Talk:Óttar of Dublin

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

"successors"[edit]

Fine article. We need to find out what is going on with the two who follow him. I have discovered in the Annals of the Four Masters this about Ragnall Thorgillsson:[1]


In the original Irish:[2]


So it is possible, depending on what is meant by mormaer, that he was not actually king and was Óttar's subordinate and/or rival.

Now Mac Carthaigh's Book gives:[3]


In the original Irish:[4]


The Cronicon Scotorum gives:[5]


But, it then says:


Finally the Annals of Tigernach say the same thing:[6]



So Ottar was still somewhere and possibly still the real king throughout this period. We have no record of him being forced out by Ragnall, who is also nowhere mentioned assuming the kingship, or receiving anyone's submission.

I can find no mention of Brotar Thorgillsson assuming the kingship or forcing anyone out or receiving anyone's submission in 1146 anywhere. DinDraithou (talk) 15:40, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"Uneasy lies the head..." These were unsettled times. Great sources. The term mormaer was uncertain, in Scotland it seems to have varied between meaning a sub-king and a royal proxy, Macbeth was Mormaer of Moray before becoming king. If Ottar was "treacherously killed" this perhaps implies some form of prior co-operation between Ottar and the Thorgillssonar. Feel free to add to the article, it's a bit sparse textually.Urselius (talk) 19:24, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
How is this for a scenario? - Raghnall, Brotar and Hasculf Thorgillsson are the sons of the Thorkel mentioned as King of Dublin in the 1130s. He is ousted by Conchobair Ua Briain. His sons engage Ottar to get their patrimony back, but he will only assist them if he becomes king or co-king. Raghnall is mormaer or jarl under, or co-king with, Ottar and is killed in 1145-46. The remaining sons of Thorkel then "treacherously" kill Ottar in 1148 and Brotar, or his brother Hasculf (or both together), becomes king. Alternatively, Brotar and Hasculf are sons of Raghnall and 'Thorgillsson' has become a surname. If Raghnall had been co-king with Ottar, Ottar might have used his death to become sole king and thereby induced Raghnall's kin to kill him. Urselius (talk) 08:05, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Very plausible. If Ottar's grandfather was ruler of half of Mann and his grandson was based in the Hebrides then we can assume the family's resources were fairly immense. What I don't know is what the kingship of Dublin was worth at this time. Probably still a great amount. Status? Well we are long past the time when the settlements were established and some Irish feeling threatened. It also looks like neither family belonged to the Uí Ímair, who were probably represented by Olaf I Godredsson, King of Mann and the Isles, whom Ottar surely knew very well. Olaf was the son of the famous Godred Crovan, to whom Jarl Ottar was likely subordinate. The Uí Ímair appear to have given up on Dublin after 1094, and with the exception of Magnus III of Norway 1102–1103 all the kings were Gaels until Thorkell in 1133. We don't know yet, and may not be able to learn, if his family was already established there in some capacity or if they came from outside. And we don't know how long he was king for. Then we need to learn what was going on with the O'Briens, O'Conors, and Uí Cheinnselaig. Once we know all this several of those articles can be created and 12th century Dublin will start to make some sense. Scholars don't seem to find it exciting but I think it's noteworthy that the Norse made a small comeback, in which Ottar was surely instrumental. DinDraithou (talk) 22:38, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The scholars who write on this subject are virtually all Irish and most of them seem to perpetuate a species of low-level prejudice against any non-Gaelic elements in Irish history. The sort of thing that claims that a few dozen Irish monks, by creating monasteries, were the real founders of Irish cities like Dublin and Cork, and tries to ignore the impact of those nasty vikings. Would you believe that the Wikipedia article on Cork City, before I changed it, only mentioned the Norse as sacking the city on one occasion and completely ignored the fact that they founded it in the first place!Urselius (talk) 08:16, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It is pretty unfortunate. With the exception of a few great families the Gaels are the most provincial people in Western Europe. They didn't used to be but the Norman invasion began to change them for the worst. The later horrors and confiscations of the 16th and 17th centuries then left the Gaels with a deranged outlook on the world. The barely remembered Norse then had the misfortune of becoming this great enemy of the past they could feel victorious against, inspired by the political sagas I've mentioned and other revived material.
I understand because my own family got damned in this climate after already being damned for siding against the Dál gCais in the 10th century, and have been damned for having imperfect pedigrees, the worst offence possible. And more than half the Norse settlement of Limerick was actually in our territory, if you compare the maps at O'Donovan and read Begley.[7] I'll bet you some of us went on adventures and joined families in other parts of the world. Probably married Cotters. DinDraithou (talk) 21:17, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Brut y Tywysogion[edit]

In the edition and translation found available at archive.org the leader of the "immense army from Ireland" is not mentioned.[8] See pp. 114-7. Thus Ottar must be in one of the other versions. DinDraithou (talk) 18:45, 7 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Burning of cathedral in Kells (Antrim)[edit]

Does the source offer any more details/context concerning this? It seems rather strange that the ruler of Dublin should burn a cathedral in Antrim at this time. Finn Rindahl (talk) 11:56, 13 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Difficult to say, the reference consists of one laconic sentence and the book is only available in "snippet mode." Having said that, raiding Antrim is not inherently less probable than invading North Wales, or taking over Dublin from the Hebrides.Urselius (talk) 15:28, 13 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
At this date I don't think largescale-raids just for plunder happened anymore, so a raid into Ulster-territory would probably imply that Ottar took part somehow in the feud between Domnall Ua Gailmredaig and Muirchertach Mac Lochlainn - I would have supposed that a Dublin involvement here would be mentioned elsewhere. The Hebrides and also Gwynedd was in the traditional Dublin sphere of influence, and intervention (or mercenary activities) there isn't really suprising IMO. Anyway, pity there wasn't more information about this. Btw, that one sentence does place the raid at Kells, County Antrim and not Abbey of Kells/ Kells, County Meath? Finn Rindahl (talk) 19:13, 13 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I haven't checked the annals yet (and they are not our only primary sources), but the JCHAS article (which I don't have) is an edition or at least contains passages from an old Cotter family manuscript, itself possibly containing material from an earlier manuscript which has since been lost. And it's a shame we don't have the intrepid Alexander Bugge around, who did some research on the family, at least some of which appears in his "Bidrag til det sidste Afsnit af Nordboernes Historie i Irland", in Aarbøger for nordisk oldkyndighed og historie, II(alt scan). Shame also he may not have contacted the baronets for information. I don't see how he could not have been aware of them. He would have had a wonderful time with the manuscript. I wonder if there are archives in Norway full of his research in Ireland and Munster? DinDraithou (talk) 20:01, 13 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry. pp. 271-3 (Munster), and especially 304 (Meath and Dublin area, apparently). DinDraithou (talk) 22:59, 13 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The sentence just says town and cathedral of Kells. Kells Abbey in Antrim was at one time a cathedral, whilst the other Kells, as far as I know, was never given cathedral status. Certainly Kells in Meath would fit neatly in with the recorded strife between Dublin and Meath that resulted in the death of Raghnall, Urselius (talk) 20:56, 13 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You may have been confusing these two Kells then, Abbey of Kells is located in Kells, County Meath, and home to the Book of Kells and the Synod of Kells in 1152. The old church there was elevated to cathedral status following the establishment of the Diocese of Kells after this synod (since incorporated in Diocese of Meath 1211) - so it did have cathedral status, though just for a short period of time and some ten years after Ottars alllegded burning. A burning of the church of Kells should have been noted in other sources, but nevertheless I'm quite sure that whoever wrote that article eas referring to Kells in Meath. May I suggest that you quote the sentence from the journal verbatim without wikilinks, and then add "possibly Kells, County Meath but no other sources seem to confirm this" or something like that. If you like to include Kells, County Antrim as another possibility that is of course an option, though Kells, County Kilkenny with Kells Priory wasn't established until some 50 years later. Best regards, Finn Rindahl (talk) 22:44, 13 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It is in annals, sorry - I searched on the wrong name: AFM 1144.3 Ceanannus was burned thrice this year. Finn Rindahl (talk) 23:01, 13 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'm rather confused now, please amend the article as you see fit. Slan Urselius (talk) 09:52, 14 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
OK, apologise for the confusion ;) I will try to amend it and add references to AFM as well, but could you please just cut&paste that sentence from Cotters article in the journal here since I don't have access to that source. Finn Rindahl (talk) 13:20, 14 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, the sentence is rather long and the source will not allow cut and paste, but the relevant part is: “...,he [Otter MacOtter] entered the Liffey with a powerful armament, occupied Ath-Cliath or Dublin, burned the cathedral of Kells, and plundered that town.” The square brackets, and contents thereof, are mine. Urselius (talk) 14:37, 14 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I made an attempt at amending this. It seems likely that Cotter was quoting a source here, and given that he wrote only some 80 years ago that cource should be extant - I have been serching for it but so far no success. Both the part about entering "the Liffey with a powerful armament" as well as "occupied Dublin" could be worth while adding if we had find the original source. Finn Rindahl (talk) 16:54, 14 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Don't assume this still exists. 80 years is a long time in Ireland. The Irish have been bleeding manuscripts for centuries now and even today much is in disrepair and material is still lost. There is much material that was available to scholars in the 19th century that is simply gone today, thrown in the trash or used to start fires or for whatever purpose. That still much remains can give the impression most survives but that is far from the case. The earlier manuscript will certainly be gone. The National Library of Ireland is searchable by family and this is what they have.[9] An extant collection is this,[10] but note the full title of this,[11] which refers to a different source by Rev. Charles P. Cotter that is not in the library. London and Cork city would be the only other places to look, but they have surely been checked and it will be gone.
Returning to Ottar's time, CELT finally have a translation of the Annals of Tigernach available.[12] Chronicon Scotorum is basically a version of the same but might still be helpful.[13] The remaining annals excluding AFM are all lacunose for this period. I may or may not have just been wrong to correct the AFM dates in the article because the two sources seem to agree in 1146. DinDraithou (talk) 17:40, 14 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
In this case I think you were wrong in adjusting the years, AFM has Ottars entry of Dublin s.a. 1142 (both at Celt and in O Donovans original edition), and Downham lists O Donovans as her source, I'll adjust those years back again. Best regards, Finn Rindahl (talk) 18:32, 14 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, it was just automatic. I'm surprised they match, but it must somehow depend on the variety of sources the Four Masters had available to them for any given period. We now have only a fraction of what they had to work with in the 17th century, but since they were often arbitrary in what they included and then reworked some material and misplaced some entries it's sometimes confusing. All I know very well is the 10th century in Ireland, and just made an assumption. DinDraithou (talk) 20:08, 14 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Óttar_of_Dublin&oldid=1208608131"