Talk:Great Heathen Army

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks.
Stub	This article has been rated as Stub-Class on the quality scale.
Additional information: This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-Class status: Referencing and citation: not checked Coverage and accuracy: not checked Structure: not checked Grammar: not checked Supporting materials: not checked To fill out this checklist, please add the following to the template call: <!-- 1. It is suitably referenced, and all major points are appropriately cited. --> |B-Class-1=yes/no <!-- 2. It reasonably covers the topic, and does not contain major omissions or inaccuracies. --> |B-Class-2=yes/no <!-- 3. It has a defined structure, including a lead section and one or more sections of content. --> |B-Class-3=yes/no <!-- 4. It is free from major grammatical errors. --> |B-Class-4=yes/no <!-- 5. It contains appropriate supporting materials, such as an infobox, images, or diagrams. --> |B-Class-5=yes/no Related task forces (nations and regions): Nordic military history task force

An entry from Great Heathen Army appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the Did you know? column on 24 January 2006.

Contents 1 Merge? 2 Rename? 3 article title 4 Confusion over dates

[edit] Merge?

I'm interested to know why it might be a good idea to merge this article. There's plenty to say about it and it provides rather too much detail for either of the articles it has been suggested it could be merged into. I certainly wouldn't support merging it into an article on Anglo-Saxon England, as the earlier Viking force in France was associated with the name (something which I need to expand in the article). Viking Age is a large and general article which now links here. Saying this should be merged in strikes me as analogous to merging in Jorvik or Battle of Clontarf. Just because they involved Vikings doesn't mean that we should restrict ourselves to one very general article on the topic. Warofdreams talk 12:55, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Rename?

I don't think that a band of Vikings described in this article was the only "great army" in the world history. I would make it a redirect to La Grande Armée, if you ask my opinion. Please move the article to a valid title. --Ghirla | talk 12:57, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

I know this is wiki:en ... but I'm rather shocked at this. As a Frenchman, I take it as a matter of course that when you make references to the Great Army, the one you're thinking of is that of Napoleon Bonaparte... what's English usage on the subject? --Svartalf 13:01, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

Maybe Viking Great Army. Maybe it can be kept separate, but at the moment it really would look more at home in an "9th century" section at Viking Age. At present the article is insufficiently sourced, and insufficiently linked (e.g. not from Battle of Edington. We should give it a chance, but our Viking Age articles are in disarray, and it would make more sense to concentrate on cleaning up Viking Age, until it spills over with excellent prose, and then export sub-articles, rather than creating Viking Age stubs all over the place. dab (ᛏ) 13:06, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

I've got no problem with moving the article to

Great Heathen Army, the name used by contemporary Anglo-Saxon chroniclers, or perhaps Viking Great Army. A quick google gives 42,000 hits for "napoleon great-army" and only 17,400 for "viking great-army", although just searching for "great-army" doesn't find many of either, instead pulling up information on armies which people think are great.

Great Army is the generally used name for this force, although as you say there are other prevalent usages of the term, so a disambiguation is fine with me. I've created many of the links to this article, but even when I started, it was only referenced by links pointing to this topic. Warofdreams talk 13:10, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

I vote for Great Heathen Army. --Ghirla | talk 13:20, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

Sounds fine. Let's keep the article, and move it, making "Great Army" a dab page. dab (ᛏ) 13:20, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

Great Heathen Army is much better than Great Viking Army because viking refers to the activity of raiding and pillaging and this was an army that came to conquer and settle which is what made them different from the viking groups which raided the coast of England. Although they didn't give up the viking activities completely, they were primarily and invasion force. --Birgitte§β ʈ Talk 01:44, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] article title

A cursory reading of the entries in the A-S Chronicle for 825 - 900 c.e. gives me around thirty references to 'the great Danish army' or 'the Danish army', twelve for 'the enemy army', and only one reference to 'the great heathen army'. I used D. Whitelock's edition from 1961 for my translation reference in this case, as it covers all of the extant manuscript variants, in case anyone is curious.

Note that this phrase, 'great heathen army', is not capitalised in any translations that I have read, and the original does not give me that impression either. Why is this article referring to the "Great Heathen Army"? Granted, this was a cursory search of the original and all of the variant versions in translation, but 'great heathen army' is something that would easily stick out, in either the original or in translation.

When I read about Ragnar and his kids referenced in secondary source materials in the context of their invasion of England and France during the last half of the 9th, it is almost invariably "The great Danish army".

→ P.MacUidhir (t) (c) 21:42, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Confusion over dates

This article states that Bagsecg and the Great Summer Army arrived in 870. However Bagsecg was killed at the Battle of Ashdown in January 871. This suggests that they arrived in the summer of 870. Did they take part in the destruction of East Anglia that year? PatGallacher 11:00, 15 October 2006 (UTC)