody know? Is there any monument marking it? 79.97.64.240 (talk) 19:35, 29 January 2014 (UTC)
thread_title: Where, precisely, was the Battle?

message: There is a Battle of Clontarf Editathon taking place on Saturday (19 April). Since the article as it stands is barely Start Class, and has no citations whatever, I propose to re-write it completely before the editathon starts, so that people will have at least the bones of a decent article to work with.  Scolaire (talk) 20:53, 17 April 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Re-write 

message: Hi guys,
I just read this sentence, and reread it, but I'm still a bit confused:
"From the time of the seventh-century king Domnall mac Áedo, the kingship of Tara, which was strongly associated with the high kingship of Ireland, had been held by members of the Uí Néill dynasty, which controlled the northern half of Ireland"
Without mentioning mac Áedo I get it, it would basically mean that from the late 7th century Tara was associated with the High Kings, which had been held by the Uí Néills... etc.
But where does Domnall come in to this. Am I reading this wrong? Was he the king of tara at the time. It just seems a bit jumbled.
Thanks for your help.
The Free Editor Anyone Can Cite (talk) 00:44, 25 July 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: The cited source says Domnall mac Áedo "was king of Tara (Teamhair) and the first ruler to be called rex Hibernie (king of Ireland) in contemporary Irish annals. He was a member of the Northern Uí Néill dynasty, specifically its Cenél Conaill branch." If you can edit the sentence to be more readable, it would be appreciated.  Scolaire (talk) 13:11, 26 July 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  What does this mean? 

message: Re this edit, if you look at the map, you can see that the country can be roughly divided on a line between Dublin Bay and Galway Bay. The northern half (Leath Cuinn) included the Connachta (Connaught), Breifne, the Airgíalla (Oriel) and the Uladh (Ulidia), all of whom acknowledged the overlordship of the Northern and/or Southern Uí Néill. So it is correct to say that the Uí Néill controlled the northern half of Ireland, and inaccurate to say that they also controlled territory in the northern half of Ireland. Possibly this could be better spelt out in the article, but there is a danger of the Background section blowing up into a history of early and high medieval Ireland.  Scolaire (talk) 12:28, 7 August 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Uí Néill 

message: I would like to point out the inappropriate language used in the "Battle" section.
Quoting:
"First off, his fucking name is Wolf.  You don't get a name like Wolf by being a seventy-pound nerd that gives himself a hernia trying to pick up a box of file folders (unless of course it's like an uninspired RPG handle or something, but even then you would never have the fucking balls to ask your friends to start referring to you as "Wolf" in your day-to-day life)."
There are many such examples. This section needs to be rewritten ASAP. I wonder how it got accepted here in the first place... — Preceding unsigned comment added by Randjic (talk • contribs) 14:24, 29 July 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Simple answer: it was put there by a vandal about an hour before you posted here. Now that I've seen it it's going to disappear again.  Scolaire (talk) 16:53, 29 July 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm surprised it was only the profane language that got attention. The whole manner of style of the addition is enough to raise questions :-) Mabuska (talk) 02:15, 30 July 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Profane language