Talk:Battle of Clontarf

Sigurd

The link to Sigurd seems to be to the legendary figure from the Volsunga safa and other Northern European mythology. The article seems to be referring to a historical figure. Should the link be nixed? Or is this a legendary exploit of Sigurd that I've missed out on?

It's Sigurd Lodvesson. Don't have time to write a stub now Fornadan (t) 17:08, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Sigurd Hlodvirsson, link is fixed no:brukerdiskusjon:finnrind

Njál's saga and fiction

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)

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)

Well... at least two fiction appearances... and I hope we'll get more. That battle made a huge mark in both Irish and Norse psyche, and thence in the collective subconscious of the Englisdh speaking world, I'd bet bigger than even Hastings... yep, we need the cruft, the same we need the cultural heritage and trivia section in the Brian Boru article --Svartalf 22:29, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

Good Friday

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)

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)

Indeed, the Irish had been christian since the 5th century, all irish accounts of the battle mention that it was on Good Friday -- Paul

musical reference

Hi ,Look i have linked the album of the same name by an irish metal band ,Mael Mordha due to the multiple references of the work , should it actually warrent its own section ==music== or should it go in references ? or are their any purists who want this deleted --preachan

Historically correct??

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)[1]

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)

Sources

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) Billy 80.165.177.93 11:24, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

...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)

WikiProject class rating

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)

Pyhrric Victory

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)

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)

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)

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)

Aftermath

• "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)

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)

Where, precisely, was the Battle?

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)

Re-write

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)

What does this mean?

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)

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)

Uí Néill

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)

Irish nationalist POV

This was not simply a Viking vs. Gael battle, as the most recent edit suggests. It was a lot more nuanced. Gob Lofa (talk) 20:08, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

The article was extensively re-written (and boy, did it need it!) in time for the millennium celebrations in April 2014. It is based on the most up-to-date and best sources: The Battle of Clontarf by Darren McGettigan and Brian Boru and the Battle of Clontarf by Seán Duffy, both published in 2013. Seán Duffy is Professor of Medieval History at Trinity College Dublin and editor of the Medieval Dublin series of books. The accounts show that the battle was between, on the one hand, the Dublin and foreign Vikings allied with the king of Leinster, and on the other, the forces of the High King of Ireland, which included not only the armies of Munster, Meath and parts of Connacht, but also Munster Vikings serving as vassals of the High King. The notion that it was only a local skirmish between the kings of Munster and Leinster, with the Vikings lending a hand on both sides, was put out by Donnchadh Ó Corráin about forty years ago, and held the imagination of historians for a while, but it is no longer current. Less than forty years of one man's theory against 1,000 years of historiography would be venturing into WP:UNDUE territory. As for "nationalist POV", Goddard Henry Orpen, that most unionist and anti-Gaelic of historians, wrote in 1910 of Brian, "always acknowledged to be the most powerful monarch Ireland ever had, summon[ning] his great army to crush the Danes of Dublin and to repel the fresh Scandinavian hordes invited to the conquest of Ireland by Sitric".

There is plenty of "nuance" in the article. If more is wanted, and it can be sourced to reliable sources, it can be added. But making changes to the infobox and lead so they are out of synch with the rest of the article is not good practice. Scolaire (talk) 10:41, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

What part of my edit seemed to you to reinforce the "notion that it was only a local skirmish between the kings of Munster and Leinster, with the Vikings lending a hand on both sides"? Orpen comes across as a pretty impressive straw man. Gob Lofa (talk) 18:23, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

That's not a serious question, is it? Substituting "Dál gCais" for "Forces of the High King of Ireland", and placing Leinster before the Dublin and foreign Vikings, could have no other purpose but to "reinforce the notion that it was only a local skirmish". Also, Brian's force was emphatically not a "Gael/Viking force". Duffy says there is good reason to doubt that there were Vikings in Brian's forces at all, but if there were, they were there as part of the Irish forces, not as an autonomous force. I could go on, but since everything in your edit tends towards the same purpose, there is no point.

And in what way is Orpen a "straw man"? What an early 20th-century unionist historian said in a major Anglo-centric history of medieval Ireland cannot be called a "nationalist POV". Scolaire (talk) 19:25, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

I performed no such substitution; my list was longer than just 'Dál gCais'. Nor did I have the purpose you ascribe to me. Duffy may well be right, but I'm flabbergasted that you find it impossible for a 20th century unionist (presumably Christian too) to hold a popular view of the battle. Is there a contrary unionist viewpoint on it that has passed me by? Gob Lofa (talk) 01:50, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

Profane language

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)

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)

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)

The fake "debate"

This article leaves readers with the impression that there's a fierce "debate" among historians as to whether Clontarf was consistent with nationalist legends or "revisionist" interpretations of the record. It even cites some obscure paper published by a physicist that supposedly lends credibility to the "popular" (read "nationalist") POV.

There actually isn't that much of a debate here. The prevailing view among historians (not physicists) is that Clontarf was an internal struggle between two different power bases within Ireland (with Norse and Gaels on both sides) rather than a "united Ireland" under "one king" against "foreign invaders". Considering that "modern Ireland" was an outgrowth of 1541, when Henry VIII decreed the Kingdom of Ireland into existence, and that the Vikings and Norse on each side at Clontarf were all related to each other, it is preposterous to suggest that contemporaries at this battle would've viewed it as the Irish fighting off a Viking or Scandinavian invasion.

Dr. Elva Johnston of UCD explains Clontarf quite well here:[2].

This issue has been brought up previously and the editor Scolaire responded to the complaint with:

"Less than forty years of one man's theory against 1,000 years of historiography would be venturing into WP:UNDUE territory."

One thousand years of "historiography"? How about 1,000 years of Irish myth-making vs 40 years of Irish historiography. Even giving 40 years to Irish "historiography" is being generous: academic history in Ireland is still in its infancy and there are a dozen different opinions on virtually every topic. What is troublesome about this encyclopedia is that it is always the nationalist pov that prevails no matter what.Jonathan f1 (talk) 23:01, 27 August 2022 (UTC)

If you're going to quote from a previous discussion, don't cherry-pick. What I said was: "[The article] is based on the most up-to-date and best sources: The Battle of Clontarf by Darren McGettigan and Brian Boru and the Battle of Clontarf by Seán Duffy, both published in 2013. Seán Duffy is Professor of Medieval History at Trinity College Dublin and editor of the Medieval Dublin series of books. The accounts show that the battle was between, on the one hand, the Dublin and foreign Vikings allied with the king of Leinster, and on the other, the forces of the High King of Ireland, which included not only the armies of Munster, Meath and parts of Connacht, but also Munster Vikings serving as vassals of the High King". The large Viking fleet from Orkney and Mann did not sail into Dublin for a regatta! As for "nationalist POV", I said: "Goddard Henry Orpen, that most unionist and anti-Gaelic of historians, wrote in 1910 of Brian, 'always acknowledged to be the most powerful monarch Ireland ever had, summon[ning] his great army to crush the Danes of Dublin and to repel the fresh Scandinavian hordes invited to the conquest of Ireland by Sitric'". Orpen's view was obviously the same as that of Duffy and McGettigan. Your video of Dr. Elva Johnston is useful, as it demonstrates that there was a debate, and that it was still going strong in 2014.

Academic history in Ireland is still in its infancy. Hardly! W. E. H. Lecky was an internationally renowned academic historian who wrote A History of England during the Eighteenth Century, and its spin-off A History of Ireland during the Eighteenth Century in the 1870's, and the aforementioned Orpen wrote Ireland under the Normans, from which the above quote is taken, in 1911. When somebody says "What is troublesome about this encyclopedia..." it is pretty well always to complain that the article doesn't conform to their POV. Scolaire (talk) 14:07, 30 August 2022 (UTC)