Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Wulfhere of Mercia

The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted 13:59, 22 December 2007.

---

Wulfhere of Mercia

Another Anglo-Saxon king. FAs for comparison: Penda of Mercia, his father; Eadbald of Kent, Cædwalla of Wessex and Ine of Wessex, near contemporaries. Thanks for all comments. Mike Christie (talk) 11:32, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

• Leaning towards support Another fine Anglo-Saxon king article! I have a few minor issues:

• The first paragraph of the lead drifts away from Wulfhere, the topic of the article. Initially when I read that paragraph I was confused why the material about his family was being presented.

I've restructured it somewhat to keep Wulfhere in the foreground. Mike Christie (talk) 03:17, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

I still think it is a little distracting to introduce Wulfhere and then retreat to his family for the bulk of the paragraph and then return to Wulfhere, especially in the very first paragraph of the lead. I would seriously consider removing those two sentences entirely or place them much later. Awadewit | talk 14:10, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

OK, you convinced me. I cut them, and slightly expanded the second paragraph of the lead to compensate for the reduced lead size. Mike Christie (talk) 16:12, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

This is so much better - now the reader says to herself: "Ah! That's who Wulfhere is!". :) Awadewit | talk 20:04, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

• England in the early seventh century was ruled almost entirely by the Anglo-Saxon peoples who had come to Britain in about the fifth century. - Where did these peoples come from?

I've added some more material, referenced to Bede. This identifies the groups but doesn't say where they came from; they are wikilinked so I think that covers it. Mike Christie (talk) 00:14, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Better. Awadewit | talk 14:10, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

• Penda's children included Wulfhere and Æthelred, who would succeed Wulfhere on the throne of Mercia. - awkward construction - it sounds as if Wulfhere and Aethelred succeeded Wulfhere

Rephrased, and I cut the trailing clause. I don't think it's necessary at this point in the article: you find out at the end that Aethelred succeeds Wulfhere on the throne. Mike Christie (talk) 00:14, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Much clearer. Awadewit | talk 14:10, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

• The Chronicle, despite its later date, contains much information that appears to have been composed earlier and incorporated by the ninth-century scribe. - In context, I wonder if some readers might think that this scribe is Bede?

I've endeavoured to fix this by giving Bede a date, and changing "the ninth-century scribe" to "its anonymous ninth-century scribe"; let me know if that's enough. Mike Christie (talk) 03:01, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

I believe so. Awadewit | talk 14:10, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

• What do you think about adding a "see also" link to History of Anglo-Saxon England in the first section?

Well, my long-term plan is to have the Mercia article have sufficient detail to be a "{{further}} link in sections like this for all the Mercian kings. For now I am not sure it's the best choice; I'd like this article to contain enough information that a reader can follow the story. I have wikilinked "Anglo-Saxon peoples" to Anglo-Saxons, which contains some historical background. However, if you feel it's an improvement to add the "See Also" link as it stands, I can go along with that. Mike Christie (talk) 03:23, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

I was thinking of it more as a courtesy to the reader, not because there was a deficiency of any kind in the article. A sort of "if you're interested in learning more about this topic, go here" kind of thing. However, if you think Mercia would be a better choice for such a link, by all means add it. I was just thinking that such links might allow curious readers to flesh out their knowledge more. Awadewit | talk 14:10, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Fair enough; I went ahead and added it. I do think that long-term it would be good to go through all the Anglo-Saxon articles and regularize what references what, but this is not the time to do that. Mike Christie (talk) 16:12, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

I feel that standardization is a lost cause on Wikipedia. I tried to do it with the Mary Wollstonecraft articles when I was nominating them for a featured topic, but I finally had to concede the futility of the project. :) By the way, I assume you are going to do some sort of featured topic on these kings? That would be a spectacular achievement. Awadewit | talk 20:04, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

I hadn't originally intended to, but I have been toying with the idea of making Mercia a featured topic. There are quite a few kings (and a queen or two) to do, though some have so little data they could be merged with the main article. I would think there are at least ten more kings that need their own articles. I'm planning to do at least a couple more Mercian kings, and then think about it again. Mike Christie (talk) 20:09, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

• On the way back to Mercia, Oswiu overtook Penda and on 15 November of 655 or 656 Oswiu and Penda fought on the banks of the river Winwaed, perhaps to be identified with the Went, a tributary of the Don. - "perhaps to be identified with" is an awkward construction

Rephrased. Mike Christie (talk) 03:01, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Better. I added some parentheses as well. Awadewit | talk 14:10, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

• Penda remained a pagan throughout his life, however: he has been described as the last great pagan king of the Anglo-Saxons, though at his death in the 650s many Anglo-Saxons were yet to be converted. - I don't understand the "though".

Penda has a special place in Anglo-Saxon history as the last great pagan warrior king; see this section of his WP article for a flavour of this. However, this doesn't mean that he was the last to be converted, and after his death England was a completely Christian nation. Both kings and common people remained pagan, though paganism was certainly nearing its end. Penda is remembered because among the last pagans, he stands out as a successful warrior and a dominant force. The "though" attempts to separate his semi-legendary status from the reality of the sequence of conversion. I can see this might be too compressed: can you say what needs to be added here? Mike Christie (talk) 03:30, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

This is how I understood the sentence when I read it: Even though Penda was the last great pagan king, most of his subjects were still pagan at his death. That is why it didn't make sense to me - if he was the last great pagan king, it would kind of make sense that most of subjects were unconverted. The logic of the "though" is confusing. What is the relationship between Penda's paganness and that of his subjects'? In this sentence, the "though" is distinguishing between Penda and his people, not between the historical Penda and the mythical Penda, if you see what I mean. Does that help at all? Awadewit | talk 14:10, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Yes, it does. I spent a bit of time thinking about this and finally decided to cut the offending clause. The article is about Wulfhere, after all, not Penda. I think that fixes the problem. Mike Christie (talk) 16:12, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

• Wulfhere endowed a major monastery at Medeshamstede (modern Peterborough) reported in the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle. - awkward construction with "reported"

I did some rephrasing throughout the paragraph. Mike Christie (talk) 02:52, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Clearer. Awadewit | talk 14:10, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

• I think Anglo-Saxon Chronicle should be italicized as it is a major work of literature/history.

Done. Mike Christie (talk) 02:52, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

• In the early 670s King Cenwealh of Wessex died, and perhaps as a result of the stress caused by Wulfhere’s military activity the West Saxon kingdom fragmented and came to be ruled by underkings, according to Bede. (See Kirby 52-3) - There seems to be one MLA citation amidst all of the footnotes.

• Oops. Not really intended to be an MLS citation; that's just a left over note to myself from when I wrote that paragraph. Anyway, it's fixed; I converted it to a footnote. Mike Christie (talk) 19:18, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

• The widowed Queen Eormenhild entered religion, and probably became the abbess of Ely. - awkward construction with "entered religion"

Rephrased. Mike Christie (talk) 02:52, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Better. Awadewit | talk 14:10, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

• His brother, Æthelred, succeeded him, and reigned for nearly thirty years. He recovered Lindsey from the Northumbrians a few years after his accession, but was generally unable to maintain the dominant position in the south that Wulfhere had been able to achieve. - Pronouns become confusing - best to start a paragraph with a proper noun, I think.

I agree; I tweaked this and the start of the following sentence. Mike Christie (talk) 02:52, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Clearer. Awadewit | talk 14:10, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

• ''Jaruman was not the first incumbent of the see of Lichfield; Bede mentions a predecessor, Trumhere, but nothing is known about Trumhere’s activities or who appointed him. - is "incumbent" the right word? It sounded slightly off to me here, but I think this might be an AE/BE distinction. It is usually used in AE in the context of electoral politics: someone is challenging an "incumbent", or someone who already holds an elected position.

I am irretrievably sullied with AE after twenty years over on the US side of the pond, but I am pretty sure this is correct BE usage for a bishopric. Is there an AE equivalent that I could use that would also sound natural in the UK? Mike Christie (talk) 02:52, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

"holder"? Is that accurate? Or could you just say "the first see of Lichfield"? Awadewit | talk 14:10, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

I fiddled with this and I eventually just decided to repeat "bishop of Lichfield". The intervening clause about the East Saxons provides just enough distance that I think the repetition is OK. Mike Christie (talk) 16:18, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

• Are there any images of related ruins? The article is a little bereft of color and layout excitement. :)

There's nothing I know of; but see the next item -- perhaps I can kill two birds with one stone here. Mike Christie (talk) 23:42, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Too bad on the ruins, but the family tree is lovely. :) Awadewit | talk 14:10, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

• The article is a bit of a blizzard of names for someone like me who doesn't really know this period in history. Would a chart or family tree be possible?

Done, for Wulfhere's immediate family. Take a look at Eadbald of Kent for an example of using one tree for parents and another for children; however, there's not as much data for Wulfhere as there was for Eadbald, so I think the one chart is enough. Mike Christie (talk) 23:42, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

This works well and I think it will help unfamiliar users immediately grasp and hold in their heads all of the relationships. Awadewit | talk 14:10, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

• In the future, I would suggest adding bolstering footnotes so that the reader can be sure that the views presented in the article are not just the views of one historian, but a scholarly consensus. This is a suggestion for post-FAC, obviously.

Yes, this is good practice, and I'll try to make sure I stick to it a little more closely in the future. Thanks. Mike Christie (talk) 23:42, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Nice work - an informative, well-written and pleasurable article to read. Awadewit | talk 17:14, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

• Excellent article, which I am happy to support. Awadewit | talk 20:04, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks! And thanks for the detailed comments. Mike Christie (talk) 20:09, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

• Oppose No infobox or photo of Wulfhere. Not comprehensive, no "Personal life" section and no "External links section". Plus a lot of info in the article is not relevant to Wulfhere. I see a few short paragraphs with only two sentences. The lead section is weak. For example, I don't know who "Oswiu" is yet and a lot of sentences start with "He". Someone please copy-edit the article. But I think it's almost good enough for GA. --Kaypoh (talk) 06:21, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

• Infoboxes are not required - photos cannot be obtained for people who lived during the Middle Ages - there is no set article structure that requires a "Personal life" section (particularly when so few details are known about a figure) - there is no requirement to have an "External links section". I felt that the background material was helpful to readers like myself who have only the dimmest knowledge of the period. Moreover, when so little solid information is known about a figure, this is usually what the biographies look like. Awadewit | talk 06:43, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Kaypoh, I'm going to split up your points into separate bullets so I can respond to each individually, and so that you can reply under each one if appropriate.

• Infobox. Awadewit is right, as far as I know, that there is no requirement for an infobox. A requirement such as that could come from the FA requirements, or from a relevant WikiProject that has guidelines marked as part of the manual of style. For example, the Military History WikiProject has style guide that is part of the manual of style; any requirement in there is part of MOS. There is no requirement that I know of to have an infobox, and indeed I know of editors who actively dislike them, so they are not considered harmless to an article. For an example of a biographical FA from this period without an infobox, see Penda of Mercia, Wulfhere's father; I didn't work on that article, I should add, nor did I take it to FAC. For an example of a similar article with an infobox see Eadbald of Kent -- the material is so thin that without an image I don't think the infobox is very attractive. Having said all that I'd be willing to add the infobox if there were consensus here that it would be beneficial to the article, so let's see if someone else agrees.
• Photo. Well, of course there's no photo; I presume you meant to say picture. There are occasionally pictures done by later artists that have some interest in their own right; see Cædwalla of Wessex and Ælle of Sussex for two examples. Nothing like that exists for Wulfhere that I'm aware of. So I don't think there's anything that can be used here.
• Personal life. What's in the article is everything that is known about Wulfhere. Are you asking for a different organization? I don't think there's enough personal information to really justify a separate section; a paragraph in the section entitled "Ancestry and death of Penda" records what is known about his family.
• External links. I'm not sure what you're asking for here. Is there some requirement to have appropriate external links? Personally I like to try to get all the relevant information into the article so external links aren't needed, though for copyright (and other) reasons this isn't possible for every article. What did you have in mind?
• Not relevant to Wulfhere. Articles about obscure historical figures, particularly in areas of history that are not very well-known, do need background. If you can point to specific points that you think aren't really relevant to this article I'd be glad to trim it, but I believe some background is needed for readers who don't know the period.
• Short paragraphs. I know that one-sentence paragraphs are deprecated; I didn't think there was a problem with two-sentence ones. I see three examples; I've merged one, but I think the other two would be more disconcerting if merged with neighbours than they are now. Let me know if you think either of the remaining two are a problem.
• Oswiu -- good point; I've linked him in the first occurrence. That sentence does mention his overlordship, which is all you need to know about him in the lead -- I actually took out some additional information about him in response to Awadewit's comments. Does the link provide enough context?
• Sentences starting with "he". I've removed one instance of consecutive sentences starting with "he"; I think of this as a fairly invisible construction when the sentences are not consecutive. I'll think about this a bit more and see if I can find a rewrite to avoid one or two more occurences.

Thanks for the comments; please let me know what you think of my answers. Mike Christie (talk) 23:26, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

• Phrases like "appears to have been" and "may have been" are used a lot in this article. It would be better to replace at least some of them with something stronger-sounding- see WP:WEASEL. Lurker (said · done) 11:48, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Another example- the Went, a tributary of the Don, has been suggested as a candidate. suggested by whom? Name sources who have made the suggestion rather than using the passive voice. Lurker (said · done) 11:51, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

But it would mislead the reader were the article to adopt a more certain tone. Little which might be said about Wulfhere is beyond all doubt. James Campbell (The Anglo-Saxon State, p. 59) refers to "the evasive prose that has to be part of every Dark Age historian's stock in trade". Alex Woolf (From Pictland to Alba, p. 10) mentions "'factoids'...things which everybody knows to be true but for which there is little or no evidence." Early Medieval history is an uncertain affair and it is right that Wikipedia articles reflect this.

As for the specific example, the "suggestion" is covered by the footnote that follows the statement (Kirby, Earliest English Kings, pp. 94–95: "the River Winwaed...probably to be identified with the River Went"). It would be inaccurate to say "identified by Kirby with the River Went" as (a) Kirby says "probably" and (b) lots of other people do likewise - Keynes, "Penda" in the Blackwell Encyclopedia: "conceivably the River Went"; Williams, Kingship and Government: "probably to be identified with the River Went"; the indexer of the Penguin Bede "Winwaed river [Went, Yorks ?]" - and those that don't agree it was one of the many rivers flowing into the Humber - thus Swanton, Anglo-Saxon Chronicle; Blair, Introduction to Anglo-Saxon England - and no doubt there are more. All of this suggests that Winwaed = Went is one of Woolf's 'factoids', but all we can do is repeat it: suggested, possibly, perhaps, said to be. Angus McLellan (Talk) 13:17, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Angus is right, of course; but after taking another look at this specific example I decided that there was something useful I could do: I have moved the "suggested" commentary to a footnote, and expanded it to include the alternative suggestions, citing Swanton for that and using "e.g." to indicate there are other sources for each.

For the others, I will have another look to see whether there are any natural places to either be more definite or to cite specific sources, but I think Angus is right that many of them are going to be hard to fix without making the text clunky with inline commentary about modern historians. I'll post here after I've had another think about this. Mike Christie (talk) 02:10, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

One problem for me is the sheer number of "suggested"s and "may"s. I'd recommend trying to change some of them to something more definite. Personally, I dislike all passive-voiced statements of this nature, but WP:WEASEL appears to say that a few are OK. I'd concede some if they are well-footnoted and there is no way to improve them without making the text clunky, but would be hesitant about promoting an article with so many statements of this nature. I also think "a number of historians suggest" etc. sounds better than the passive-voiced version, provided these statements are supported by footnotes. If a single writer is the source of a statement, he should always be referred to by name as a source. Footnoting, as was done to the statemtn I referred to above, is a good way to refer to sources by name without cluttering the text. Lurker (said · done) 13:12, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Qp10qp has done a fairly comprehensive copy-edit of the article. Could you take another look and see if that's addressed enough of these statements? Mike Christie (talk) 13:34, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

• Support—Just one thing: please remove the period from the first caption. Tony (talk) 14:03, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Done. Thanks for the support, Tony. (And the copy-edit.) Mike Christie (talk) 01:59, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Comments

• Amusingly, there is no link to Mercia!
• Both paragraphs of the lead comment on the fact that Wulfhere was the most powerful king in southern Britain. These probably ought to be consolidated
• It is probably worth mentioning in the lead that Oswiu was from Northumbria (otherwise the reader might assume that his is also from Mercia)
• How can Wulfhere have been the first christian king of Mercia, if his brother Peada had previously been both king, and christian?
• In the section "Ancestry and death of Penda", the article says "his sons are both recorded as being young at his death". However Penda had three sons, not two.
• "Anglo-Saxon" or "Anglo–Saxon"? Bluap (talk) 05:08, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

I think these are all now fixed. Peada was king of southern Mercia, so I've changed the lead to say that Wulfhere was the first Christian king of all Mercia. Re the last point, I believe "Anglo-Saxon" is correct -- this is just ordinary hyphenation. Mike Christie (talk) 12:09, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

• Support. Comprehensive and well-written as always. The images are very nice here too. Karanacs (talk) 17:52, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

• Mike, there's a contradiction in the article: "There are no records of Wulfhere having direct influence among the Lindesfara, whose territory, Lindsey, lay in what is now Lincolnshire." but you then go on to say that Wulfhere appointed the bishop and he was later forced to surrender Lindsey to Ecgfrith. So, he must have had influence over Lindsey! I have two other concerns both about his family: (1) Cynewise was Penda's wife at the time of his death, but is it known that she was the mother of his children, or could there have been an earlier wife? (2) There is some evidence that Wulfhere had a wife before Eormenhild: Eadburh, apparently a Hwicce princess, who (supposedly) became abbess at Gloucester, perhaps after being repudiated or dropped by Wulfhere in order to marry Eormenhild. She isn't mentioned at all, not even to rubbish the dubious story. See http://www.british-history.ac.uk/report.aspx?compid=40268#n4 and http://www.oxforddnb.com/view/article/30093 (you might need a subscription for one or other of these, in which case I can maybe e-mail you the text if you want it). DrKiernan (talk) 10:54, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

I think these are dealt with now. I'm not sure what the source was for the statement about Wulfhere not having direct influence among the Lindesfara; it's not supported by Kirby and may have come from the Williams, which I don't have access to (it was used by another editor). I think it must mean that that there is no record of any direct secular influence; that is, no charters and no record of conquests. Regardless, it was misleading at best, so I've reworded it. Good point on Cynewise -- she's mentioned exactly once, as "Penda's Queen", by Bede; she's generally assumed to be the mother of his children but it does no harm to be clear about the uncertainty here so I have added some explanation and referenced Bede. The Stafford article which is the other reference there only mentions her daughters as being "probably" hers; I take that by extension to indicate that all Penda's children are probably hers since Stafford's article is specifically about Mercian royal women. For Eadburh, I found a source which covers this story and dismisses it -- worth adding, as you say. Apparently there's another, even less plausible, candidate, mentioned in the same manuscript: someone named Eafe who supposedly died 94 years after Wulfhere's death, making marriage a bit unlikely. Anyway, they're both mentioned now. Let me know if there's anything else. Mike Christie (talk) 13:05, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

• • Support That's great. Thanks, DrKiernan (talk) 15:24, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

• Comment. Another excellent article by the phenomenon that is Mike Christie. I'm leaning strongly to support, of course, but have listed a few queries and comments below. This really must have been a difficult article to write, since there seems so little direct information about the main man. Penda somehow comes to life, but not Wulfhere. All the same, this is an important article. Here we have one of the first kings to dominate large parts of England, and therefore we need to know about him. Mike has done an invaluable job of piecing together all the known information on Wulfie and his world.

• I suspect that there are some key details missing from the lead: perhaps the material is so familiar that this hasn't been noticed. For example, Penda isn't mentioned by name in the lead (despite occupying much of the article). I think Penda should be mentioned before Oswiu. Oswiu himself is rather mentioned out of the blue, with no introductory phrase. By 670, when Oswiu died, Wulfhere was the most powerful king in southern Britain. This sentence for me gives the impression that Oswiu was the most powerful until he died; but Oswiu had been overshadowed by this time, and one assumes that Wulfhere achieved this status much earlier. Modern historians consider that the rise to primacy of the kingdom of Mercia began during his reign. This seems to airbrush Penda out: as the article later says, Penda was the most powerful of the Anglo-Saxon kings in his time. In my opinion, Mercia first became a big-hitting kingdom under him.

I found some sources using the phrase "Mercian Supremacy" to describe only the period from Wulfhere on, but I agree Penda needs more acknowledgement. However, I did cut some background from the lead per a comment at this FAC from Awadewit. Here is the original lead, and you can see Awadewit's comments at the top of this FAC. I've had a go at reconciling these comments and ensuring Penda isn't shortchanged; let me know if you think I have the balance right. Mike Christie (talk) 11:36, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

Excellent now. Some mention of long-term Mercian ascendancy might still be included, though, I think, even if it is not said that Wulfhere began it. Please don't feel you have to remove something that is well-referenced, just because of my musings. qp10qp (talk) 18:14, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

Well, I think of the "Mercian Supremacy" as a bit like the Heptarchy; rather too summarizing a view to be very useful. It will show up in an article about Anglo-Saxon historiography sooner or later, and that's a fair place for it. Mike Christie (talk) 19:14, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

• That Eddius quote screams out to climax the lead, in my opinion.

Done; good idea. I left part of the quote where it was since it's the source for the 674 battle. Mike Christie (talk) 11:36, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

I like it. qp10qp (talk) 18:14, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

• Ancestry and death of Penda. This heading seems to me ambiguous, because I think Wulfhere's ancestry is meant rather than Penda's (whose ancestry isn't shown).

I moved the paragraph on the death of Penda to the accession section and changed the section titles accordingly. That does make the ancestry section a bit short, but I think the organization is better and it does solve the title problem. Mike Christie (talk) 13:58, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

• no date is recorded for the marriage and there is no record of any children in the early sources, though Coenred, who was king of Mercia from 704 to 709, is recorded in a later source as Wulfhere’s son. I suspect that the average reader will need some help with the terms "early" and "later" here. It may appear that this refers to earlier and later sources from his own time. Does Bede count as earlier here, even though he postdates Wulfhere? I admit, it is complex.

I changed "earlier" to "earliest", and added some specifics about the later source (John of Worcester) referred to. I didn't get more specific about the earlier source, since it seems sort of clunky to enumerate all the places that don't mention Coenred's father. I hope the date for John of Worcester, given now in the article, provides the necessary contrast. Mike Christie (talk) 13:58, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

• The article suggests that Oswald succeeded Edwin, but was not Eanfrith king for a brief period between the two reigns?

Quite right. (I was amused to find I'd accidentally fallen victim to Bede's propaganda: the interregnum between Edwin and Oswald is the period Bede said was agreed to be expunged from the regnal lists because of the relapse into paganism that year.) I've corrected it in the article, without a great deal of detail, though, since it seems a bit peripheral to the story. Mike Christie (talk) 13:58, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

• I wasn't sure who the Meon valley was conquered from. The Meonware are mentioned, but were they independent or under the West Saxons? Are they anything to do with the Jutes of Hampshire? The context seems to be that Wulfhere's attacks on the Meon Valley and the Isle of Wight were part of moves against the West Saxons, but that isn't said.

I believe this is the only mention of the Meonware in any early source. They're not in the Tribal Hidage, and they're not mentioned in the ASC. Kirby does interpret this as pressure on the West Saxons, but that's not explicitly in the sources though it's very reasonable and is mentioned in the article as an inference (that's the intent of the "severe pressure" bit). What more is needed to make this clearer? Mike Christie (talk) 01:00, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

Well, as you indicate, it is probably one of those things that can't be made clearer. (Original though alert) My sense is that Yorke's theory about the Jutes of Hampshire, even if the name is arguable, wanders close to the mark, in the sense that these Meon Valley people were possibly related to, under the overlordship of, or the same as, the Isle of Wight people, so that Wulfhere was probably attacking a single polity there. One guesses that unlike tribes further north, they had refused to pay tribute. It was probably an area well worth attacking, since we know that there was a serious trading station at Hamwic not that much later. I am actually not a big fan of the heptarchy theory, which sometimes makes us think too much too early in terms of Wessex, Essex, etc. Clearly there were lots of different tribes, as the Hidage shows, and overlordship was won by the strongest leaders; when they died, other leaders might vie for the overlordship and tribes would switch. One senses here that once Wulfhere was through the Gewisse, tribes further south caved in to his overlordship until he got to these Solent people. Still, this is all musing, and of no use to the article. 18:14, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

Another note: the map I added may make this clearer. The river Meon is to the east of the Test, which is the river visible on the new map flowing down to the Solent. The Meon is parallel to it, more or less, but is so small I didn't want to put it in directly (the mapping software I'm using won't even show it at this resolution). Mike Christie (talk) 13:32, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

That map is a dynamic help to the reader in visualising Wulfhere's strategy! All I would say is that it should show the Hwicce were on the east bank of the Severn too (mainly, perhaps). That area was strategically significant throughout the early AS period because it is a wide flat valley that enabled the Mercians to flood through into Wessex and vice versa (I have walked the Cotswolds, and the plain of the Severn Valley is strikingly different from the hilly ground to the east, which stretches right across to the Thames: difficult to defend, easy to advance through. The caption says that Ashdown was in the Berkshire Downs south of Thame: I've no idea where Ashdown was, but the Berkshire Downs are to the west and south west of Thame, quite a way away, and the Chilterns to the south and southeast. So Thame is at a pivotal point at the top of the gap. In effect the geography is of a Thames Valley with high downs to the west, some steeply up against the west bank of the river (the river runs south-south-east in this area, which I think helped make it a strategically important element) and lower ground to the east before it rises again into the Chilterns. The channel south for the Mercians is therefore in the shape of a funnel. They coould advance south from Thame on the eastern side of the Thames or perhaps along the river. To conquer the Gewisse they would have had to penetrate their defensive positions in the Berkshire Downs, which I suspect is where Ashdown was, though no one knows.qp10qp (talk) 18:14, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

Interesting, and I agree with your analysis; it jibes with the basic story Kirby puts together, too. For the map, I have moved the "Hwicce" label a bit and made it larger to allow it to cover more territory; I think it's a bit more accurate now. Mike Christie (talk) 19:14, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

• In this context, I note the article says that the royal dynasty of the Isle of Wight must have found the new arrangements with Sussex acceptable, because the West Saxons exterminated them over ten years later. Since, according to the article, Wulfhere's attack happened in 661, one would expect the retaliation to have taken place around 671–72; but this would have been when Wulfhere was still in power, so which source does the "over ten years later" come from? I immediately thought this referred to Cædwalla, who slaughtered this dynasty in the 880s, in the context of a West Saxon war against the South Saxons. It seems there's a clash here between the ASC and Bede, which I suggest should be pointed out in the article to avoid confusion.

I am trying here to summarize an argument Kirby makes on pp. 115-116 of Earliest English Kings, and also transmit the basic facts. I think the problem here is a mixture of incomplete summarization and perhaps overcompression of Kirby's argument. Here's what the sources say, at a bit more length. First, Bede doesn't give any dates for the gift by Wulfhere of the provinces of the Meonware and the Isle of Wight to Aethelwealh. (It's in IV 13 if you want to take a look; you probably have a copy but there's one here.) However, he refers in that chapter to a gift by Aethelwealh of land to Wilfrid, and then to "the death of King Egfrid five years later"; that would date the gift to 680, five years after Wulfhere's death. So Bede has compressed at least five or six years of activity by Wilfrid into the description of the time from Wulfhere's gift to Aethelwealh's gift. Kirby assumes that Wulfhere was active in the mid-680s, relying on Bede for that, and then since Bede says that Wulfhere's attack was "not long before", Kirby asserts that Wulfhere's actions should be placed later in the reign than 661. Kirby then sidetracks to make an argument about Frithuwald and the general pressure Wulfhere must have been applying in the south, and then asserts that Wulfhere's advance implied a "near-total collapse of political and military order south of the Thames". This is when he comments that Wulfhere must have been allied to the Meonware and the Isle of Wight's ruling dynasty. Kirby suggests that it may have only been Wulfhere's defeat at this point by the Northumbrians that prevented the collapse of Wessex. So: I used the ASC date without comment, since Kirby doesn't have anything concrete to offer as an alternative, and the whole argument he makes, while plausible, isn't in other sources I've seen. I have used this sort of thing before in other articles, but this time I decided to cut it down. However, the "over ten years" was a nod to the gap between Wulfhere and Caedwalla, which has to be at least ten years, given their (reliable) dates. I did retain Kirby's comment about the likely alliance because after all the extermination of the ruling dynasty is well documented by Bede and does seem an uncontroversial deduction from the evidence. I haven't found this anywhere else either, but I tried to phrase it in a way that couldn't really be argued with. The bottom line is yes, there's a clash between ASC and Bede, as you spotted. How do you think I should resolve this -- expand to give the background, or cut to remove the note about "over ten years"? Mike Christie (talk) 00:52, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the explanation! I would remove "over ten years", since it is imprecise anyway. The reader, I suspect, wouldn't naturally assume it to cover events in 680s from a starting point of 661, though, strictly speaking, that would still be over ten years. qp10qp (talk) 18:14, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

Done. Mike Christie (talk) 19:14, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

• Sometimes I felt the geographical logic was not fully joined up. I moved the stuff about Dorchester closer to that about Ashdown, because they are in the same area. Looking at the map of Mercia, clearly this was a strategic keypoint for Wulfhere, who I believe had his headquarters at Thame (not mentioned in the article) in the same area (the River Thame flows from Thame into the Thames at Dorchester!). His grant to Frithuwold was made from Thame: it is a position from which Wulfhere could control Surrey and Essex (and the Chilternsæte and the Sunninga) to the south east and the Hwicce to the south west. He could also strike directly south to Hamphire and the Isle of Wight. At the same time he could keep his lines open to Mercia to the north. No wonder Wessex disintegrated: Thame is pivotal. Cædwalla's later strategy can be seen as lashing out against a compressing Mercian–South-Saxon alliance.

I've mentioned Thame in the note on the charter, and I added a map that shows the main places mentioned, at least in the south. I hope this helps connect some of the geographical dots. Mike Christie (talk) 13:29, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

Fine. See my comment above. qp10qp (talk) 18:14, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

• Modern historians. I find that a bit jarring, though I know what is meant. "Recent historians"? (I'm assuming there's a need for a distinction, that earlier generations of historians saw this differently?)

Removed. I need to do more work on the lead per your comments above so I'll defer other remarks for now. Mike Christie (talk) 13:58, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

• the date may have been 659. I felt that an explanation of the issue was required here; there seems to be a buried point that needs bringing to the surface.

You're right. The problem derives from the reign of Edwin of Northumbria, and is partly in the sources and partly a deduction made by Kirby. Some versions of the Chronicle (Kirby says ASC ms D; my copy of Swanton shows E as well) say that Edwin came to the throne in 617. The Anglian collection of genealogies gives him a reign of 17 years, which would imply a reign of 617-634. The genealogy does not give an accession date, but apparently working from the Anglian collection one can deduce a reign of 616 to 633. This is apparently the assumption Bede made. Kirby then points out that Edwin's death in October was unknown to Pope Honorius I in June 634, when Honorius wrote to Edwin, and that this is unlikely as the Pope would probably have been keeping himself informed on events in England. Hence the 617-634 reign is also at least likely. I wouldn't have included this if it had just been Kirby, but the support of the ASC for the start of the reign, along with the lack of a date in the Anglian collection, seems to me to be enough to indicate a possible discrepancy. This all affects Wulfhere because this one-year dislocation could extend to Wulfhere's reign; Kirby has an appendix showing the set of reigns that could be redated by a year, extending all the way to the accession of Osred I of Northumbria in 704 or 705. Having said all this, I think it might be OK to drop the uncertainty in this article, and restrict it to the article on Edwin. Yorke, for example, regards Edwin's reign as "securely dated" (Kings and Kingdoms, p. 77), and no mention is made of any uncertainty in Stenton or in the Blackwell Encyclopedia (the article there is written by Philip Holdsworth). I'd like your opinion, but I think it could be cut. Mike Christie (talk) 11:14, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

I agree. This is one of those circular points that is probably best not to bother the reader with. qp10qp (talk) 18:14, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. I've cut all references to the date ambiguity; I have a great deal of respect for Kirby, and his theories about dates (he does a lot of this sort of thing) are always reasonable, but until some more secondary sources sign up for the theory I don't think it needs to be there. Mike Christie (talk) 19:14, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

• Oswiu had had considerable influence over Sigeberht of the East Saxons. I think we need to be told why. Is there charter evidence or something that could be mentioned?

This rests on III 22 in Bede, which describes Sigeberht as a friend of Oswiu and states that Oswiu persuaded Sigeberht to convert to Christianity, and to accept missionaries from the north. I've explicitly mentioned Bede as the source, and reffed it.

Oh, I see (haven't been checking Bede). I do think it's best to explain the basis for any statement of that sort. qp10qp (talk) 18:14, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

• into what is now Scotland and Wales. And what (coughs) about Cornwall?

Tweaked to mention Dumnonia (since Devon was still part of it at the time). Mike Christie (talk) 10:48, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

I am always a bore on this point. qp10qp (talk) 18:14, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

• The monastery was begun under Peada. Does this mean building was begun or that the monastery was founded? Obviously, Wulfhere endowed it; but what did Peada do? (I daresay we don't know, but the phrase is enigmatic as it stands.)

Unfortunately we don't know. The source is the Chronicle, which says s.a. 656 "In his [Wulfhere's] time the abbey of Peterborough, which his brother Peada had begun, grew very powerful." I would assume this means endowed, and that Wulfhere provided further endowments. If you agree that's a safe deduction I'll make the change, but to be honest I think "begun" might be better, just because that's the word in the Chronicle. Mike Christie (talk) 13:41, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

I don't like "begun" myself, unless you put it in quotation marks. It's an ambiguous word, because it can mean to begin in the sense of something not finished, or begin in the sense of founded. I think historians should go further than repeating the ambiguity and should interpret: perhaps the word should be quoted and the interpretation follow (I'm assuming a secondary source says something about it). I agree with the interpretation that it was endowed. These monasteries were always being developed, and new parts would probably need new endowments: in this sense, one can imagine that Wulfhere presided over the abbey's expansion. By the way, on the church, I wonder if Wilfred could be mentioned in the article text. Eddius says that the "kindly" Wulfhere(!) used to invite Wilfred into his territory to perform religious functions and that Wulfhere endowed a lot of minsters.qp10qp (talk) 18:14, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

I've tweaked the text; I decided to just use "endowed" as being the natural interpretation. I like the idea of adding a sentence (maybe in the "Convert King" section) about Wilfrid and the kindly Wulfhere, but I don't have Eddius, so I've been relying on others that quote him. Could you add that yourself, or give me the quote and a ref to it so I can? Thanks. Mike Christie (talk) 19:14, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

• the centre of Anglo-Saxon London was not at the old Roman centre, but about a mile west of that, between what are now the locations of the Strand and Covent Garden. Does this refer to a geographical point that was its precise epicentre, or to a "town" centre? If the latter, I find it hard to picture, since the Strand and Covent Garden are bang next to each other, with virtually no space between.

I took another look at the descriptions of the archaeological evidence that I based this on, and I think I was overdoing the precision here -- it's generally just called "the Strand settlement" in the source, and I don't think I need to do more than indicate its location by that. There was an excavation at the Royal Opera House that found seventh-century burials, and also provides evidence for the seventh and eighth-century growth of the city. By the mid-eighth-century the author, Robert Cowie, gets quite precise about the boundaries of the city, but that's neither here nor there for Wulfhere. So I've cut the "Covent Garden" mention, which should remove the confusion. Mike Christie (talk) 10:30, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

Fine. qp10qp (talk) 18:14, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

• Bede does not report the fighting, nor is it mentioned in the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle, but Ecgfrith defeated Wulfhere, forcing him to surrender Lindsey, and to pay tribute. Does the evidence come from elsewhere, or does this just mean that these sources don't give any details? It isn't precisely clear to me (may just be me).

It's from Eddius's Life of Wilfrid; I've tweaked it to make that clearer. Mike Christie (talk) 10:30, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

Now clear. qp10qp (talk) 18:14, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

• I think the reader needs an explanatory phrase about Henry of Huntingdon. The ASC and Bede have been introduced, but the reader is given no reason to suddenly take the word of this twelfth-century historian. He is valuable because he had access to earlier sources, I believe. qp10qp (talk) 23:00, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

I added a short description, reffed to the Blackwell encyclopedia. Mike Christie (talk) 10:30, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

Excellent. qp10qp (talk)

Support. Excellent article. I'm very pleased with Mike's responses. The man is getting seriously good at this. qp10qp (talk) 18:14, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.