Talk:Danelaw

Merger with History of the Danelaw

Things will depend on how much of the current History of the Danelaw article we want to keep, and how much it will grow. There is some overlap which will reduce the length of a merged article, but I'm coming round to the opinion that a merger will unbalance this article. I'll give it maybe a week before removing the proposal for a merger; in which case the History of the Danelaw section of this article should be a general one with the History of the Danelaw article being more specific.Koonan the almost civilised 01:28, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

I encourage blending the "History of the Danelaw" article into the main "Danelaw" article. I'm of the humble opinion that the content is not broad enough (at the time of writing) to warrant multiple seperate articles. However, I do agree with your concerns regarding a potential unbalance - perhaps the merger could create a new 'Timeline of the Danelaw' subsection in the main article?

Ghost 9 06:09, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

I concurr with the sentiment of Ghost 9... It is obviously not worth two separatte articles on the Danelaw, especially as the history of the things in Wikipedia is so integral, it is mostly what encyclodeias are about, neigh, life itself. History on the subjects should precede any other considerations, if any at all.

The problem here seems to be that the article Hitory of the Danelaw contains the timeline, which is difficult to fit in the Danlaw article. It is something which may require an entire set of timelines to be made, on the whole scope of nationally identifiable regions, from their origins to their eventual disintegration, or integrations... Maybe a start on this venture could be made with the different Viking lands throughout the British Isles, and the end of each could be shown with the integration of them into their cultural neighbours, or their disintegrations, as in the joint kingship of York-Dublin, while the cultural neighbours also could be treated in similar ways. Ultimately, a series of Wikitables could be begun to accomodate the chronologies of history.

It is a project and a half, if anyone wishes to begin it. I am willing to participate, although I am not an administrator. It has actually been a dream of mine to see the production of a map which shows a chronology of each territory in time, as well as space, and the attatchment of historical analysis to this, as with people's relationships and the reason in their lives. Wikipedia history could itself be a singular project which revolves around this concept. Anyone got any ideas as to the possibilities of it? Think its a good idea?

WikieWikieWikie 19:16, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Just out of curiosity - how big was Slavic influence in Danelaw? I keep reading here nad there that Danes used extensively Slavic mercenaries and settlers, but can't traceany definite source confirming it.. Szopen 09:45, 18 October 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 14:14, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

New map available

An outline of Danelaw England: the area of the Danelaw is coloured blue

The map image presently used in this article for the Danelaw in England is from a bit of a sloppy scan, and is fairly low resolution. I've just uploaded this image: it's a scan of a slightly older map, but it's pinpointed at the same date (878 AD), it gives essentially the same boundaries (but not quite), it's much more detailed, and it offers a much higher resolution. You might want to use it instead of the existing image. Nortonius (talk) 09:54, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Category:Anglo-Norse England vs. Category:Anglo-Saxon England

Category:Anglo-Norse England is itself a category within Category:Anglo-Saxon England. — Robert Greer (talk) 02:56, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Slavs settling the Danelaw

This piece contains the following statement: "Polabian Slavs (Wends) settled in parts of England, apparently as Danish allies.[8]" The footnote is not an academic nor scholarly source, but apparently a blog. To make such an assertion, this statement needs to be backed up by a scholarly source. MarmadukePercy (talk) 12:33, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

I agree. I have replaced the citation with a citationneeded tag. If noone can find a reliable source for this I propose that the statement is deleted. --Saddhiyama (talk) 16:23, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

09052012 - Having stmbled upon both the quote above and having pursued it through various searches concerning the several Polabian Slavic tribes, I came upon the above-referenced thread, which has been augmented with the following citation: [[Thomas William Shore]] "[[Origin of the Anglo-Saxon Race]]: A Study of the Settlement of England and the Tribal Origin of the Old English People", which discusses thes issues at some length and provides citation to historical sources including the near-contemporary-to-part of the Danelaw, the Venerable Bede, as well as the Domesday Book, and the works of several scholars from among Shore's contemporaries. An e-book version of this text is available here. Admittedly, Shore's discussion is a bit dated, however, there is a considerable amount of more modern historical and linguistic analysis and hard archaeological evidence that lends support not only to the Polabian Slav settlement with the Danes in the Danelaw, but in other Danish/Viking colonial settlements of the time as well. Much of this work is referenced, mea culpa, in a lengthy blog-based excursus on "http://www.slavorum.com/index.php?topic=2384.0" however, the original text with its full bibliography appended appears independently as a web articleSlavs Among Norsemen in America and Iceland; despite the place of its on-line presence, it does cite to more recent scholarship, some of which clearly has no ethnic axe to grind and which points to documentary and archaeological sources. At the very least the Danelaw wiki should footnote Shore's book (both Shore and his book have wikisource entries), if not a more elaborate discussion. Chekov454 (talk) 20:14, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

"Danish self-rule"

"The treaty outlined the boundaries of the Danelaw and allowed for Danish self-rule in the region."

What does this mean, exactly? Was the Danelaw a separate state in the midst of England, run by the Danish settlers? Or was it a part of the Kingdom of Denmark? I realize that "Denmark" was probably a pretty loosely organized polity at the time, but I am wondering if the Danelaw was even notionally a part of it, or if this was just a new state for the invading Danes. --Jfruh (talk) 23:36, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Denmark's ties to the Danelaw could be compared, without controversy, to England's relationship to Normandy in France. 70.171.236.188 (talk) 03:58, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Off the rails

This piece on the Danelaw now contains assertions about Oliver Cromwell and the Puritans? And lots of other unrelated nonsense as well. This entry has gone off the rails, and needs serious editing to bring it back in line to what the Danelaw was all about. I'll try to get to it, but hopefully an editor who monitors this entry regularly might beat me to it. MarmadukePercy (talk) 03:29, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

So you believe that when foreign cliques of dictators overthrow the people, that they forever erase the landscape of the said people, that they disappear? Since the article already mentioned the existence of legal recognition in paper for quite some time after the Conquest, would you whine and cry so bitterly that there exists a context by which to discuss the Danelaw's new establishment of barons in this time period? At which time is the drop off, that the Danelaw exists no more and the people vanish from history? Would you tell the West Countrymen that they are not Anglo-Saxons or at least West Saxons? You would be put in the stocks in Oliver Cromwell's time. Be reasonable. Your editing "contributions" consist chiefly of altering other people's edits, rather than providing any substantial reservoir of information for the benefit of Wikipedia. On what high ground do you attack my significant efforts to bring this article's nature in the real world to life? 70.171.236.188 (talk) 03:56, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

I've reverted your edits because they're POV, poorly sourced and not in the interests of an encyclopedia. Moreover, you ought to be careful before accusing other editors of making no contributions. MarmadukePercy (talk) 04:11, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

You have yet to address the details of true and false. You have only mocked and vilified my humble work, rather than explain why this or that is wrong in your eyes and as such, you continue to destroy the integrity of this article with blind revert warring. 70.171.236.188 (talk) 04:27, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

If you recuse yourself from such high-handedness, I will most certainly work through the specific points of this article with you and anybody interested in this topic. That's not too much to ask in the cause of reason. 70.171.236.188 (talk) 04:30, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

You need to read the rules of wikipedia. You apparently believe you are on some crusade to set the record straight. That's fine, but then you need to learn to provide some sources. It would also help if you became a registered editor rather than posting from an anonymous IP address. MarmadukePercy (talk) 04:34, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

I have no crusade but Wikipedia itself as a true believer. When an interesting article has little flesh, it takes immense effort to draw details together which are already well researched and sourced. I simply contributed to the regional history of what was commonly called the Danelaw, but after a time had no collective name, only common characteristics. I'm presently about to trim all of it down to reflect the last legal source which refers to the Danelaw, because that is when the last Danegeld was levied. It is obvious that the two shared a history in England together. I shall also concisely place the influences of the Danelaw elsewhere in the article in a much contracted form that I promise won't take too much space. Please bear with me here. 70.171.236.188 (talk) 04:39, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

I see that there is no good word for my good deed in helping this article since, as no good deed goes unpunished. Did you have something to contribute here or are you just all about complaining? How negative many people are at group work. Blame with vitriol and do none of the work yourself. Harp on others for actually giving a damn and then run away. This hit and run nonsense has got to stop, so productive activity can invigourate Wikipedia with positive and forward looking people. I say this for anybody who wants to stop by to attack this article after a killing spree in several articles before in their edit history, to remove oneself afterwards to continue going from article to article and berating other editors, whilst doing nothing substantive for the articles in question, nor showing any interest in the actual components of the articles. Ad hominem attacks must stop. Thank you MarmadukePercy for proving you have nothing done here but what I am complaining about, but since administrators at Wikipedia exemplify this fatigue, I shall not invite them to make it all the more worse. After all, interventionism and overthrow of other people is so heroic in their minds, despite the vast amount of bias against the Bush Administration, for instance, having done this in Iraq. Nothing further to say about double standards and those who toss reckless judgments and character assassinations, unless the mood changes here, in which case, I'd be more than happy to respond favourably. 70.171.236.188 (talk) 19:34, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

What exactly does the Danelaw have to do with Bush administration policies in Iraq? MarmadukePercy (talk) 20:02, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

The way you go about, dashing from article to article and flexing your self-righteous muscle to destroy other people is fine by you, although I'm quite sure you yourself have a hypocritical problem with Bush for acting the same. Are you a hero, tell me? You constantly ignore the stuff which makes this article. What have you done here, really, but make a scene by trying to effect capitulation? I did not provoke you. You came here and provoked me. You made it personal and the academic aspect of the article took a severe setback. It's up to you to rectify your own contributions, so that you could actually defend yourself. As it stands, you are simply proud of your belligerence and feign shock that I defend myself. Not everybody puts up with that crap. 70.171.236.188 (talk) 20:16, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

While all contributions to wikipedia are welcome, keep in mind that this is a collaborative enterprise. One should be prepared to offer sourcing for statements in the articles. MarmadukePercy (talk) 20:19, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

For reference, this IP was blocked indefinitely after this and other POV-warrior diatribes. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.111.27.52 (talk) 03:07, 27 May 2022 (UTC)

Etymology

It is claimed that the personal pronoun "she" is derived from Old East Norse. I doubt this, given that the standard Old Norse pronoun is "hon" (still in use in Scandinavia), whereas the word "she" has cognates in other West Germanic languages, such as "sie" in German and "zij" in Dutch. The other words should be correct, though.

Sixtensson (talk) 18:34, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

References section

I would like to improve the article by separating the references cited from the article's footnotes. (see Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style_(footnotes)#Separating_reference_lists_and_explanatory_notes) Please reply to my proposal if you have any strong feeling one way or the other. --Hel-hama (talk) 07:15, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

Please do so! — Robert Greer (talk) 11:29, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

Possible copyright problem

This article has been revised as part of a large-scale clean-up project of multiple article copyright infringement. (See the investigation subpage) Earlier text must not be restored, unless it can be verified to be free of infringement. For legal reasons, Wikipedia cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material; such additions must be deleted. Contributors may use sources as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences or phrases. Accordingly, the material may be rewritten, but only if it does not infringe on the copyright of the original or plagiarize from that source. Please see our guideline on non-free text for how to properly implement limited quotations of copyrighted text. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously. Diannaa (talk) 22:12, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

Geography

Would someone mind reconciling the geographic info in this article? I came to this page trying to understand the history of the Danelaw with regards to Lancashire. The first image (in the summary) showing the Danelaw is quite helpful, but the adjacent paragraph refers to fifteen shires in the present tense, and Lancashire is not included. The image and text in the Geography section seem to imply that the Lancashire/Yorkshire area wasn't really a part of the Danelaw. Some clarification for we non-experts would be appreciated, even if it is a statement acknowledging there is some ambiguity. Thanks! Kduckworth (talk) 20:34, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

No mention about Sweyn Forkbeard or Canute or Aethelred's massacre in the timeline?

Guess that's not important /s — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.110.175.159 (talk) 00:37, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

Any Danelaw link with the Wicklaw Hundreds of Suffolk?

Would the meaning behind the name Danelaw have anything to do (etymologically) with the ancient abodes of the Wicklaw Hundreds in Southeast Suffolk? If so, maybe some kind of link to the Wicklaw Hundreds in Suffolk would be fitting... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 5.67.247.107 (talk) 08:15, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

My first guess would be "no", given that "law" in English place-names frequently refers to a hill, and "wick" can refer to a settlement of some kind or to wych elm trees. There is some support for that here, where it is suggested that the meeting-place for Wicklaw may have been at a site near Wickham Market "known as Gallow Hill": that name is highly suggestive to me of a place associated with hanging, as would have happened through the deliberations of a hundred court. "Gallow" is an acceptable early form of "gallows" according to my dictionary. And hundreds were commonly named after the places where their courts met. But I haven't found a clear answer, and that is just the best I can do. I hope it helps. Nortonius (talk) 18:26, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

Guthrum and Alfred 884

Establishment of Danish self-rule

The opening statement of this section is: "This peace lasted until 884, when Guthrum again attacked Wessex. Alfred defeated him"

As far as I know there is no contemporary evidence for this. The Chronicle does state that 'the raiding-army in East Anglia broke the peace' but there was another raiding-army active in the east of England which had come across from the Continent and besieged Rochester in late 884 and was confronted by Alfred the following year. In 886 Alfred seized the Roman garrison in the City of London. The Danelaw negotiations were not undertaken till after this time.

"This peace lasted until 884, when Guthrum again attacked Wessex. Alfred defeated him, with peace codified in the Treaty of Alfred and Guthrum.[17] The treaty outlined the boundaries of the Danelaw and allowed for Danish self-rule in the region.[18] The Danelaw represented a consolidation of power for Alfred; the subsequent conversion of Guthrum to Christianity underlines the ideological significance of this shift in the balance of power."

Guthrum 'converted' after being defeated in the Battle of Ethandun in 878, not subsequent to the creation of the Danelaw! And the treaty also "represented a consolidation of power" for the Danes! There was no shift in the balance of power and Guthrum did not convert at this time.

Dantes Warden Dantes Warden (talk) 20:16, 12 May 2016 (UTC)

I agree, Guthrum did not break the peace he agreed in 878 and I have deleted the paragraph. Dudley Miles (talk) 20:29, 12 May 2016 (UTC)

Map: The Five Boroughs and the English Midlands in the early 10th century[21]

Shoebury as shown on the map is incorrectly positioned; Shoebury is on the northern bank of the Thames Estuary where the river meets the North Sea. It is about thirty (30) miles to the south-east of where it is on this map. 94.196.193.58 (talk) 22:23, 22 May 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Danelaw. 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/20110727170304/http://www.pastscape.org/hob.aspx?hob_id=1461548&search=all&criteria=thynghowe to http://www.pastscape.org/hob.aspx?hob_id=1461548&search=all&criteria=thynghowe

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 00:23, 6 December 2016 (UTC)

Map delineating the Danelaw

The map used at the head of this page is inaccurate. The boundary between Wessex and the Danelaw began at the River Lea where the Lea drains into the Thames, opposite the Dome. This is east of Poplar, which is east of the City of London, which was controlled by Alfred and Ealdorman Ethelred. The Lea runs almost due north from Poplar and into Hertfordshire while the map on this page puts London well into the Danelaw. A better map is required.

Dantes Warden (talk) 21:48, 5 February 2017 (UTC)

There are a lot of problems with maps and very few experts to assist. See Wikipedia:Graphics Lab/Map workshop, where requests rarely seem to get a response. Dudley Miles (talk) 23:13, 8 December 2018 (UTC)

Adding to this, Cornwall and west Devon should be shown as Celtic Ohworkbtch (talk) 00:05, 23 March 2019 (UTC)

Coastlines

Some of the maps show modern coastlines, but the coastlines were different at the time. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.61.180.106 (talk) 11:44, 13 April 2022 (UTC)

Getting accurate maps is difficult unless you can pay someone for a good map. See the discussion above. Dudley Miles (talk) 12:36, 13 April 2022 (UTC)

Danelaw

The Danelaw was basically in Mercia, at this point in history Angle-land did not ecist. Also Angle-land is not Great Britain as Great nritain did not exist for many centuries later eg 1707. Alba became Scotland in the 9th c ad. So lindisfarne was part of the Kingdom of Northumbria in 793 ad when Danes invaded Lindisfarne.Please make necessary adjustments and investigate history a bit more thouroughly. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:C7E:168C:EB00:288A:66B1:B6E5:4967 (talk) 16:23, 13 May 2022 (UTC)

Please specify more and also keep in mind Wikipedia operate by WP:COMMONNAME. TylerBurden (talk) 20:36, 13 May 2022 (UTC)

Several things incorrect with your statement - please see the relevant articles before sputtering rubbish. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.111.27.52 (talk) 03:10, 27 May 2022 (UTC)

Cornwall

Cornwall was never a dependency of wessex.

Around 710, Ina, King of the West Saxons, attempted to destroy Dumnonia. Over the next fifty years, several battles took place with the Saxons mainly victorious. However, in 722, Roderic, King of the Britons in Wales and Cornwall, repelled Adelred, King of Wessex. In 807 Viking Danes formed an alliance with the Cornish against the Saxons. The Saxon, Egbert of Wessex conquered Cornwall in 814 but was unsuccessful in subjugating the people despite having laid waste the land. The Cornish eventually rose against Egbert only to be defeated at Galford on the River Lew in West Devon.

In 838 a Cornish-Danish alliance was initially successful in a number of skirmishes with Egbert, but was eventually defeated in a pitched battle at Hingston Down, near Callington. This was the last battle against the Saxons. 217.39.18.126 (talk) 23:34, 19 June 2022 (UTC)

Re cornwall in 878 Doniert was king of Cornish hence it was autonomous to wessex

In 878 Doniert, king of the Cornish, was drowned in the River Fowey. Doniert's Stone stands in St. Cleer parish. This comprises of the stumps of two 9th century stones bearing Latin inscriptions and intricate patterns

Athelstan, the grandson of Alfred, attacked the south western Celts in 927, forcing their withdrawal from Exeter. There is no record of him taking his campaigns into Cornwall. It seems probable that Hywel, King of the Cornish, agreed to pay tribute thus avoiding further attacks and maintaining a high degree of autonomy. This supposition is supported by the fact that, in 931 King Athelstan set up a bishopric at St. Germans. 217.39.18.126 (talk) 23:35, 19 June 2022 (UTC)

Kenstec, bishop of Cornwall in the mid-ninth century, professed obedience to Canterbury. Historians think that Donyarth (or Doniert) was probably an under-king paying tribute to the West Saxons. Historians are also sceptical of the Exeter story - see Æthelstan and the references cited. Hywel was Hywel Dda, a Welsh king.

Cornwall was not independent in this period. Dudley Miles (talk) 09:03, 20 June 2022 (UTC)

This article says Harald Hardrada is Magnus I's brother?

I notice in the section "Danish–Norwegian conflict in the North Sea", there is a statement suggesting the relationship between Harald Hardrada and Magnus is that of brothers ... but on Harald's page and on Magnus' page, it says the relationship is of uncle-nephew. As I don't know which is correct, can someone look at this? Billy Tallent (talk) 04:00, 15 July 2022 (UTC)