Talk:Óengus I of the Picts

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Featured article star Óengus I of the Picts is a featured article; it (or a previous version of it) has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Wikipedia community. Even so, if you can update or improve it, please do.

Contents

[edit] older entries

Whoever wrote this page on Oengus I of the Picts did an excellent job of bringing the facts of his life out into the open. I do have one question for the writer of this page, however.

The writer of this page wrote that King Oengus campaigned in Munster alongside King Cathal mac Finguine (d. 742), with whom Oengus claimed kinship. I have no reason to doubt this statement, but I was just wondering where can I find some historical references to prove this claim? I need it for a project I'm doing on Medieval British and Irish history.

Thank you for your time. Please get back to me when you can.

Best wishes,

Albert

It's a paraphrase of Alex Woolf's article Ungus (Onuist), son of Uurgust in M. Lynch (ed.) The Oxford Companion to Scottish History (Oxford UP, 2002). There will presumably be more in either Fraser's From Caledonia to Pictland or Woolf's From Pictland to Alba in the new Edinburgh history of Scotland, but these are not due until 2008 and 2007 respectively. Angus McLellan 15:23, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

Thank you Angus. I appreciate your help.

Best wishes,

Albert

[edit] Great Work

The recent edit on this article is fantastic; and I'm very glad someone else is putting serious efforts into improving the standard of coverage of early medieval northern Britain, especially this man, one of the greatest kings to come from Dark Age Europe. The article is fine, and particularly great considering the difficulty of the subject matter. If you could find or make a few images, preferrably about two or three, I'll be happy to list it as a good article; thereafter, the article could stand a good chance of being featured. - Calgacus 20:04, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Ungus and Ireland

Hi Angus,

Can you tell me a little bit more about Ungus's campaign in Ireland? Thanks.

Best wishes,

Albert

[edit] GA

Great work guys. Obviously, it could use images, but I don't see that as being a requirement for GA status. savidan(talk) (e@) 08:52, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

Has an FA nom been considered? They would expect an image; maybe a map could be added, at least. But this looks really good to me. Is there any more info that could be added? Everyking 11:16, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

A map is certainly feasible, and some other more or less appropriate illustrations can be included. So that's not really a problem, but there's still some other work to be done. I wouldn't like to have it nominated for featured, or even to go to the trouble of peer-reviewing it, until someone has had the opportunity to compare the article with Alex Woolf's "Onuist son of Uurguist : tyrannus carnifex or a David for the Picts?" which appears in David Hill & Margaret Worthington (eds), Æthelbald and Offa : two eighth-century kings of Mercia. British Archaeological Reports, British series, 383, Oxford, 2005. I don't think it's guilty of original research any more than any other article of it's type. However, as with the article on Penda of Mercia, the fact is that it's strung together from a whole lot of sources, and comparing it with a relatively long piece on the subject (of which Woolf's is the only one I am aware of) seems like a good idea. A second concern is that I asked a non-anglophone acquaintance to read through it to see if it made sense. While we haven't sat down and gone through it in detail, she did say that she found it quite hard going, in part because of the unfamiliar names, background, & so on, which is unavoidable, but also because of the way it was written, which could be addressed once I know exactly what she had in mind. Angus McLellan (Talk) 11:56, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Notes/References

Somehow I managed to hit save before finishing my edit comment. I changed the section titles to "Notes" and "References" per WP:CITE. --Craig Stuntz 19:02, 6 April 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Óengus the Bretwalda

At Angus, maybe we could have a full section devoted to the Mercian alliance and Óengus' greater political status in the British Isles. Both T.M. Charles-Edwards and then Alex Woolf argue that Óengus and the Mercians formed a joint overlordship of Britain. Charles-Edwards argues explicitly that Óengus was king possessing the image and authority of a "Bretwalda". Also, Charles-Edwards argues that Fortriu-Mercia alliance to control Northumbria and Dál Riata also effected to contest for the High-Kingship of Ireland, implying that Óengus was the leading player in a power-system that stretched from Munster to Kent to Orkney. His conclusions seem surprising at first, but the whole situation is put into good context by Herman Moisl's fantastic article, "The Bernician Royal Dynasty and the Irish in the Seventh Century" (Peritia, 1983, pp. 103-26). - Calgacus (ΚΑΛΓΑΚΟΣ) 22:55, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Aengus

Should there be some redirect from Aengus? It is not easy to type Óengus in my browser. --Ghirla -трёп- 16:57, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

Now added there, and to Angus (disambiguation). I created an Onuist dab page and redirected Ungus and Hungus there. There is already a redirect from Oengus I of the Picts (which is how I usually get here). Angus McLellan (Talk) 23:27, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
Nice job, Angus! I understand that the king is your namesake? --Ghirla -трёп- 21:16, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
He is, although there's unlikely to be any connection. Angus McLellan (Talk) 16:59, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Moving this article

I am minded to move the article to something more resembling forms found in print. "Óengus I/Óengus II" appears in the works of Alfred P. Smyth, surely not my favourite writer on the Insular Early Middle Ages. Sticking with Óengus rather Onuist (if nothing else, it's easier to pronounce for those who like to know how things sound) and Fergus rather than [UW]rguist (which is positively unhelpful unless you're Welsh), we might have:

  • A Óengus son of Fergus (d. 761) - short and simple and as anglicised as you can get without being antiquarian, piping gives Óengus son of Fergus
  • B Óengus mac Fergusso (d. 761) - axe grinding ? salami slicing ? probably, piping gives Óengus mac Fergusso
  • C Óengus son of Fergus (King of the Picts, d. 761) - longwinded and just what does King of the Picts mean, piping gives Óengus son of Fergus

The other Óengus could be disambiguated by (d. 834). I have not opened a formal requested move as there seems little point. Unless there's a better suggestion or strong disagreement, I will go with A. Angus McLellan (Talk) 16:59, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

I'd be surprised if you find many people qualified to pass an opinion on the matter. I'd never heard of him, and I enjoyed your article very much, but I don't think I'd've read it if it wasn't named the way it was. However, that's not a good reason to keep it, if it's, as you suggest, questionable.--qp10qp 15:53, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
None of those titles seem particularly appealing. Óengus I. or Onuist I. seem fine to me, or Óengus I, King of the Picts. The "of the Picts" format is too clumsy; considering the problematic nature of the evidence (e.g. the king lists), even numbering Pictish kings is pretty risky (though in this case it is fine). The Germans have got it so much better with the Óengus I. (Picts) format, but it is out of line with English wiki convention. "son of" also looks clumsy, and besides poses the "Echdach problem" (Echdach being genitive of Eochaid), whereby because some of the patronymics occur only in the genitive case, the father names first have to be de-genitivized to be used .... not always possible with some of the more obcure names. Calgacus (ΚΑΛΓΑΚΟΣ) 03:07, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

ideally

I'd be rather inclined to avoid going with a new way of naming him that instantly means he needs to be disambiguated. Assuming the suggested monarchical naming conventions pass, Óengus I, King of the Picts would seem to be okay with me. You seem to be opposed to this form, but I'm not familiar with Alfred P. Smyth, so I'm not really sure what the problem is. Could you possibly clarify why it's not a good way of doing things? Proteus (Talk) 19:29, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

There is a case to be made for this article and it's namesake, but only for those. Where's the benefit in using a system which wouldn't be used on any other articles on the topic ? The Biographical Dictionary of Dark Age Britain uses numerical disambiguation in these two cases only (see p. xxxii). Smyth and Marjorie Anderson (Kings and Kingship) give complete listings of kings from Bridei son of Maelchon onwards, in most cases with Gaeliform and Pictiform names. The articles here on kings before Bridei should be zapped anyway, perhaps excepting Drust son of Erp and his brother Nechtan. Have a look at Category:Irish kings and Category:Welsh monarchs. Angus McLellan (Talk) 23:06, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
So are you suggesting moving all the articles on Pictish Kings from their numerically disambiguated titles? Proteus (Talk) 08:26, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
I definitely think the Pictish kings should be moved. It is common to use "m." instead of "son of", because that is ambiguous. "Mac" is common, and although "map" is totally and utterly unattested in any Pictish or non-Pictish source for a Pictish person, historians who think all the Picts always spoke a dialect of Welsh like to use that form (the argument wrests on a few names in king lists and a couple of other sources which lack Irish Gaelic orthography, some placename elements which include words also used in Welsh and one half-Welsh place name from the Welsh area south of the Forth reported by Bede as "Pictish"). Anyways, Marjorie Ogilvie Anderson's articles on Pictish kings are titled as follows:
  • Brude mac Bile [Bridei son of Beli] (d. 693), king of Picts
  • Brude [Bridei] mac Maelchon (d. c.586), king of Picts
  • Kenneth I [Cináed mac Alpin, Kenneth Macalpine] (d. 858), king in Scotland
  • Nechtan mac Derile (d. 732), king of Picts
  • Oengus [Angus] mac Forgusso [Onuist son of Uurguist] (d. 761), king of Picts
The sub-articles of Picts, kings of the (act. c.300–c.900)
  • Nechtan Morbet (d. 481?)
  • Talorgen (d. 657)
  • Drust (d. 729)
  • Talorg mac Congus (d. 734)
  • Talorgan mac Drostan (d. 739)
  • Constantine mac Fergus (d. 820)
  • Oengus (d. 834)
  • Eoganán (d. 839)
  • Drust (d. c.848)
Frankly, the current system is silly, and Angus is correct to want to move it. I see nothing wrong, in this particular instance, of Óengus I or Onuist I. Even Óengus mac Fergusa/Óengus mac Forgusso or Onuist (I) m. Urguist would be fine. Simply Onuist may even work, with a "For Onuist II, see blah blah blah". Regards, Calgacus (ΚΑΛΓΑΚΟΣ) 21:36, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Namesake

"Later generations may have conflated this king Óengus mac Fergusa with his 9th century namesake." from Cult of Saint Andrew section

Isn't this a wrong use of namesake (the 9th certain one didn't give his name to the 8th centurry one.) Also why use Óengus mac Fergusa? Rmhermen 01:11, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Fergusa is genitive of Fergus. Calgacus (ΚΑΛΓΑΚΟΣ) 02:10, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
I'll change "namesake" to "king of the same name" for clarity. Angus McLellan (Talk) 10:31, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Infobox

The template Infobox Monarch would probably be appropriate per WikiProject Biography, and the tag saying that the article needs an appropriate infobox.
--Cliff smith 02:10, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Added, and it doesn't look as bad as I feared. I'm not a great fan of infoboxes and dynastic templates, or even of succession boxes, as they can be rather obtrusive and/or misinforming. Angus McLellan (Talk) 09:06, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
I was afraid of it ruining the page as well, but you did a great job with it. Cliff smith 18:26, 21 November 2006 (UTC)