Talk:Canute the Great

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article is within the scope of the following WikiProjects:
News This page has been cited as a source by a media organization. The citation is in:


Contents

[edit] Age of King Knut?

I want to propose a theory, which I hope some people will comment on.

If Canute the Great was at a young age on the death of his father, and the English conquest which he led, it is certainly a point which will be significant for interpretations of his deeds throughout his entire life, as a novice at the begining, rather than the cream of the crop, so to speak. If he was ten years older, the story differs dramatically, with successful wars and battles, led by the man himself, rather than by the boy sat on the sidelines, to be lord out of his league, rather than Viking warrior king. This is not a moot point.

If we consider the picture we see drawn, as drawn by the Victorians, tales of him as a light-headed fool certainly aren't surpriseing. Victorians were so civil, and the Queen as Empress, leader of the Empire's conquests, was no warrior-king ideal, while Alfred the Great, bastion against the cruel pirates of Scandiavia, was their hero of the dark ages.

Evidencially, as Cnut let his second wife Emma's son Harthacnut be his heir, and the first wife Aelfgifu was a 'handfast' wife he apparantly treated as a northern queen, he was entirely ready to let her son Sweyn rule Norway, as the deal with Emma was, on some level, an attempt to stem the Norman avalanch poised to break on England if left alone. It must be true, if he sent Sweyn and Aelfgifu to rule Norway together, in 1030, when the boy was nearly twenty, younger or older, he meant the mother to be the mentor, rather than himself. I reckon this is because he was preparing to die, of old age, at 50. His trip to Rome after 1030, and the death, which Norweigians were anticipant of, in Shafstbury, a monastery with much of his patronage, suggest, he was not unhealthy, but his health was at an end. If it is true Sweyn and Aelfgifu were driven away by the Norwegians before Cnut's death, it is likely they knew he was on his last legs, and the likelihood of retaliation, unlikely. It fits with an old man trying to reconcile his wives, the first's sons he let rule in the north, Harald Harefoot probably to be Earl of Northumbria, and the Kingdom of Norway for his first son, and the second's, Harthacnut, true to his word, he let rule Denmark and England. If only the Norwegians were less sore on taxes, it might have been made a success.

WikieWikieWikie 15:28, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Canute v Cnut

Which spelling is more authentic, Canute or Cnut? I heard that he was in his day called Cnut, but people changed his name to Canute, due to similarity to the word "cunt". Is there any truth in this? -- Anonymoues 09:47 Oct 27, 2002 (UTC)


I have studied Knud d. Store/Canute the Great quite a bit in both Danish and English litterature and I have never seen it written as "Cnut" before. If it is indeed some medieval British or Danish form of the name it should be specified. In any event, the Danish name "Knud" is more relevant than some medieval British form of it. Celcius 23:44, 17 August 2005 (UTC)


This Danish king is in Denmark called "Knud" ("Knud den Store" = "the Great"). In Latin sources he is called "Canutus", see http://magnificat.ca/cal/engl/01-19.htm

In English he is usually called "Canute". The suggestion about "cunt" has probably litte to recommend it.

S.

I'm surprised not to find vandalism in the page history changing the name from "Cnut" to "Cunt"... 204.52.215.107 01:48, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

Also "Boleslaw the Brave" to "Coleslaw the Brave". These guys may have conquered the known world, but I bet that behind their backs they were most cruelly taunted. 141.152.242.142 01:57, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

In all the history books I've read it's Cnut (as in the title of M.K. Lawson biography, Rumble's collection of papers &c. The ODNB entry is under Cnut [Canute]. Probably most people would search for Canute, as that's the spelling schoolchildren come across when learning about him trying to hold back the tide, but more properly the article should be Cnut i reckon

I'm a History stupid in England and I have to say I'd never even seen the 'Canute' variation until just now on Wiki. It's always spelled 'Cnut' or 'Knut' as in Knutsford, which I happen to live very near to. I also think the article should be changed to Cnut.

  • Can we decide (by vote, discussion or otherwise) on one form to use consistently throughout the article and the title? Wikipedia naming conventions essentially suggest it should be the name by which he is most commonly known in England and English-speaking countries, without giving much other guidance. It seems like there's a disconnect between popular sources (Google: 770K Canute, 150K Cnut; most print encyclopedias use Canute as the primary title) and the historical sources cited here, which tend to eschew the later Anglicisation in favor of the version his contemporaries would have used. Willhsmit 19:28, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
Well, Knud/Knut den Store is actually his name, so I would say they should all redirect to that and use 'Knud' or 'Knut' as the spelling. --Veratien 13:53, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
The common English name is Canute, and as said above, we use common names in our article titles. Variations should be addressed, but we need to use Canute, and make sure it is consistant through the article.--Cúchullain t/c 18:42, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
What are you basing 'Canute' being the most common on? As a student specialising in the Viking era I can safely say I've never seen it spelled 'Canute' anywhere until I came to this wiki page. It's always Cnut/Knut. That's how everyone here knows it. It's even Cnut on my pack of kings and queens of England cards. I think the article title should be changed to 'Cnut'. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.109.27.158 (talk) 17:10, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
For starters, most other encyclopedias use Canute, such as Encarta, Britannica, and the Catholic Encylopedia. A Google search will also reveal several times more hits for Canute than Cnut.--Cúchullain t/c 18:11, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
These are hardly credible primary sources. If they are wrong there is no reason to ape them. I was also brought up on "Canute", but now understand this to be a bowdlerisation of Cnut or Knut. Canute may be more popular but there is no reason it should not redirect to the correct (original) name to educate our readers -most of whom will after all not be searching for "Canute_the_Great". Pterre (talk) 19:31, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
As I said several times above, our naming convention is to use a person's most common name in article titles. Canute is clearly more common Cnut; I demonstrated that it is used in several encyclopedias. We don't have Ghenghis Khan at Chingiss for this reason.--Cúchullain t/c 23:23, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

I suggest Knut the Great, that is the way I have heard it and spelled it. I am quite suprised the way it is spelt here( no offence)

Regards —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.231.84.183 (talk) 19:03, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

I too was surprised - if not stunned - to see the spelling 'Canute' being used. Yes small anglophone children will be taught about King 'Canute', but that's only because their teachers are using obsolete materials. For an idea of the currency of 'Cnut', do an English language Google search now for simply 'Cnut' - and check their quality, not just their number. Certainly spellings change over time according to fashions, but the fashion in current historiography for example is to be as scientific as possible about such details, so 'Cnut' is a current anglicisation, agreed by those in a position to study the matter. It clearly has taken root, and given the circumstances it is unlikely to change again in the future. And, despite previous mention here of the Latinisation 'Canutus', in fact the Latinised spelling 'Cnutus' is present in splendid medieval authorities, e.g. Anglo-Saxon charters - the ending '-us' simply forming the Latinisation. None of that makes the spelling 'Cnut' an elitist preserve: just accurate.
So, I'd be sorry to see Cnut locked in an unsustainable past as 'Canute', by his own Wikipedia page. 'Canute' is no more sustainable than archaic English 'sparrowgrass' for 'asparagus': English still has 'coleslaw' for 'Kohlsalat', but only out of continued ignorance. I would argue that we generally use 'Ghenghis' instead of 'Chingiss' for precisely the same reasons: 'Chingiss' is actually found in modern English materials, so the justification given above for the use of 'Ghenghis' over 'Chingiss' is an argument that falls (for me, anyway). Equally, the Danish spelling of the name might be 'Knud', but we are talking about an English language article, so the most highly qualified English form should be used: 'Knud' is appropriate for articles in languages where 'Knud' is used, but it wouldn't work in English. In English, 'Knud' would inevitably be mis-pronounced 'Nud', like 'bud', 'cud', 'mud'. By way of further illustration, and by a similar modernising process, 'Ethelred the Unready' might by now be called 'Æþelræd Unræd' in Modern English - but 'Æ, æ' and 'þ' are not found in Modern English; 'Ethelred' works as a close phonetical substitution for 'Æþelræd' (though 'Aethelred' is a reasonable preference for many academics); calling him 'the Unready' may strictly be inaccurate, but it makes some sense of something that would otherwise be obscure; and in fact he should be referenced without 'the Unready', as this is not contemporary for the man himself.
I would suggest that the simple answer is to re-name the page as 'Cnut the Great', and to re-direct 'Canute' and 'Canute the Great' there. That's my two penn'orth, anyway. Nortonius (talk) 11:42, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
Thought I would check with the BBC. - To my mind this is sort of saying We may have used Canute but we should use Cnut Aatomic1 (talk) 17:28, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
Your point being...? Unfortunately the BBC isn't the paragon of authenticity and accuracy that it and we would all like it to be (though I think it is generally sincere). If you're pointing to their use of 'Canute' in the headline, I don't see that as an authoritative use at all: such sources are derivative, not arbiters; and see my previous comment on e.g. 'coleslaw/Kohlsalat', 'Ghenghis/Chingiss'. 'We may have used Canute but we should use Cnut' sounds like a good reason to change it, to me. I just think, people come to Wikipedia for accurate information, 'Canute' is inaccurate, and changing the name of the page while adding re-directs would see to it. Nortonius (talk) 17:35, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
...I was sort of agreeing with you. Aatomic1 (talk) 20:20, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
Great, that's what I hoped, though I admit I wasn't sure, so thanks. Obviously I'd like to see further discussion and a consensus, but I'm tempted to say that, if that doesn't occur, the name should be changed and re-directs added in a week or two. I really don't think that simply appealing to obsolete convention is reasonable, otherwise we'd still believe the Earth to be flat. Nortonius (talk) 20:48, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
For the record Aatomic1 (talk) 21:34, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
Yes, I'd seen that, and I'd say it's a product of the modern historiographical fashion for being more scientific, so a good example (though I'm not sure that the change to 'Canute' was as arch as that article might imply - I think it was probably more the product of a lazy incomprehension, along the lines of 'sparrowgrass' for 'asparagus'). Time Team might be a kind of reality tv, but they do have proper people trying to do a proper job, rather than merely enthusiastic tv personalities. Nortonius (talk) 22:45, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Two errors

There are at least two serious errors in the article Canute the Great. (1) Swein was a Christian, at least in name, though he tolerated paganism; (2) Canute the Great must not be confused with St. Canute. (Ch. De Wolf)

In fact he was a great benefactor to the church, espeicially New Minster in Winchester although he made grants to Canterbury as well. He also made at least one trip to Rome - to attend the coronation of German emperor Conrad II. Whether or not he was a devoted Christian is another matter. M

[edit] Harold or Harald?

Was he preceded by Harold II or Harald II in Denmark? Both spellings are used in the article and only one is presumably correct. -- SGB

I think Harold is an Anglo Saxon name. As no Danish king prior to Canute ruled England, Harald would probably be the name of Canute's Danish predecessor.

In 1066 Harold II Godwinson, the last Anglo Saxon king of England fought against Harald Hardradi, the Norwegian king who claim the English throne. Here the difference between the Scandinavian and the Anglo Saxon names is seen.

[edit] Canute's Mother

I am not native speaker, but a lot of sentences made no sense to me. Also, was Canute mother Gunhilda or Sigrid? If Sigrid (as i read in Polish sources) then he couldn't be born in 995 (Since she married Sveyn later). Szopen

Regarding Gunhilda and Sigrid, Sweign was first married to Gunhilda and divorced her and sent her back to Poland when he decided to marry the Swedish Queen? Sigrid. The feelings of her sons Harald and Canute are clear in that once Sweign died, they returned their mother to Denmark. (Anon?)

Sigrid was EITHER Swedish QUeen, OR Polish princess. See the talk on page on Sigrid for that. Szopen 14:26, 15 October 2005 (UTC)

Swiatoslawa, or Saum-Aesa, was obvioously the Polish princess, and the name change to Gunhilda obviously only happens to people marrying across a language barrier. Sigrid the Haughty, married Sweyn Forkbeard after the birth of Harald and Cnut, before 994. It is a good point that (Anon?) puts forward, Harald and Cnut are indeed said to have 'rescued' their mother from Boleslav of Poland, her family, and the only reason must be that she was sent away from Sweyn's court with the arrival of his Swedish wife.

WikieWikieWikie 15:56, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Clapha Canute

Regarding this recently added sentence: "His first name is Clapha, and as he set his base up on the grounds which Clapham in London is built on, the town was named after him."

I'm not saying it isn't true, but I couldn't find any evidence, and really I'm not even entirely sure what it means. Everyking 18:02, 11 Sep 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Concubinage

Aelfgifu of Northampton is described as a "concubine." I was under the impression that she and Canute had a "Danish" or "handfast" marriage which form was not recognized by the Church. That lack of recognition wouldn't make her a concubine, though. Plus, Canute finnaly had to formally repudiate her to make everyone happy, which I don't think he would have found it necessary to do had she been only a concubine. Anyone? --Michael K. Smith 02:31, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

In all the books I have read, including an excellent recent one on Emma of Normandy by Harriet O'Brien, the view that Cnut did have some kind of official marriage to Aelfgifu of Northampton prevails. Certainly no-one seems to have questioned Harold Harefoot's legitimacy when he seized the throne upon Cnut's death (although legitimacy was not such an issue in the succession at that time).

[edit] old faith

The intro para says he "was an avid supporter of the old faith". What's the "old faith"? – Quadell (talk) (bounties) 13:39, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

Scandinavian mythology....eg Odin, Thor, etc

He was an avid supporter of the new faith too. That means he was pragmatic towards religion, as he was, wisely, able to merge the two as best suited his nation(s). WikieWikieWikie 15:56, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] DoB

from the ODNB, 2004 The poem Knutsdrapa, composed for Cnut by the Icelandic skald Ottar the Black, says that Cnut started his military career unusually young, and mentions an attack on Norwich perhaps identifiable with that by his father in 1004. If so, Cnut might have been born in the early 990s or a little before; if not, his earliest campaigns may have been in 1013 and 1014, which would suggest a birthdate of c.1000. The thirteenth century Icelandic Knytlinga Saga, which wrongly states that he ruled England for twenty-four years, reports that he was thirty-seven when he died, so I think that it's a bit blasé to just state that he was born in 995 - is this supposed to be a happy compromise? It doesn't really fit with either estimation. Also, one of the things I really object to on wikipedia is the way it makes assertions of right and wrong facts with regard to periods or people that we really have very little idea about, as well as much evidences in contradictions, which there is much historiographic debate on, which requires proper analysis. It distorts our idea of the whole area of study, and so if we always listen to popularism, then the truth will never be found, as the facts are ultimately already falsehoods.

I totally agree. Maybe the remains of King Canute and Queen Emma, also with Harthacnut, in a chest at Winchester Cathedral, could be studied, for an age authenitication. It is a remarkable stroke of luck for the bones of a man whose age when he did the things he did changes the history of a nation, to be amoung the few survivors of the last thousand years of strifes.

WikieWikieWikie 15:57, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

Ca. 995 is what at least one of my academic sources estimates. The problem with the bones is that we don't know which are whose; they all got thrown about during some uprising or another and then interred again. In any case carbon dating is not a very precise tool. Haukur 12:47, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

It is expliciltly unknown. If the bones are there, I suppose people have tried yet failed, at the collection of the data nescessary. If anyone can, maybe they should try looking at the things we know about the bones in the collection, all in caskets with names, and the people the names belong to, and the information might be enough to at least find a better estimate of Cnut. Radiocarbon should put them in the right half of a century, or in the correct decade evem, and the examination of skeletons is very accurate, too accurate, maybe.

As I understand (from a guided tour of the Cathedral I think), when Cromwell took Winchester the bones of all the monarchs were scattered - used to smash the stained glass? - and later put back in caskets thoroughly mixed up.Pterre (talk) 00:37, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Anyway, it is irresponsible to put the wrong date on the site, even if it is so widely accepted. The point at the beggining of this section sums up my opinion, and the ??? should be used to avoid falsehoods. At least a wider approximation, yet that is worse form that question marks, these even direct to a quirky little page especially for the facts of unknowns.

WikieWikieWikie 15:57, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] The Emperor of the North?

This was added to the article:

"On his throne, when at the zenith of his dominion, he was dubbed, by the Skalds, poets who sung his praises, the Emperor of the North, and the King of England most worthy of the title Bretwalda."

Quite a lot of skaldic poetry on Knútr is preserved but I'm not aware of any that calls him "Emperor of the North" or "Bretwalda". Haukur 09:41, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

It should be quoteable, I agree. I knowI read it was the proclamation on Cnut, in a recent biograhphy, M.J.Trow's, Cnut: Emperoror of the North, with no evidence which supports it, while Cnut's age is a main theme also, which I find to be incredulous. I think M.K Lawson's biography, which refuses any comments on Cnut's age at all, refrains from it all together. Point conceded. I will try an edit with only facts, yet it must be, only, the facts.

WikieWikieWikie 15:58, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Removed paragraph

I removed a paragraph. Here are some of the problems I see with it.

Cnut's mother was Gunhilde (once Swiatoslawa, daughter of Mieszko I and Dubrawka of Poland), his father's first wife (his second wife was Sigrid the Haughty, and the marriage bore five daughters).

This is by no means certain, the issue of Svein's wife(s) is complicated; Swiatoslawa was Canute's sister and there's no direct evidence that it was also his mother's name. Haukur

Swiatoslawa is a useful conjecture, which happily avoids the real complication of whether it was either Gunhild or Sigrid the Haughty which gave birth to Forkbeard's sons. It is reasonably certain a Polish princess was the mother of Canute the Great. I agree Gunild is not the best answer to the question, but the use of Swiatoslawa is within reason.

WikieWikieWikie 16:12, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

His early years were in a culture with powerful ties to the religion of the past, as well as the future, and the Baltic Sea was a mysterious harbour to ancient faiths of anscestral beliefs, which variously held on, until the Clergy's words, and the Crusaders' swords, finally spread the Church's doctrines across Europe's entirety.

Cnut was a third generation Christian; I don't think there's any evidence that Norse paganism had an effect on him. The rest of the paragraph is a digression. Haukur

His sister was in a marriage with Erikr Hakonson, and the Norwegians were still heavily pagan, as well as the Northumbrians, whom Cnut thought it allright if should rule them as the Earl of Northumbria when he divided the country into it's four Earldoms. It is probable the Scandinavians held on their pagan beliefs strongly. Even to this day!

WikieWikieWikie 16:12, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

By most accounts Eiríkr converted to Christianity (at least formally) around or after the Battle of Svolder. He certainly ruled Northumbria as a Christian lord. His name is even in the liber vitae of Thorney. I'll concede that there were no doubt some pagan Norwegians as a part of Cnut's forces and many of those who had been baptized had probably a rather superficial knowledge of Christianity. Haukur 16:17, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

Indeed. If Eirikr was Christian, I am sure it was simply in lieu with the Danish influence, as it was in Denmark itself. In my view, Chritianity was clearly spread in Demark through the Holy Roman Empire, which surely meant it was 'do or die' for the Danes, under threat of Europe's original Crusaders; Germano-Franko empires' imperiums. If this is the case, I am sure any Christianity, although clearly of some, real appeal, was only a flirtation with the wider world beyond Scandinavia, which, I stress, even today keeps it's pagan roots at heart.

WikieWikieWikie 19:22, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

Cnut probably spent some years on Polish soil, maybe at the Jomsviking stronghold Jomsborg.

We don't even know if Jómsborg existed. Haukur

If it did it is probably right in the middle of Pomerania.

WikieWikieWikie 16:12, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

His mother's mother, Dubrawka, was brought from a nunnery for a pagan marriage and the Slavic princess wed to the principal Duke of Poland, Mieszko, who later adopted Christianity, when the weight it bore on his domain was clearer. This, in conjunction with his father's haughty Christian faith, and the Viking beliefs, was probably the foundation of Canute the Great's pragmatic attitude to religion, happy to accept praises of his poets, Skalds, in verse with pagan connotations, as well as prayers. At a vernacular melt-point, England held up it's Viking sovereignty glady, and the Church overlooked his two wives, always in support of a ruler with a disposition to patronise it.

I don't quite understand where this is going. And some of the surviving skaldic poetry on Cnut is explicitly Christian. Haukur 20:36, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

I was aiming for some patroniseation of the Church here, which I thought was quite clever (by the suggestion he did not take the institution which almost kept his granparent apart seriously). In terms of the skaldic verse I meant it included both pagan praise, and the prayers, with Churches maybe experiencing similar mixes of influence in his time.

WikieWikieWikie 16:12, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

I'll write a section on Cnut's skalds. Would that please you? :) Haukur 16:17, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

Oh yes indeed! I am particularly interested in the Knytligasaga, or Knutsdrapa, whichever one is by the Skladic poet, Otarr the Black, and the verse in particular is the one which states Cnut was at a very young age as he set out to war, and the 'Destroyer of the Chariot of the Sea'. It says this, and the verse, in my view, with previous allusion to the young, unchiefly, then reitterates another point, as it proclaims another stage in Cnut's life, as, 'Chief', readying 'arrowed ships', and the 'red shields', for war, at which he was 'daring beyond measure'. I suppose more daring than the measure of bravery he displayed as he was destroying sea chariots (?). I am not sure if Ottar the Black was contemporary with Cnut, but I think he was, which means a proper examination of the poem he produced is very important, yet if he was not, it is still vital to, 'get it', properly. It is this evidence on which the presumption of Cnut's age rests, almost entirely, I think.

WikieWikieWikie 19:14, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Crowning

At an assembly at Trondheim, he was officially crowned King.

Which source claims he was crowned and not just hailed in the traditional way? Fornadan (t) 15:30, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Comments on Comments

Which of these is better for an introductory paragraph on Cnut the Great, only 'Emperor of the North', as full of interest as he is full of controversial analysis, the first or the second?

Canute (or Cnut) I, or Canute the Great (Old Norse: Knútr inn ríki, Danish: Knud den Store, Norwegian: Knut den mektige) (ca. 995 – November 12, 1035) was a Danish king of England, Denmark and Norway and governor or overlord of Schleswig and Pomerania.
Cnut I, or Canute the Great, (Danish: Knud den Store, Old Norse: Knútr inn ríki, Norwegian: Knut den mektige), ??? – November 12, 1035, was a king of England, of Denmark, of Norway, parts of Sweden, as well as overlord of Schleswig - in treaty with the Holy Roman Emperors, Henry II, and, Conrad II - and the Pomeranians also. He was a Viking prince, with some connections to legengendary Jomsvikings of Jomsborg, known as, in some circles, the Emperor of the North.
I'm going to go with choice 1 - it's short and to the point, doesn't misspell "Legendary", and doesn't have any intensely awkward constructions. john k 11:34, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

You seem to know your stuff, legenend. Is there any middle ground you feel might be drwan between them? If you or anyone cares to offer any alternate versions, it will be a great help to this Cnut enthusiast!

WikieWikieWikie 15:46, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

"Norwegian: Knut den mektige" Does that mean in English "Knut the mighty"? Sounds very German then: "Knut der mächtige". "ä" (also written "ae" when the keyboard lacks the mutated vowels) is nearly pronounced like "e" in German. -- 89.56.61.16 (talk) 17:09, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Alternate spelling

Why is Cnut also spelt Canute? Is it to help with pronunciation, or so people don't confuse it with the c-word? Scott Gall 04:35, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Canute is simply a Latinate derivation. Slac speak up! 23:19, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Knut is the best way it may be spelled. The 'Ca', seems to be an attempt at a 'K', of course, while 'C' is maybe insufficient, which means Knut is the best linguistic compromise.

WikieWikieWikie 11:38, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] The Empire of the North!

One of these maps should be the one the article uses! Which one? One is based on the ideas of 'some of Sweden' a hundred years ago. One, with the extra bit of Sweden, is based on the offical Danish site I source for the adaption, today. If you look at the site 'some of Sweden' on the older map, which is Blekinge, the Skanian region, was a conquest of Harald Bluetooth, while Sigtuna, on the newer map, is a bit of the Emperor of the North's domain, in 1028. If you want to disagree with the Danish official historians, maybe incling bias, maybe better informed, prey tell what authority there is that beats this government's. I clearly want to side with the Danes. WikieWikieWikie 08:43, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

The latest research indicates that the old supposition that Cnut held Sigtuna as some point cannot be sustained. Although some coins from there read "CNUT REX SW" they are now held to be only partially adapted copies of Cnut's English coins, something common in mediaeval times. For more details see the article on Cnut's coinage in The Reign of Cnut: The King of England, Denmark and Norway, ISBN 0718502051 Haukur 09:21, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
I feel this explaination is insufficient, yet it intersts me. If a coin is "CNUT REX SW", surely it means, even if an adaption from an English type, it is not ENG, but SW. If it is in Sigtuna too, the capitol region, it means Cnut was on the throne. It is though maybe evidence that he was a King of Swedes as well as King of English, Danes and Norwegians, separately, maybe not one dominion at all, yet still an Empire, according to English constition anyway. I will buy this book, which is on my Amazon wishlist at the moment, although it discourages me that it seems to be a sceptical author, wishing to downplay the life of the greatest King of England, yet again, still. WikieWikieWikie 09:27, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
Your reasoning represents the traditional theory. The book is a collection of essays by several authors on different aspects of Cnut's reign. Downplaying Cnut is by no means its theme, I'm sure you'll find a lot to enjoy. There are photographs of Cnut's bones there, for example. Haukur 09:56, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Well, I will read it with an open mind, yet if the coin study reasons on the side of the sceptical, rather than the creditorical (my word), I am unlikely to pay it it's own credit. I like to think, with Cnut's position, as the greatest Viking ruler ever, in consideration, it is actually unlikely a move on Sweden was off the cards. While if Cnut was conspired against by the Swedish sovereign, he was certainly, likely, to be conquering with his forces in the Sigtuna area. I was under the impression, though, it was the unconventional, maybe controversial, theory, because the original map here is pretty old, and the other maps I can find leave Sigtuna out, and the offical Danish historical site is apparantly newer, although the theory may be old in Denmark, and the rest of Scandinavia.

I will look at the bones carefully too. Is there a bone study? I have actually seen an Emma and Cnut picture, their bones in one box, although to see one with the bones set out on a table is the next step for any answer. I reason Cnut was 50 at death. As the idea a twentyish young man was an elect warrior-king, allowed to lead a successful invasion of England by the Vikings, is, unlikely, and the idea Eric of Lade was a mastermind behind Cnut's successes, is, unlikely, both the reasons being the fact Vikings were individuals, and the rulers were the strongest people, front-line-fighters, unlikely to allow a potential hamperance in their structures. It is likely, as the apparant equal, or brother, of Edmund Ironisde, which is a statement in the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle, I think, to do with the treaty at the Forest of Dean, Cnut was the same age, thirtyish, on the year of his claim to the English throne, 1016. Which means he was at least a decade older in 1036, at 50. It all ties together with this age in consideration; ten years younger is significant. Cnut's death at Shaftsbury, a place of solace, rather than a palace of solmness, and the fact Scandinavians (especially Norway) got wind of his situation, suggests old age was the cause. 40 seems to me to be too young for a man to die of old age, even at the time, Cnut was clearly fit, yet still, if he was just a royal toff in tow with a large piece of the pie, maybe he was unfit. It is unlikely this was the case though.

WikieWikieWikie 09:50, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

The bones are all mixed up, as I explained earlier, but the book shows pictures of the contents of the chests. Haukur 09:53, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

I see. It seems as though the Cnut bones may be separable from the Emma bones though, for an age anylysis. I think it is nescesary for a comprehensive study of the Winchester Cathedral bones. It is a stroke of luck they survive, after Reformation, and the Roundheads. If a few male skeletons exists of the ages 40-50, I suppose it is down to physical identification.

A description of Cnut exists. The Knytlinga Saga tells.

Knutr was expetionally tall and strong and the handsomest of men exept for his nose, which was thin, high-set, and rather hooked. He had a fair complexion and a fine thick head of hair. His eyes were better than those of other men, being both more handsome and keener sighted.

Of these descriptions, hight, strength, and the high set, thin nose, should be apparant in the bones. I personally trust Norse Sagas on their accuracies - if embellishment and the tendancy to paint pictures of obscure aspects to the stories are a fact, memory and the traditions of poets to pass real history on, are facts also. I got this out of M.J Trow's, Cnut: Emperor of the North, which is really quite good, apart from the biographical slant which fully embraces Cnut as a teenager in 1014, a near crime (although I like it's style, and the fact is slightly in question), which M.K Lawson's, Cnut: England's Viking King, is fully innocent of. Anyway, this description is all there is, while the coin apparantly corroborates it. The bones to compare include 6 men, Cnut, Hardecnut, Edward the Confessor and William Rufus number amoungst them. Edward the Confessor was 60ish, William Rufus in his twenties, as well as Harthacnut, with two more then which might be similar of age range to Cnut, while if they are short and fat, or completly flat nosed, only Cnut's remain.

WikieWikieWikie 10:53, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

I just read on, and the bones are slightly more muddled, and the sets less some, or something. It is a little confusing, with descriptions of past observances of the bones, and the present state the bones are in left non descript. I suppose if the twelve names are not all skulls in the boxes, Cnut's may be lost completely, although, if the picture is after all of Cnut's skull, and the type of nose the Norse Saga tells of the same, a skeleton might be put together, at least partially, while the skull may be enough anyway.

WikieWikieWikie 11:23, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

I can actually see the high set, nose ridge. It is definitely the skull of a big man. It looks like the teeth are smashed, although a jaw floating round could be Cnut's, and the teeth are the best way to tell an age. I can't tell any age, though it is definitely fully grown. I think a skeletal reconstruction, if posibile, is the way for a truely positive result. Somebody get those bones out of the dust and solve this case.

WikieWikieWikie 11:33, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Incorrect map

On the map which shows the dominions of Cnut at this time is actually wrong, i don't know why but Uppland is also marked with red on this map. Uppland has never been a part of denmark in history, when i googled the sentence dominions of cnut i found the same map on several different homepages but without Uppland being marked. This map is incorrect and should therefor be changed for a different one, for example this one http://www.lib.utexas.edu/maps/historical/shepherd/cnut_1014_1035.jpg since i'm not a member of wikipedia i can't change this but i recommend you who are to do so. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.230.183.143 (talk) 19:13, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

I put the source for the basis of the map's alteration (I did it) on the Summary section (click on the Image andd the link will be able to direct your brower to the site). This source is an official Danish, historical referance. It is good enough for me.

WikieWikieWikie (talk) 02:17, 6 February 2008 (UTC)


I think this may not be actually a Danish site, it is actually Swedish I think. This must be even stronger evidence though.


WikieWikieWikie (talk) 18:49, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Canute the Great#Family tree

Why does it need clean up? In the context of this article or generally? I think you may have plonked that tag on it while I was editing it and it wasn't at its best. {{User|Neddyseagoon}} 16:14, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

I think it includes too many persons who are only very marginally related to Canute Fornadan (t) 12:49, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Sigtuna?

WikieWikieWikie recently re-added that Canute was king of Sigtuna, without adding references. Haukur pointed out above that this is contentious. Is there evidence for this statement, or should the old version be restored? Additionally, it appears he ruled other parts of Sweden as well; the way WikieWikieWikie has it phrased now makes it sound like he ruled only Sigtuna. This needs to be corrected.--Cúchullain t/c 20:38, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Other recent additions need to be checked out as well, both for factual accuracy and to clean up the wording. I restored the intro to a previous version that was worded better and included all the same info, someone will need to go over the rest of the article as well. I also restored the birth date to ca. 995, which WikieWikieWikie admitted on my talk page was a convention. Is there great dispute on this? If so, it needs to be mentioned in the article, and whatever is done, the date should not be replaced with question marks. This is bad form. --Cúchullain t/c 18:05, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Maybe I am a bit too adamant on the Sigtuna thing. I must say, though, the Swedish kingdom was only in its fledging state, and lands in the south were Danish territory as the people at the time saw it. See, [[1]], as well as, [[2]], which show, clearly, that Skane was Danish since 899, a time when the Sweden of today was still a patchwork of petty kingdoms, and, that Sweden was a kingdom in 995, which means any conquest of the capital region means the conqueror should be seen as the king. Sigtuna was, as the wiki page, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sigtuna, shows, the capital region.

WikieWikieWikie 18:35, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Additionally, with the risk of over adamancy on the rulership of Sigtuna, and the Swedish kingdom (main part of at least), if the Letter of March 1027, written by the man himself, says, ruler of the Swedes, and the Skanian dominion was Danish, through and through, it can only be Sigtuna to which he refers. It is contentious. Although the situation seems to be that he was under threat from the Swedes, and the Norwegians, even in Denmark, with attacks by the sea. Sigtuna is clearly a contender for the origin of the threat, along with Norway, and the defeat of Cnuts enemies, which he mentions in the Letter, must mean this threat was at an end, and the threateners dealt with. Evidence exists for his dominion, even beyond Skane and Sigtuna, too, which justifies the title REX SW.

WikieWikieWikie 14:31, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

If there is contention, we need to identify it. If the Sigtuna thing is something that is really discussed by scholars, it needs to be properly sourced. If it's only your interpretation, then it should not be mentioned.--Cúchullain t/c 18:15, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
I haven't read through the long posts here, but I noticed the question about Sigtuna. For what it is worth; Historisk Atlas Danmark, ed. by Jette Kjærulff Hellesen and Ole Tuxen, Copenhagen: G.E.C. Gads forlag (1988) shows a map titled "Empire of Canute the Great 1016-1035" (page 10, map "e") which shows England (labelled 1016-35), Norway (labelled 1028-35), Denmark (labelled 1018-35). The same map shows a region roughly bordered by the modern towns of Uppsala, Örebro, Gothenburg, Nässjö and Oskarshamn. This indicated region in simply labelled "Sweden ?". The accompanying text clarifies: "The information in Encomium Emma source [clamining] that Canute the Great should have ruled Scotland are doubtful and these regions are not shown. His reign in Sweden is seen (afspejlet) by coins struck in his name struck in Sigtuna, but it can not be defined better in place or time. The references section (p. 280) gives the following sources behind the map: Brita Malmer: Mynt och människor, 1968, pp. 139-45; Aksel E. Christensen: Vikingetidens Danmark, 1969, pp. 260-71; Danmarks Historie, ed. by Aksel E. Christensen, H.P. Clausen, Svend Ellehøj and Søren Mørch, vol I, 1977, pp. 186-89; Aksel E. Christensen: Knud den Store, Dansk biografisk leksikon [a reference book containing biographies of famous Danes], 3. ed., vol. VIII, 1981, pp. 56-58. The Great Danish Encyclopedia notes in the end of his article: Han vandt også indflydelse i Sverige; de svenske mønter slået i hans navn, som man har fundet, er dog antagelig blot lokale kopier af hans engelske mønter. ("He also gained influence in Sweden; the finds of Swedish coins struck in his name are, however, likely to be simple local copies of his English coins.") The same book's entry on Sigtuna is very short and mentions that Olof Skötkonung stuck coins in the town but it does not mention Canute. This is all I know about this topic. It looks like this theory is disputed but that the author(s) of the map in Historisk Atlas Danmark based it on the coin finds. Valentinian T / C 20:50, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

I have not personally seen a definitive answer to this question. It is definitely a topic of debate though, although no clear evidence (written) survives which can point either way. Unless the 1027 Letter of Cnut's is used, and the coins, as well as pointers that the battle at Holy River was fought at a river near Stockholm, skant other contemporary evidence survives. This is the reason, as well as tactical necessities, which I believe Sweden was under Cnut's rule, albeit obscurely, today. I will endeavor to source as much as I can.

WikieWikieWikie 21:45, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

If there are no reliable secondary sources, it is original research on your part to include the material. From what you are saying, it seems we need to remove the claim entirely.--Cúchullain t/c 23:15, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

There you go. I don't know why I didn't just put these refences in before, I have had the book for ages. That is, Cnut: England's Viking King, by the expert on the middle ages, M.K. Lawson, and the pages I reference 95-97 cover the argument on the domains Cnut held in the north pretty thoroughly. Graslund, on the other hand, is an archaeologist as far as I can gather, and the information he provides seems to me as pretty reliable, although I have not read the Scandia article myself, which cover controversy on the Helgea A battle, specifically. I will definitely reference alot more soon.

WikieWikieWikie 16:11, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

It appears, given the information Valentinian has brought up, that it is at best contentious whether or not Canute ruled in Sigtuna. WikieWikieWikie admits that he hasn't even read the article he gave as a source for that; I'm betting it doesn't even say definitively that Canute ruled Sigtuna. Saying he may have, or that he had some influence there, is entirely different, and it's dishonest for us to claim unequivocally that he ruled over Sigtuna in the face of the contradicting sources. This needs to be taken care of.--Cúchullain t/c 21:12, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
This area is out of my normal area of expertise. I vaguely remember hearing this story a few times but that's about it. Dansk Udenrigspolitiks Historie ("A History of Danish Foreign Policy") volume I (Konger og Krige) must have more information, but I've never read this particular volume. Valentinian T / C 21:31, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

I can only agree with Cuchullain as far as the fact it is wrong to claim an unlikelihood as a fact. It is however extremely likely that Sigtuna was at some point under the control of Cnut. Coins minted with REX SW, though not necessarily entirely accurate, mean, if they were minted in the vicinity of Sigtuna, by a monier previously on the payroll of Anund Jacob, although with CNUT on the coins, this area was his. The inaccuracy only goes so far as the fact Cnut probably never was in complete control of Sweden, although Anund Jacob was definitely on the defensive, and the forces under Cnut's command supreme. I never claim that Sweden was his, only that the capital region was, and the claim he was not so far off. I will concede there was never a coronation, as we know it today, although all of Sweden must have made some truce of fealty to avoid conquest. Cnut was, I believe, considerably aged, and the lands of Sweden far too exspansive to conquer fully. Sigtuna though, was enough to drive the point home far enough, if not a deal further.

I only wish I could find the website I link as the reason for the doctor on the map. It was very clear, as well as a recent interpretation of history. On the site it said it was an offical Danish goverment map, which was part of a sequence of all the lands Denmark ever held.

WikieWikieWikie 19:37, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Surely this is a case of innocent untill proven guily, or right until proven wrong. The case is that Sweden was a kningdom on its first legs at the time, and the Letter of 1027 clearly states, in Cnut's own words that god had aided him in the destruction of his enemies, i.e. the Norwegians and Swedes who attacked Denmark, and that he thought of himself as ruler over not only England, Denmark and Norway, but some Swedes also. The parts of modern Sweden in the south were fully Danish, so other parts must be what he refers to. Surely, with the Sigtuna coins as proof, Cnut defeated the Swedish king, and the capital was occupied. His visit to Rome and Conrad's coronation after Holy River means both the Norwegians and the Swedes were dealt with, and the threat no more. On his return he was made king of Norway, and if he had many more years (with a birthdate in the 980s), he would have probably been made Swedish king too. The source I state being an article which points out that Holy River was the name of a watercourse near Sigtuna at the time. Anund Jacob, king of Sweden, to boot, is out of the picture here, defeated in battle no less, so he cannot be used as counter evidence for Cnuts claims (really Sigtuna is a compromise... of sorts).

WikieWikieWikie 19:55, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Canute or Cnut

This has been an issue for some time now. We need to be consistent in spelling the name throughout this and other articles. Since the article is currently at Canute, I've changed all instances of "Cnut" to "Canute" to reflect that. To change the name of the page, a request must be made following the instructions at WP:MOVE, so we can get a consensus of which we should use. I for one believe "Canute the Great" is the best title, it's certainly the most common spelling, as someone has pointed out above.--Cúchullain t/c 19:56, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. As a Dane I continue to find it amusing (since "kanut" means something else in Danish), but it is the most common English form. --dllu 14:04, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
Well, WikieWikieWikie has moved the page to "Cnut the Great". I'm not sure this is the right title, but I hope he'll fix the double redirects.--Cúchullain t/c 07:02, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
Since no consensus has been reached on this subject, I reverted his edits and moved the page back (he even tried to disuise the move as a minor edit!). Canute is the "common" name, among historians and other people. Incidently, a Google search (although not scientifically accurate) gives 33 times as many hits on Canute. --dllu 10:45, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
I should add that I don't know why my move back to Canute shows up as a minor edit. Possibly because the move that I undid had been disguised as a minor edit, which it obviously wasn't. I hope everybody caught it anyway. :o) --dllu 19:18, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Popular Culture

I was just skimming through this article and thought to myself that maybe, in the 'popular culture' section at the bottom of the article, there should be a small reference to The Eraser by Thom Yorke as it's cover features artwork by Stanley Donwood based on the legend of Canute being unable to control the sea. Just a thought anyway. Franz T. Speeling 05:46, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

I removed this from the pop culture section:
"The legendary University of Notre Dame football coach Knute Rockne is probably named for Canute"
which is nonsense. You might as well say that all Danes, Norwegians, and Swedes named Knud/Knut are named after Canute... --dllu 11:26, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] i don't know what some of these words mean -- perhaps others don't either

from the article:

"He was in treaty with the progenal Holy Roman Emperors, the German kings, Henry II and Conrad II, suzertly the vassals of the pontificate, and, in relations with the papacy himself."


What do "progenal" and "suzertly" mean? Perhaps these words should be explained or linked, or if not, replaced with more common words? Bayle Shanks 08:42, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

I've removed them; an earlier version of the article had essentially the same sentence without those two words. I would assume they are derived from "progeny" and "suzerain" respectively, but even if they are to be found in a dictionary (I haven't checked) I agree they're too unusual to be used in this context. Mike Christie (talk) 16:08, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] 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 09:03, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Ruthless Character

Cnut,in addition to having Eadric Streona executed, purged a number of the English aristocracy, including children and most of Ehelred's children. He also got the support of the Danes in Lincolnshire and then sailed off and left them to Ethelred's mercy, which had been illustrated in the St. Brice's Day Massacre and his penchant for blinding people with a hot poker. Also he was a Saint. But not a nice one. Streona 11:38, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Of course you arte right on the points here. I think it should be seen in context with the reason Cnut was in England though. The massacre of St Brices Day was a reaction to the Viking raids over many decades, and the conquest of Forkbeard was probably a reaction to the nature of Ethelred the Unready (clearly a rather crueler person than Cnut). Cnut was left with little choice than to abandon England after an effective rebellion of an army on the home turf, as well as probably far larger (I believe it is likely Normans were also in support of the English here). Cnut's return, and the purges against the former regeim and the magnates of a corrupt state, were acts of supplicance, to meet the needs of England as a whole, as well as of course to advance himself. England was better off after though.


WikieWikieWikie (talk) 14:26, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Þingalið

I've just done a GA assessment on the article Þingalið. It's mainly OK, although short and possibly a bit pro- in its tone. My main concern with it is a feeling, and I can't really put it any higher than that, that it may be an OR synthesis. I've given some of my reasoning here. I suppose my question is: was the Þingalið really a largely Scandanavian standing army in the employ of the English kings (apparently primarily Cnut)for around 50 years? Grateful if someone with some background in this area could set me straight. Cheers. 4u1e (talk) 14:38, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

P.S. By English kings, I mean kings of England, and nothing more! 4u1e (talk) 14:41, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Relevance

I see no relevance to Canute's dominion for

Legends relate the rulers of the Danish kingdom to the mythical Jomsvikings, whose stronghold, Jomsborg, is thought to have been made at the delta of the Oder river, on the Island of Wolin.

Furthermore The actual Wiki article Wolin has references highlighting the dubious nature of this statement. Aatomic1 (talk) 16:56, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

I read this in M.J. Trow's, Cnut: Emperor of the North. I cant offer a page for I do not have the book available to me. It is in there though.

WikieWikieWikie (talk) 17:50, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

  • You do not have access to the book; you provided no references then. You cannot simply now invent a reference and place it in the article. Aatomic1 (talk) 18:29, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Dubious Logic

conflicts with the Wends, as well as assistance from the Poles, suggest a strong Danish presence in Pomerania

This is unreferenced what is its relevance to Canute? Aatomic1 (talk) 17:00, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

I read this in M.J. Trow's, Cnut: Emperor of the North. I cant offer a page for I do not have the book available to me. It is in there though.

WikieWikieWikie (talk) 17:50, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Canute's Dominion

It is incorrect to state that Canute's dominion was spread over the British Isles. There is no evidence to support this and no reliable sources can be found or quoted. You cite Encomiast, Encomium Emmae to claim it may be there is just enough evidence to suggest that there is no exaggeration of his lordship over the British Isles. But you are doing exactly that - it is exaggerating his lordship. There also appears to be some question marks over the source you quote - it appears that it was not written as a historical record, but was commissioned by Queen Emma with a view to paint a particular picture to those in court[3]

The British Isles comprise mainly of England, Scotland, Wales, Northern Ireland, Ireland, Isle of Man, Jersey, and the Orkney Islands (plus other islands, etc). Your earlier edit states that his kingdom spread over the British Isles .... except for Ireland, Wales, Scotland, and the Orkney Island. His kingdom didn't even stretch to all of England either. In List of monarchs in the British Isles he is listed as an English monarch. (Side by side table, easier to use and see, is available on older page - try here. I think that this is what history has recorded, and this is what the article should say. Anything else appears to be an opinion, and Original Research.

I'll await a response before editing the article. I believe the article should be changed to reflect Canute's dominion as England. Bardcom (talk) 18:16, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

  • I agree entirely AND have a referenced source <no wiki>[1]</no wiki> which I hope you will add to the existing. Which I will add if you make that edit Aatomic1 (talk) 18:22, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
  1. ^ Barry Cunliffe, Robert Bartlett, John Morrill, Asa Briggs, Joanna Bourke (2001). Atlas of British & Irish History. Penguin Books, 71. ISBN 0 141 00915 2. 
The idea that Cnut had significant influence in north Britain and Ireland doesn't seem especially radical. The Uí Ímair certainly did a hundred years earlier. As for references, Woolf, Pictland to Alba (pp. 241–242), offers the idea that Cnut was been playing "Scottish" kings off against each other, to ensure that nobody replaced Brian Bóruma as effective overlord of Ireland. Hudson, Viking Pirates (p. 108), asks whether Sitric Silkbeard became Cnut's client. He notes cooperation against the Welsh in 1030 (p. 120) and returns to the possible alliance later (pp. 124–125) noting the benefits to Cnut. Downham, Viking Kings (p. 233), wonders whether the Uí Ímair, i.e. Sitric and the Dubliners, had assisted Swein and Cnut earlier. But this is all "may have", "possibly", "suggests" stuff, not "did" or "was". The tone of the article at present is far too certain. Too much weight seems to be placed on weak reeds like the Encomium and some smatterings of skaldic verse. Angus McLellan (Talk) 19:43, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
It is also influence, diplomacy & cooperation - not reign dominion Power Hegemony as WWW has been consistently inserting. Aatomic1 (talk) 20:35, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
True enough, but influence all the same, and an influence previous English kings did not have where Ireland is concerned. I'm plodding slowly on with Donnchad mac Briain so I'll stick something in there, but it's also worth a mention here. Angus McLellan (Talk) 21:15, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
It is still conjecture to say that his influence was any more or less than any other king at that time. I'm sure that any king could claim to have wielded influence over a wide area. Bardcom (talk) 22:56, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
It'll certainly be hard to find a quote to that end. Here's what Woolf says: "From Cnut's perspective contested supremacy within Alba, and Ireland for that matter, may have been the preferred option. As long as his Gaelic neighbours were more worried about internal competition than asserting their autonomy he would be able to exert his own loose hegemony without too much trouble. He may even have exerted influence to maintain the balance and prevent the emergence of an outright winner. One might compare his policy in Norway, where the Danes promoted division between the traditional provinces, playing off the earls of Hlaðir and their Trønder subjects against the kinglets of the east and the interior. Thus, the unprecedented interregnum in Ireland and the division of the kingdom, north and south, in Alba, may have been actively promoted by Cnut." (Pictland to Alba, pp. 241–242) "Loose hegemony" anyone? Angus McLellan (Talk) 09:13, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
MJ Trow p181 "coins of Olaf Skotkonung and Anund Jakob, however carry the legend Rex A[nglorum] - king of the English". Let us hope that no Swedish historian ponders that this was not necessarily an exaggeration.Aatomic1 (talk) 13:35, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
Lund's "The Danish Empire" (The Oxford Illustrated History of the Vikings) says that Swedish Sigtuna coinage was copied from Æthelred's, and then later from Cnut's; apparently there's no need to worry. Lawson was evidently considered enough of an expert on Cnut to get the ODNB article to write. His views can't be as easily discounted as Trow's. But they should be compared and contrasted with what Higham, Hudson, Keynes, Lund, Sawyer, Stafford, Woolf and whoever else we can find have to say. If there are different interpretations, we don't pick one and sweep the rest out of view. We should tell the whole story, warts and all. Part of that approach is to explain what historians believe about the reliability of the various sources. Skaldic poetry is a case in point, so too is the Encomiast's "artful dissimulation" [Stafford, "Encomium Emmae Reginae" in The Blackwell Encyclopaedia of Anglo-Saxon England] and that the Encomium itself "might be supposed a reliable addition to our knowledge of the period, but in fact the work has its own agenda" [Williams, Æthelred the Unready, p. 118]. However confused and biased chroniclers and historians like Thietmar or Adam of Bremen or Rodolfus Glaber or the compilers of English, Welsh and Irish annals might be, they weren't writing blatant propaganda of the sort which the Encomium, or the surviving snippets of skaldic poetry, represent. Yet the article doesn't give the reader any information on this. Lots to do. Angus McLellan (Talk) 16:05, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Bardcom, the Encomiast comment in relation to evidence for the dominion of the British Isles is a sort of double reference. The suggestion is from M.K. Lawson, and the ref at the sentence end is for this. The ref just after the Scotia and Britannia citation is for the source of the words themselves. It is not entirely on the basis of the Encomium at all. The point Lawson makes is it has an unusual amount of credance, for the source, with the bigger picture in perspective.

WikieWikieWikie (talk) 02:32, 15 April 2008 (UTC)


Bardcom, again. I do not disagree with you he was just the King of England in the Brith Isles. He was though, also King of Norway, and the Vikings of the islands under the Norwegian sovereignty. This territory, that is not England, if not the British Isles, is what? I further forward the point of hegemony. It is a creditable part of history that the King of Scotland, along with two other kings, one of whom was possibly the ruler of the Isle of Man and Galloway, as well as the king of Dublin after 1036, felt the obligation to offer their homage to Cnut, in Strathclyde. This is the very definition of hegemony, without the necessity for military conflict, or at least an entire conquest.

WikieWikieWikie (talk) 02:43, 15 April 2008 (UTC)


To the point of Angus McLellan and Aatomic, as well as Bardcom. I personally think the references to Ottar and the Encomiast, being contemporary and in agreement, yet nothin to do with each other, is pretty solid evidence. They are amoung the only contemporary Cnut sources. Even if this werent the case, the weight on the references resides with Lawson's book. His statement that there is just enough evidence, refers to confirmation of these contemporaries, rather than their confirmation of the fact. When I get the opportunity I will probably be able to find references in the Trow book on Cnut too. These are reliable references if ever there were any.

WikieWikieWikie (talk) 02:52, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] M. K. Lawson, ‘Cnut (d. 1035)’, Oxford Dictionary of National Biography

The following is verbatim by M. K. Lawson

Canute left few identifiable political legacies,... the flattery lavished upon him by his wife's encomiast...secured for Cnut a favourable posthumous reputation which many of his contemporaries would hardly have recognized

Probably Cnut also had contacts of some sort with the Welsh and the Irish. Emma's encomiast lists Brittania among his dominions, and a verse attributed to Ottar the Black greets the ruler of the Danes, Irish, English, and Island-dwellers

(WWW - and Scotia? Aat -Not in ONB but see AMc below)

I am beginning to believe that WP:OR is being presented/camoflaged as referenced material. Aatomic1 (talk) 23:13, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

sing this assertion solely on referencing Encomiast (not a reliable source) or has he other sources for this. Conjecture based on conjecture? Even the terms Lawson uses are indefinite (not necessarily - far from unlikely - may have enjoyed), and are still not close to the claims being made in the article. There is no concensus for this point of view. I agree with Cuchullain - unless better and more specific sources can be found, the article should not make these claims. Bardcom (talk) 00:21, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
This has been a recurring problem for several years now. The solution will be better sourcing and more specific phrasing than is currently here.--Cúchullain t/c 23:32, 14 April 2008 (UTC)


Well... Im still awake. Cant seem to sleep with all this in my head. The problem here is there are very few works which deal with Cnut. I think the phraseology is allright here. Maybe it could be better. Really though, what authority do you want to confirm the points? God himself? Things in this era are uncertain and historians seem to pay Cnut little attention. If you think M.K. Lawson's references here are unworthy, then there really is not much else to choose from (as far as Cnut goes anyway). I agree with you CuChulainn as far as better phraseology goes. I really am the last person that wants to see fanciful and groundless ideas on the Wiki. Well... maybe not the last, definitely one of them though. If you discredit my references, and the others here, I think there really is not much hope. Conjecture you say? Try historical analysis! If you say original research. I say use of sources to create an article with focus and scope specific to itself. My facts are referencially solid though. This is the main point. The facts.

WikieWikieWikie (talk) 02:23, 15 April 2008 (UTC)


Here is a quote from the Time Team [4] in contradiction to the quote of Aatomic. I think I reckognise the above text from a passage which relates to the Encomiast's attempts to tame Cnut's character, and shine the best light on Emma of Normany, and pour dirt on Aeligifu of Northampton. Not quite the point Aatomic uses it for. Maybe I am wrong. I am sure though there are numerous other quotes other than the one I state below to contradict this. I am though a slow reader and it will be at least a week or two until I can get through Lawson's book again, as well as note all the possible references. Anyway, here it is:

According to Dr Ken Lawson, the Cnut scholar who appeared in Time Team's Nassington programme, he was, quite simply, 'one of the greatest European figures of his time'.

On the other quote I just cant believe you just cut and paste it over the passage I put a good deal of work into to bring to standards of acknowledgemt of reasonable doubt.

WikieWikieWikie (talk) 18:15, 15 April 2008 (UTC)


A further quote from the Time Team [5] to override the use of the above quote to override the previous text (Conquest of England) is below.

England had (under Cnut) enjoyed a long period of peace and prosperity in itself a major advance on the 30 years of war that had preceded it. He was still engaged in wars during this period, but none of them on English soil. The historian, F M Stenton, wrote of his reign: 'It was so successful that contemporaries found little to say about it'.

This validates the text quite well I think. It does not discount the possibility of expedition in the Irish sea either. A point in support of the British Isels usage.

WikieWikieWikie (talk) 18:29, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Overlord of Pomerania, and the Mark of Schleswig

Does M. K. Lawson confirm this? Aatomic1 (talk) 23:30, 14 April 2008 (UTC)


This is from M.J. Trow's book. M.K. Lawson tends to refrain from statements if they are not written directly in sources. I did not just conjure this out of thin air, though. There is a good deal of evidence, or at least tangible evidence for these claims.

It is late now though and I will try to bring my points across tomorrow. The British Isles thing though seems to be the main objection. The pages 102-103 in Cnut: England's Viking King state quite clearly there is reason to believe Cnut's dominance was felt all across these Isles. I cant really see any reasonable doubt for this belief. He was the most powerful Viking ever, and the Vikings were all over the British Isles. And the submission of the Scottish king, as well as the future king of Dublin, suggests Scotland, probably Wales, as well as the Irish Norse, if not the all the Irish, were under of Cnut's hegemony (not direct sovereignty).

WikieWikieWikie (talk) 01:16, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Well, it's my main reason for commenting - other people's mileage may vary. If you're going to make that claim (that his dominion was over the British Isles) you're going to have to back it up with more than references in books that paraphrase a monk hired by Cnut's mother to speak in glowing terms of all he wrote about. I would expect to see your assertions in articles on Irish history (which I haven't). For example, Cnut *is* mentioned in List of English monarchs. But he is *not* mentioned in the List of High Kings of Ireland, *not* mentioned in the List of Scottish monarchs, *not* mentioned in List of rulers of Wales, *not* mentioned in Lord of the Isles, etc. Even the quotations and sources you include *do* *not* *make* *those* *claims*. They only go so far as to say that there *may* be *reason to believe*. Bardcom (talk) 15:10, 15 April 2008 (UTC)


Just one more thing. Tomorrow I will try and find a passage I read from Lawson. It says something like.. although Norway was lost before his death and the empire he built rapidly fell apart, after a short span, of its fullness, this does not detract from the achievement. The fact this is not found in every history is is just that it was only the empire of British Isles inclusion, for less than 5 years. I second the point this does not detract from the achievement. I do after all say (now at least) 'at it's height', in the intro. This is though verifiable fact.

WikieWikieWikie (talk) 01:26, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

  • In reply to the above there is no mention of the above in the MJ Trow Book Aatomic1 (talk) 11:07, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Adam of Bremen says that Conrad sought the marriage of his son (the future emperor Heinrich II) to Cnut's daughter with Emma, Gunnhild, and ceded Schleswig and territory north of the River Eider as a token of their treaty of friendship[1]

  1. ^ M. K. Lawson, ‘Cnut (d. 1035)’, Oxford Dictionary of National Biography, Oxford University Press, 2004; online edn, May 2005

Aatomic1 (talk) 11:13, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

  • Surely Schleswig was then simply part of The Kingdom of Denmark. Aatomic1 (talk) 11:17, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Still no wiser regarding Pomerania. Aatomic1 (talk) 11:18, 15 April 2008 (UTC)


Ok it was Lawson who said this. I am not sure if Schleswig was part of Denmark, in its entirety though. Apparantly the Danevirke went through Schleswig. This is in the middle of the area now known as southern Schlewsig. It is also now German. This territory was under dispute, though. And the nationality of the people was probably some sort of mix. I think this qualifies as overlordship. Maybe someone can clarify this.

On the Pomerania point though. I did not fantasise this, like Barbara Cartland. I do not appreciate these insinuations either. I fell your motives Aatomic are actually bias against Cnut here. You slight the main references available on the subject, and quote Lawson out of context too. At least this poses a not entirely unwelcome challenge to rectify, or maybe just reassert, the articles scholarlyness. It was my summer plan anyway.

WikieWikieWikie (talk) 15:19, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Saum-Aesa - M J Trow

The articles states

Canute was a son of the Danish king Sweyn Forkbeard and the Slavic princess, Saum-Aesa,[1]

  1. ^ Trow, Cnut, p. ???.

I now have M.J.Trow's book. Page 38 states that Saum-Aesa was a servant girl...yes a servant girl. Saum-Aesa is actually Forkbeard's mother

P40 I stand corrected Forkbeard did indeed marry a slav who renamed herself Gunnhild, Saum-Aesa who was the sister of Boleslav of Poland

P41 The Other possibility ...is that his mother was not Saum-Aesa/Gunhild

Aatomic1 (talk) 08:24, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Expedition to the Irish Sea

Is the current text really the right tone?

  • An expedition to the Irish Sea, in 1031, led to the submission of three Scottish kings

ML Trow says

  • Then in 1031 the King rode to Scotland

MK Lawson says

  • He went there (to Scotland)

Aatomic1 (talk) 11:47, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Hudson's "Cnut and the Scottish kings", which the footnotery suggests is likely to be one of Lawson's main sources for this episode, starts: "In the second quarter of the eleventh century, Cnut the Great, king of the Danes and the English, led an expedition to Scotland to receive the submission of three kings...". Hudson suggests that Cnut's major concern was for security in Norway with raids into Northumbria a distant second. In support of this he points to the doings of Tryggvi, who supposedly led a fleet from the west to Norway circa 1033. Woolf, on the other hand, thinks that Cnut's trip north had something to do with the killing of Gilla Coemgáin mac Maíl Brigti, for which reason he favours either a 1032 date for it, or a 1031 date for Gilla Coemgáin's death. Pauline Stafford, Nick Higham and Archie Duncan all have different versions, Duncan even prefers 1027 for the date of the expedition. Angus McLellan (Talk) 15:02, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

is there evidence to suggest

  • to the Irish Sea

is not another of WWW's WP:OR? Aatomic1 (talk) 15:53, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Yes, Lawson, p. 102: "Hudson has concluded that Cnut received the submission of the Scots in 1031 in Strathclyde, during an expedition into the Irish Sea." Now that must be something Hudson said to Lawson - they discussed this episode, see p. 101, note 76 - because I do not see it in that form in "Cnut and the Scottish kings". Angus McLellan (Talk) 16:14, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

There is. It is not.

WikieWikieWikie (talk) 16:10, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

This expedition was one way or another resultant in the submission of three kings. Malcolm was the King of Scotland. Maelbeth was a king of lands in the north of Scotland, and Iermach was, at least possibly, king of the Isle of Man and Galloway. The latter also went on to become king of Dublin in 1036. This is direct evidence for Cnut's hegemony over people's not only on the isle of Great Britatin, yet also other islands within the British Isles, as well as Ireland too, maybe. Not to mention terriroties under his direct sovereignty through Norway.

WikieWikieWikie (talk) 16:25, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

...er... Canute was dead in 1036 Aatomic1 (talk) 16:31, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
Very. And the Isle of Man is not Ireland, nor are the Hebrides, although to Cnut's contemporaries they, and other parts of Britain, might be called "Irish". Echmarcach's eventual success in driving out the descendants of Amlaíb Cúarán owes more to aid from Donnchad mac Briain - his sister Cacht married Donnchad in 1032 - and Donnchad mac Gilla Patráic - probably Echmarcach's cousin - than anything Cnut did while he was alive. (For all this, including the geography, see Hudson, Viking Pirates and Christian Princes, pp. 131–135) Angus McLellan (Talk) 17:08, 15 April 2008 (UTC)


I realise this. Do you really think I didn't?

WikieWikieWikie (talk) 16:35, 15 April 2008 (UTC)


This title looks quite good AngusMcLellan. I just put it on my Amazon wish-list. I think this then shows the possibility to be quite considerable Cnut did not put Iermach on the throne. I did not say this though. This is just a point to hightlight he was powerful in the Irish Sea, and the Vikings of Ireleand, as well as the Irish, surely felt this. I dont want to even press the Ireland thing though, although there is no contrary evidence as such to discliam the Encomiast. Here is an M.K. Lawson quote, to ramify the point the Encomium may be correct.

Cnut was well able to raise powerful fleets, which may have been effective not only in Scandinavia, but also in Scotland and Wales, and in the Irish Sea. Claims to suzerainty over the Scots, Irish and Welsh, are thus far from unlikely, and may for a time have been a reality. (Cnut: England's Viking King, pg. 103)

This actually directly follows the Encomiast's validity on the point, and the Ottar the Black verse is also under consideration. It is the claims (plural). There is no mention of vassalage to Cnut amoung these peoples, maybe. Yet there is no mention of Cnut's reign in England for years at a time, and the Scandinavian sources are even sparser. This is all we can rely upon.

Another M.K. Lawson quote refers to a second imperial crown and the possible link of this with not only Scandinavian successes, yet also successess in the Britsh Isles.

Cnut's taking of a second imperial crown may have been stimulated not only by a position in Scandinavia... but by achievement in Britain which lay firmly in a tradition established by his Anglo-Saxon predecessors (also).(Cnut: England's Viking King, pg. 104)

This follows a discussion on the conflicts of the period between the English, Scottish and Welsh. It may be there was indeed military action, over much of Cnut's reign, and the consequent vassalage of these, and Anglo-Danish suzerainty, follows.

I press the assertion of the British Isles, rather than simply Great Britain or England, to be under Cnut's dominion, on the basis of most of the other islands, if not the isle of Ireland wholly, or even in part, and the certifiable evidence for submission at least of Scotland, and the Isle of Man. Especially in light of his ratifiable sovereignty over the islands under the Norwegian crown's mandate. After all. The responsibilities of the Norwegian throne, as well as the Danish, put him in the midst of the politicss of the Vikings of all the British Isles, not only in England. This surely lead him to press his dominance over the non-English parts of the British Isles, as is evidencial in the Irish Sea expedition.

WikieWikieWikie (talk) 19:28, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Western France

Now Western France? Aatomic1 (talk) 15:52, 15 April 2008 (UTC)


Hmmm. Im not sure exactly what this is meant to mean. There are books, by Christopher Lee, on the series, as well as a radios series. I thought I remembered this showing on the tele too although maybe I am wrong. Maybe I confuse it with Schama's series.

WikieWikieWikie (talk) 16:09, 15 April 2008 (UTC)


Still, it says the British Isles were at the centre of his empire.

WikieWikieWikie (talk) 16:39, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

And the Western France thing may be Normandy. There is some evdience Richard the Fearless, Duke of Normandy, was an ally of Cnut's against Scotland.

WikieWikieWikie (talk) 20:46, 21 April 2008 (UTC)


Hi, in the absense of a verifiable reliable source (WWW - This is not the case in the slightest. The case here, is misinterpretation of the assertions in the article), most of what you are saying is considered "Original Research" (WWW - It not original research, it is on the basis of actually extremely reliable secondary sources, and the interpretation of primary sources, within them. This is the case. It is not original research). Wikipedia has strict policies over what this - read WP:NOR. Also, if you have a source, but another source contradicts it, you can't just put your version of the article in place. Normally a discussion is held and wording will be agreed by consensus. Finally, for all concerned, we always Assume Good Faith, No Personal Attacks, and we Keep Things Civil. With that in mind .... Bardcom (talk) 17:16, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
I added this above, but received no response so I'll say it again...
If you're going to make the claim that his dominion was over the British Isles, then you're going to have to back it references - and not just your interpretation of what the books say either. For example, the BBC article does not make any assertion or state any facts in the main article, and only uses the term "British Isles" in a "Did You Know" footnote. This usage is clearly incorrect and is an example of using the term "British Isles" imprecisely. So far, your references appear to come from books that paraphrase a monk hired by Cnut's mother to speak in glowing terms of all he wrote about. I would expect to see your assertions in articles on Irish history (which I haven't). For example, Cnut *is* mentioned in List of English monarchs. But he is *not* mentioned in the List of High Kings of Ireland, *not* mentioned in the List of Scottish monarchs, *not* mentioned in List of rulers of Wales, *not* mentioned in Lord of the Isles, etc. Even the quotations and sources you include do not go as far as you, and therefore do not make those claims. They only go so far as to say that there *may* be *reason to believe* (WW - Dont forget *far from unlikely*. Anyway, if this is not original research, an accusation some here level against me, apparantly through ignorance of the source material, it is verifiable, and worthy of inclusion, rather than disclusion. You cant countermand evidences without contrary evidences. I try to be reasonable, yet get unreasonable, unreferencial, discreditation of the credible references I offer. I think this is not Wikepedianly). Bardcom (talk) 17:16, 15 April 2008 (UTC)


Yet again the point I forward is misinterpreted. I say the Brish Isles in terms of hegemony, not sovereingty. The part of the article Aatomic totally overwrote, and I thought dealt with both sides of the point, brings to light the probability the Gaels did not see Cnut as High King, nor even overlord. This is not to say Irish cannot mean the Viking settlements also. Scotland definittely did cencede Cnut's dominance though, not as King, nor High King. Just as someone capable of destruction of their nations if they did not comply. This compliance was probably to do with the Vikings all over the isles and the coastal areas of Scotland, rather than just his English border. If the British Isles is a term not specific enough please advise on a better one (other than Great Britain or England, as it was not as simple as this). After all, if it is allright to say Cnut's dominion was spread across Scandinavia, with some areas not under his control, surely this use of a basically geographical term translates in much the same way.

This hegemony (not sovereignty) was a dominion spread across the British Isles. Not entirely, yet substancially enough to mention it thus. Even if we keep Ireland in the regions of doubtfullness, there are still enough lands held under Cnut to verify their expanse beyond Great Britain, or even just England. I am not sure if this can be any clearer in the intro (with the difference between hegemony and sovereignty). Although the use of the word dominance suffices for both these meanings. Further explaination in the article is surely the best way to deal with this. We cannot just sweep it all under the carpet and claim is is unverifiable. It does comply with Wikpedia's demands for academic consensus. There is also no contrary evidence, only the lack of it, and the doubt of some in the academic consensus on the interpretation of evidences.

Additionally, hopefully to validate the direct use of the term the British Isles in academia (although I feel this will still be put under the auspices of hostility towards this geographical term's expansiveness), I did just buy This Sceptered Isle (there are quite a few books, I hope the wider scope one suffices). I realise website quotes arent really good enough. This is a BBC website though. The time Team website in the links is pretty damn good too. In Channel 4's network, another reputable media broadcaster. Will it be good enough if it is in a book (the irony, and possibly even hipocracy of this does not escape me at least)?


WikieWikieWikie (talk) 17:57, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Hi WWW, I invite you to reread the paragraph that you wrote above again. Look at it from an encyclopedic point of view, as facts, not speculation. Using words like "probability" means that you are giving an interpretation to published material (WWW - neigh, the verifiable sources under academic consensus offer this interpretaion, not myself alone, I do not appreciate these insinuations) - there's a policy against that too. I dispute your assertion that he had influence in Ireland at that or any time - there are no reliable references (WWW - no reliable references? Can you define your interpretation of reliable references? It is in fact your own original research to discount those I offer here). Until you can produce a *reliable* reference that shows that he had influence in Ireland, it's clearly Original Research to use the term British Isles (WWW- Ireland encompasses the use of the British Isles to describe the extent of Cnut's domininance does it?). Also, you are using the term "hegemony" to justify the use of "dominion" - but these terms mean very different things (WWW - I dont think this is the case. Hegemony is a form of dominance. If this is not dominance, and hence dominion, you must mean only sovereignty within a kingdom, and the suzerainty of political and military force over a vasssal, can be a dominion. Do you really think this? Hegemony, in fact describes the existence of dominance of one social group over another, such that the ruling group — referred to as a hegemon — acquires some degree of consent from the subordinate, as opposed to dominance purely by force.).
For the rest - Scotland, Wales, etc, there is no other article that attempts to document hegemony as fact. There is a reason for this - and it's because you can't back it up with sources and facts (WWW - really?). Can you imagine the reaction if an article on the current Queen of England asserted her "hegemony" over Ireland (even if you just meant "influence" and not "dominion" (WWW - This is quite an ostentatious statement. There is no subordinance of Ireland under the UK at this point. There is no evidence for this. There is evidence for subordination of kings, without a conquest, under Cnut. If other articles do not mention it maybe they should. It is though less significant in other article than in the article under discussion here). Bardcom (talk) 18:43, 15 April 2008 (UTC)


I dont want to even press the Ireland thing though, although there is no contrary evidence as such to discliam the Encomiast. Here is an M.K. Lawson quote, to ramify the point the Encomium may be correct. I dont think this qualifies as original research. This is consensus found in a publication from a reputable achademic on the subject of Cnut.

Cnut was well able to raise powerful fleets, which may have been effective not only in Scandinavia, but also in Scotland and Wales, and in the Irish Sea. Claims to suzerainty over the Scots, Irish and Welsh, are thus far from unlikely, and may for a time have been a reality. (Cnut: England's Viking King, pg. 103)
There are many scholars who discount the veracity of the Encomiast. Anyway, your claims above only state one item as fact - that Cnut was able to raise powerful fleets. The rest is speculation and not fact. If you draw a conclusion from the sole fact, it's Original Research. Bardcom (talk) 20:08, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
Its not my conclusion. The refence for the Encomiast is to verify the passage in the Encomium. The refence for Lawson is to verify the conclusion is in a publication under academic consensus. The fact many scholars consider the work in question to be unreliable, is part of the very point Lawson presses. It is, for once, if you will, quite accurate.
WikieWikieWikie (talk) 18:47, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

This actually directly follows the Encomiast's validity on the point, and the Ottar the Black verse is also under consideration. It is the claims (plural). There is no mention of vassalage to Cnut amoung these peoples, maybe. Yet there is no mention of Cnut's reign in England for years at a time, and the Scandinavian sources are even sparser. Such references is all we can rely upon. I stress the point again; no contrary references, with no reasonable doubt, in fact, is unreasonable doubt. Dont you think? If it is not in any other article it just goes to show the obscurity of the subject, and the necessity to produce as full an article as possible.

You say that there is no contrary evidence. I'm still waiting to see one reliable source for the previous assertions. I would hazard an opinion that the reason there is no contrary evidence is because there is no evidence of any kind (WWW - Im not sure of the assertion you mean). Bardcom (talk) 20:08, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Another M.K. Lawson quote refers to a second imperial crown and the possible link of this with not only Scandinavian successes, yet also successess in the Britsh Isles.

Cnut's taking of a second imperial crown may have been stimulated not only by a position in Scandinavia... but by achievement in Britain which lay firmly in a tradition established by his Anglo-Saxon predecessors (also).(Cnut: England's Viking King, pg. 104)
This quote asserts no facts (WWW - the fact is my statements are not original research). Only opinions and speculations (WWW - Under academic consensus). Note the use of words like "may". Bardcom (talk) 20:08, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

This follows a discussion on the conflicts of the period between the English, Scottish and Welsh. It may be there was indeed military action, over much of Cnut's reign, and the consequent vassalage of these, and Anglo-Danish suzerainty, follows.

Note your use of the word "may" (WWW - God as my witness, I use this word just the same as the word is in use in the references I state. I note the focus on myself to discredit things I write, with references, and the attempts to discredit these refences too. You offer no contrary evidence, and ignore my references. You say you see I want to produce a good article, yet want to discredit my additions too? I do not understand!). Bardcom (talk) 20:08, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

I press the assertion of the British Isles, rather than simply Great Britain or England, to be under Cnut's dominion, on the basis of most of the other islands, if not the isle of Ireland wholly, or even in part, and the certifiable evidence for submission at least of Scotland, and the Isle of Man. Especially in light of his ratifiable sovereignty over the islands under the Norwegian crown's mandate. After all. The responsibilities of the Norwegian throne, as well as the Danish, put him in the midst of the politicss of the Vikings of all the British Isles, not only in England. This surely lead him to press his dominance over the non-English parts of the British Isles, as is evidencial in the Irish Sea expedition.

WikieWikieWikie (talk) 19:28, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Press away. But as I've said countless times (and pointed you to policies, etc), I'm waiting for the reliable source. I am not waiting for your opinion, or your interpretation of the text in the source - just the reliable source that states, as fact, the assertions that you're putting in the article. Bardcom (talk) 20:08, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Can you clarify the assertions you think are not good enough for the artcile? I beg you!

Maybe detail the bits not in the sources I reference. You maybe cannot read these sources. If you say the things you think are in my head, I will find you the reference with the assertions I assert in, yet not myself alone. The orignal research policy does not mean you cant state academic consensus in secondary sources, with the provision of primary source interpretation. This is ludicrous.

WikieWikieWikie (talk) 20:13, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Break

Let's be positive and look forward. The difference between the original version and what the various references so far dug up would support is fairly minor. Cnut held "a loose hegemony" over Britain and Ireland [Woolf]. The Encomium's story "may for a time have enjoyed a foundation in reality" [Lawson]. Cnut "had relations" with the Norse-Gaels in Ireland [Lawson], he may have prevented the rise of a new king on Brian Bóruma's lines [Woolf]. He received some form of acknowledgement from the northern kings, etc [Woolf, Lawson, Hudson 'Cnut']. Sitric Silkbeard may have supported Cnut in 1014-1016, was probably present and his court, and probably felt safe going to Rome because he had Cnut's protection [Hudson]. And so on. These let the reader see what "a loose hegemony" means. Not king of Britain and Ireland, but most powerful king, able to influence events in the neighbouring kingdoms. This is what WP:V and WP:NPOV say we should do: repeat what the sources say, explaining where necessary, but not make arbitrary judgements as to who's right and who's wrong or adding our own ideas. No drama necessary! Angus McLellan (Talk) 22:27, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

At this stage I would like to say that it is important that, the perspective of Irish historians is fully taken into account. For instance the article previously stated that
There is reason to believe Vikings of Ireland, like those of Dublin, Wexford, Waterford, Cork and Limmerick, were in relations with Canute already, as they were with Sweyn Forkbeard.[1]
(Would Angus please confirm that this is an accurate quote).
It is my own words yes. If you want we can leave it as just Dublin. Although I suspect you dont want this at all. The refrence just sayd Vikings of Ireland. I just thought it was a good idea to include their main settlement. Is this really a crime? If you have contrary evidence in respect of Limerick, please rapidly disclude Limerick from the artcile. This is no reason to do the same with Dublin, at least, though.
WikieWikieWikie (talk) 19:09, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
Yet when I added
However, following Brian Boru's military victories over Sigtrygg Silkbeard, the Danes were a minor political force in Ireland, at the time, firmly opting for a commercial life. [2]
this was amended to suit an anglo centric POV (so strong that references that do not agree with it are edited out entirely). That aside, (if) MK Lawson did include, Limerick in his list, I would hope to see some qualifications to his statement ie:
Infact Limerick had been captured by the Dal Cais in 967 and it was to be ruled by their descendents until 1197[3]
  1. ^ Lawson, M.K., Cnut: England's Viking King, rev. edn., Tempus (2004), pg 103
  2. ^ Ranelagh, John O'Beirne (2001). A Short History of Ireland. Cambridge University Press, 31. ISBN 0521469449. 
  3. ^ Connolly S.J (1998). The Oxford Companion to Irish History. Oxford University Press, 580. ISBN 0192116959. 

Aatomic1 (talk) 09:22, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Well this really is turning out to be a bit of a fiasco inst it? Firstly Aatomic, I did not edit you quote on the Brian Boru thing to be ANglo cantric. In actual fact I thought it was Ireland centric. I thought the edit put it in the broader, and more neutral (as far as Ireland today, and Ireland then, can be of concern) perspective of the 11th century British Isles. Secondly. If you Angus can offer some more specificness on the quote you state I can use them to further support the thing I wrote. Maybe if a compromise can be brought to the table we can all be happy. With the evidence in hand, it is certain there was a hegemony, dominant, if you will, of Cnut over the British Isles, at its hight is the text in the passgae in the intro (<not right now>). If the wide dominion spread across Scandinavia and the British Isles is put to one side, and maybe in a position of dominance over Scandinavia and the British Isles is put in its place, or something like it (its a bit out of context), is this a good enough compromise? I appears the problem is too much definitivenss. Surely this relieves some of this? Im not sure of the sort of scholarly neutrality some here profess, though.

WikieWikieWikie (talk) 18:41, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

I don't agree that there is enough evidence to support the assertions you are making. He did not have a wide dominion or dominance of the British Isles, period. Bardcom (talk) 19:18, 16 April 2008 (UTC)


I do think there is. It is academic consensus. The only thing unsure is the extent of this dominance/dominion. This was throughout the British Isles, not only England or even Great Britain. If the political and military influence of Cnut in Ireland in doubt then this does not mean the British Isles is not a term we can use here. Expedition into the Irish Sea (as well as other evidences) are enough to arise the point of the possibility though. We cant just leave out all the other islands definitely under the sway of Cnut's kinship just because this is in doubt.

You say 'press away' Bardcom, yet dont offer any compromise. You just assume I mean the British Isles includes Ireland and say, oh no, you cant say that. This is kind or ironic when you consider the hipocracy of it. It seems you want to say Ireland is the penultimate territory of the British Isles, and the country was totally free from the strongest King of England to sit on the throne until the days of the colonies. With territories spread across the British Isles. Because this is ambiuguos towards Ireland. Yet the opinion Ireland means British Isles or not British Isles, is the really ambiguos one. You offer no contary endience, to the evidences of Cnut's dominational position, just the lack of anything to specificly say 'British Isles' (quite absurdly), and discredit scholarly opinion on the basis of your own, original, opinion (not reasonable, yet unreasonable, doubt). The geographic term of the British Isles, denotes an area far larger than Ireland itself, dont you agree? This justifies its usuage. I agree, as long as it is clear Cnut's position in Ireland is on the borders of certainty, yet not exactly uncertain.

Here is the main section Aatomic overworte with a simple quote, withouth any idscussion of the scope of the reference's validity and aspects of the wider reality (below).

There is reason to believe Vikings of Ireland, like those of Dublin, Wexford, Waterford, and Cork, were in relations with Canute already, as they were with Sweyn Forkbeard.[1] A Lausavísa attributable to the skald Ottar the Black, suggests these relations were on the level of overlordship, when he greets the ruler of the Danes, Irish, English and Island-dwellers.[2] It is likely, though, while the Island-dwellers were firmly Viking, and Gall Ghaedil, this was meant to mean the Vikings of Ireland, rather than the Gaelic kingdoms too. After Brian Boru's military victory over Sigtrygg Silkbeard, at the Battle of Clontarf, in 1014, the Norse leaders felt it prudent to opt for a commercial life in Ireland, rather than one of raids and settlement.[3] Still, when the Encomiast names Canute's domains, not only as England, Denmark and Norway, but also Scotia and Britannia,[4] it may be there is just enough evidence to suggest that there is no exaggeration of his lordship over the British Isles.[5]

In this passage (above). There is full reckognition of the factors at work in relation to the primary source references. This is not orignal research, yet with referencially sound use of secondary source, academic consensus, from a lead scholar on the subject of Cnut. I repeat, this is not original research. Can anyone suggest what it is that this passage states to mean it is not of any merit for use within the article?

WikieWikieWikie (talk) 19:02, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

After Brian Boru's military victory over Sigtrygg Silkbeard, at the Battle of Clontarf, in 1014, the Norse leaders felt it prudent to opt for a commercial life in Ireland, rather than one of raids and settlement.
This is supposedly referenced to Ranelagh's book. Does the book actually say what you have written or have you made it up?... again (WWW - rather than just the insinuation this is in my head, maybe you can tell me what it is that you have a probalem with and maybe we can make it good. Your stance, and attacks against me, offers no compromise though. You expect to prove your point by the simple notion of my wrongness, and the rightness of your opinion in the unreliability of my references. I did alter the text you wrote, although this was to embellish it, not dismember it. This tactic is in fact yours).

Aatomic1 (talk) 20:04, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Well its your source Aatomic. Here is the previous:

However, following Brian Boru's military victories over Sigtrygg Silkbeard, the Danes were a minor political force in Ireland, at the time, firmly opting for a commercial life.

I dont think it is nescessary to state exact words is it? There are no quotation marks on the sentence. It is informative. It is not lies. I do see now, though, the death of Brian Boru at the Battle of Clontarf, at the hands of Irish Norsemen in retreat, means this is actually inaccurate. Innocently enough though. Surely this just requires some simple alteration.

Maybe if...

After Brian Boru's military victory over Sigtrygg Silkbeard, at the Battle of Clontarf, in 1014, the Norse leaders felt it prudent to opt for a commercial life in Ireland, rather than one of raids and settlement.

...was something like...

After Brian Boru's military victories over Sigtrygg Silkbeard, and the Battle of Clontarf, in 1014, the Norse leaders felt it prudent to opt for a commercial life in Ireland, rather than one of raids and settlement.

... it might be satifisfactory?


WikieWikieWikie (talk) 20:21, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

My source states the Danes were a minor political force in Ireland, at the time, Aatomic1 (talk) 06:51, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
Niall mac Eochada defeated the Dublin Norse in 1020, 1024 & 1026 - I am not convinced they had much choice in the matter. Aatomic1 (talk) 08:15, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

'A Lausavísa attributed to the skald Ottar the Black, puts these relations on the level of overlordship, when greets the ruler of the Danes, Irish, English and Island-dwellers.' The only addition I have made on the reference (Aatomic thinks is gobbledigook) in slant, is the overlordship bit. This is not original research for the reference says ruler. I still dont state this as fact, and this statemtent is in context with the reference. At no point do I exeed this mandate of the factualalities. This is an assumption. I do not assert Cnut was King of Ireland, or King of Scotland, or King of Wales, or Lord of the Isles. Only the fact these were maybe, and the Kingdom of Scotland definitely, under Cnut's hegemony. Further islands were under his political and military sovereignty though Norway. These facts denote fair usage of the British Isles, in the context my text uses. I dont want to pretend anything to be true if it isnt. If anything I write over-steps the mark, it must be put right. I dont think this means it is ok to simply overwrite it with quotes out of context (still the gobbigook actually, overwritten on the thoughtful text, with numerous other referencial points).

WikieWikieWikie (talk) 21:49, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

WWW, please learn how to indent your responses properly by placing a colon (or a number of colons) in front of your response.
Step back and think about your sources. You are using works of fiction (poetry, a monk writing on commission for his family) as primary sources, and commentary on these works as secondary sources. Do you really think that's a good enough source? I don't. So when you ask to point out which bits I have a problem with, I have a problem with it all! Policy is very clear on what you can and can't put in an article - and I didn't make the policies up. Find a reliable source. If you can't, don't put it in. It's that simple. Bardcom (talk) 23:04, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Yet again it is all misunderstood. Worse of all though there seems to be some misconception of the nature of historical scholarship. You say I cannot state the primary sources I state because they are written by totally bias people, I assume, and the achademic thought on the matter is irellevant due to this????????? This is quite absurd. I cite Napoleon's idea history is only a myth everyone agrees upon. The essence of this is that what we consider to be fact, always relies upon the elements of a story people choose to report. And the nature of humanity is full of bias, and prejudice. I think this discussion shows this quite contritely too... funnily enough. These sources, in context of the consensus of achademics, are not original research, as long as the reasonable doubt is brought to light, in conjunction with the evidence at hand. If the only evidence at hand is not brought under consdieration, only the doubter will be able to say their piece, unreasonably.

WikieWikieWikie (talk) 20:09, 21 April 2008 (UTC)


Conrad II was the most important ruler in Western Europe, but the text tries to present him as being overawed by Cnut. That really won't do. The Norwegian Atlantic Empire is unattested at this time, and indeed until the time of Magnus Haraldsson and Harald Sigurdsson most likely. Cnut's "politics were now woven with the Scots" from the day he became king of England. Being king of Norway may, as Hudson says, have made the Scots and the Norse-Gaels more important in his foreign policy, but they'd have been a factor before then. There's still much that's in need of work here.
I'll remind you that Queen Emma's encomiast wrote rather bad history, even by C11th standards. If you set out to be Cnut's encomiast, the results will be equally disappointing. If there are two sides to the story, and for most things to do with Cnut there are at least two sides, both should be represented here. Angus McLellan (Talk) 21:40, 21 April 2008 (UTC)


Oh I absolutely agree. You pick up on some good points here. Indeed the importance of the areas of the British Isles prior to the reciept of the crown of Norway is something I want to include in the article. I do not want to be like the Encomiast, and the use of the Encomium quote has been made quite a thing. I do not cite it as the most reliable source (primary does not mean this), nor even the Ottar the Black verse, only as part of the citation of Lawson (a reliable secondary source). This Lawson reference, along with the other reference I now forward (below), is really more than enough to write the things I write.

I do want to shine a favourable light on Cnut, this is true. Although it is not on the lines of fancifullness. The errors you point out above are not exactly outrageous deviances from the facts. Only not quite correct. I want to rectify then for sure now I know this. If only some here could not be so surreptitious, and actaully work to undermine the achievements of Cnut. The work of Aatomic on the intro is quite absurd. He quotes Lawson, althogh I know these are only half quote, and the final part of the point is that although such things are true this does not detract from the achievements of Cnut. Aatomic is irresponsible.

All I want to do is tell it like it was, and produce an article to reflect 'the Great', in the title. If you think this can only produce bad results then I think you are wrong; they could be good. If all the facts are put straight, we cant go wrong. In the extract(s) in the next section I think only the vindication of the use of the British Isles can follow, and the doubfull will be doubtless of this. Unless of course they refuse to accept it yet again. This will be a kind of anti-Encomiastship and worthy of the same sort of scholarly scorn.

WikieWikieWikie (talk) 12:33, 22 April 2008 (UTC)


[edit] Overlordship of the British Isles

I am in the process of wrting an extract of the pages I reference in support of the information I include in the article. This appears to be necessasry in light of the war some here wage against me. If this reference is put under attack, I will move to get a block on the people who refuse to accept verifiable evidence, and the inclusion of these factualities in the Wiki.

I hope this reference (or references) will help clarify the optimum approach for the article, and the facts at hand. In the Index of the Viking Empires under Canute, are the pages for overlordhip of British Isles. Not fully, yet substacially, rather than the lesser.

WikieWikieWikie (talk) 21:09, 21 April 2008 (UTC)


[edit] pgs 196-198

A. Forte, R. Oram, F. Pedersen, Viking Empires, pgs 196-198. This is an extract:

On the fringes of his English kingdom Canute may also have employed his Anglo-Saxon predecessor's previous mechanism for control: the manipulation of feud and rivalry between competing dynastic segements or regional noblemen. Above all, however, it was on Canute's personal relationship with his lieutenants that the security of his empire depended. This can perhaps be seen best in the arrangement that he made for the control of the western maritime zone of the British Isles.

Canute's own experiences of the conquest of England had impressed upon him the need to establish an effective overlordship of the other major powers within the British Isles, and this view was strengthened further by his need to close off the possibility of support from these powers for potential challengers to his own authority. The 1020s and 1030s although dominated by his efforts to impose his lordship within Norway, also saw him extend his authority westwards into the turbulent waters of the Irish sea as part of that process. His aim may originally have been directed towards containment of the ambitions of the earls of Orkney, who, as nominal subjects of the Norwegien kings would have been brought under his overlordship after 1028. In 1014 after all, Earl Sigurd of Orkney had lost his life at the Clontarf outside Dublin in a bid to establish his authority inside Ireland, and his sons, Einarr and Thorfinn, continued to seek a similar position in the 1020s and 1030s. The unstable politics of the western zone into which Orkney regularly intruded its influence was fertile territory within which Canute's rivals could build up their strength in advance of a challenge to his power. There is no indication given in any saga source that Canute was able to establish an effective overlordship of Orkney, and may instead have embarked upon a policy of containment of that would-be northern super-power. In what was possibly a premptive move, he appears to have succeeded in placing one of his relatives, Håkon Eiriksson, a representative of a Norse family (the earls of Hladir) with a long tradition of hostility towards the state-building Norwegian kings, in lordship over the Isles, perhaps as early as 1016-17. In about 1017 Canute also gave Hakon the earldom of Worcester, a strategic territory in land terms on the frontier of the Welsh principalities, and in maritime terms by virtue of its access to the western sea-ways. The sea-lanes through the Irish Sea and Hebrides led to Orkney and Norway, and were of central strategic importance to Canute's imperial ambitions. Hakon Eriksson was intended by Canute to control all the elements of this strategic chain, the final component being his installation as the king's deputy in Norway following the expulsion of Olaf Haraldsson in 1028... (Death of Hakon... Olaf attempts to return yet dies at Battle of Stiklestad in 1030... chink in the Danish military regime's mail)... The (death of Hakon) may have stimulated Orcadian interest in reviving Sigurd's lordship over the Isles, but the earls of Orkney were not the only powers with an interest in this zone. It is surely no coincidence that in 1031 Canute led an army towards Scotland and, apparantly bloodlessly, gained the submission of the Scottish king, Mael Coluim Cinaeda, and two other kings. One of the latter, 'Iehmarc', an Anlgo-Saxon attempt at the Irish Echmarcach, was a member of the Waterford branch of the Ui Imhair and ruler of a sea-kingdom that extended over much of the Irish Sea (see pp. 227-31). Through him Canute was to regain his security in the west, blocking the ambitions of the earls of Orkney for over a decade and even extending his reach further into the Norse-Gaelic world by virtue of Echmarcach's position within the Ui Imhair dynasty.

The success of Canute's arrangements for the government of his sprawling domain enabled him to exercise an unprecedented overlordhship of Scandinavia and substancial parts of the British Isles. How effective or long lasting his influence in Ireland or Scotalnd (WWW - Cornwall) and Wales) was is debatable, but his dominnation of Norway, England and the Isles ensured that the ambitions of the kings of Scots, the earls of Orkney, and the Ui Briain kings in Ireland were held in check. In common with many of the 'empires' of this period, however, the union of its component parts was a very personal one and, regardless of how effective the arrangements were during the lifetime of the ruler, it was unlikely that those arrangements would survive his death. Canute clearly intended his power to be passed on intact and, when he died at Shaftesbury in the heart of Wessex in 1035, key figure's of his circle of closet servants moved to ensure that the integrity of his legacy was preserved. Others, however, saw their opportunity to prosper under a changed regime.

[edit] Question

Is the text (and Wales) actually in the text and, if not, why has it been inserted into what has been presented as Verbatim text? Aatomic1 (talk) 12:08, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Answer

I suppose it is because of the nature of the kingship of England, and the fact like Ireland and Scotland, there were Norsemen on the coastlands of Wales, and even Cornwall. These latter though were already well within the political status quo of the English before Cnut. Scotland and Ireland were Cnut's concern in the 'western maritime zone'. I just though the addition of this (now Cornwall too) was more accurate to the point at hand, yet off the line of thought in the extract.

WikieWikieWikie (talk) 12:24, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] pgs 227-231

A. Forte, R. Oram, F. Pedersen, Viking Empires, pgs 227-231. This is an extract:


The death of Briain Boruma at Clontarf created a power vacuum in the Irish Sea zone which others were quick to exploit. One such figure was Canute, king of Denmark and England, whose leadership of the Scandinavian world gave unique influence over the western colonies and whose control of their commercial arteries gave an economic edge to political domination. His death in 1035 was followed by a series of upheavals in the Irish Sea region, not all of which were coincidental on the demise of the dominant figure in British politics. The removal of his strong hand unleashed a dominion effect of consequencial events. One immediate consequence of the contraction of Anglo-Danish influence was a re-assertion of Dublin's independance, signalled in 1035 by Sigtrygg Silkistegg's revival of the conflict with the Ostmen kings of Waterford, a dynasty which may itself been a branch of the Ui Imhair of Dublin, descended from Olaf Cuaran... (discussion on the politics behind the capture of the Dublin throne, with Sigtrygg Sikiskegg's fall from power, in 1036 by Echmarcach, his expulsion in 1038, his recapture of the city in 1046, and his expulsion in 1052).

Echmarcach's ejection from Dublin ended the Waterford dynasty's involvement in the affairs of the city, but not its significant role in Irish Sea politics. It was evidently from a position of established power in the region that he had ounted his bid for the Dublin kingship in 1036. The question is where was that power based and how had it been achieved? The Anglo-Saxon Chronicle offers one clue. In 1031 Canute had mounted a major expeditioninto northern England and Scotland and, evidently without battle, had brought the Scottish king Mael Coluim mac Cinaeda and two other kings into submission. One of these kings was named 'Iehmarc', clearly an Anglo-Saxon attempt at rendition of the Irish Echmarcach. His association with Mael Coluim in this context suggest a southern Scottish or norther Irish Sea location for his kingdom. Two possibilities present themselves: Man and Galloway... (discussion of the connection of Man with Dublin with Sigtrygg Silkiskegg's escape there in the face of Briain Boruma... Welsh tradition of a link between Man and Galloway... Waterford's challenges to Sigtrygg's reign... Sigtryggs kills Ragnall, brother of Echmarcach... Echmarcach's power-base in Man and its use as a launchpad for his claims on the Dublin throne). This may be the power-base that attracted the attention of Canute in 1031.

Canute's interest may also have been drawn by the spread of Echmarcach's power into south-west Scotland. At the time of his death in 1065 Echmarcach was described as re innarenn, i.e. king of the Rhinns. It has been argued plausibly that the Rhinns of Galloway constituted the rump of Echmarcach's kingdom, in which he had besed himself following his expulsion from Man in 1061. There is little record of Irish activity in this region in the eleventh-century, but there are indications the Ostmen of Dublin may have sought to control this highly strategic penninsula that commanded the eastern side of the straights that separated the Irish Sea from the Sea of the Hebrides. Sigtrygg Silkiskegg's son, Olaf, may have added the Rhinns to his Manx-based dominion before 1013, for the somewhat fanciful account in the Annals of Loch Ce record that in 1014, at Clontarf, the Dublin host was joined by contingents from Man and Rhinns. Echmarcach evidently sought to control a similar power-base, presumably taking advantage of established links between the Scandinavian colonies in western Galloway and those in Man and Dublin. The chronology for the formation of Echmarcach's maritime domain is unknown, but there are substancial grounds upon which to argue... that his control of the Rhinns postdated his expulsion from Man by Murchad mac Diarmata in 1061. The spread of the Waterford dynasty from Man into the Rhinns may well have been the development that attracted Canute's attention to the north-west peripheries of his realm thirty years earlier.

The spread of Waterford influence in the second quarter of the eleventh century should be seen as part of the developiong struggle for power between Donnchad Mac Briain, king of Munster, who was seeking to re-establish his family's control of the high-kingship, and Diarmait mac Mail no mBo, king of Leinster. The Ostmen of Limerick and Waterford were, by this time, simply satellites of the Dal Cais king of Munster, who could call upon their reserves of heavily armoured warriors and galleys. The slaying of Ragnall mac Ragnaill of Waterford in Dublin in 1035 is probably tobe seen in context of the Munster-Leinster rivalry, coloured by the long-standing feud between the Ostmen dynasties. Ragnall's presence in the city is not explained, but it might be seen against the backdrop of warfare in the Irish Sea that had not gone all Dublin's way. Certainly, Sigtrygg appears to have lost control of Man before 1036, for it did not provide him with a refuge after his expulsion from Dublin. While there is no evidence to support the suggestion, it is a distinct possibility that Ragnall mac Ragnaill and Echmarcach mac Ragnaill had established Waterfor'd maritime supremacy in the 1020s. Here the maritime war waged between the Ostmen of Dublin and Ulaid hints at the circumstances through which this was achieved. The major naval defeat inflicted on the Dublin fleet by Niall mac Eochaid, king of Ulaid, in 1022, followed by a hosting of the Ulstermeninto Fine Gall in 1026, must have severely weakened Sigtryggs power, while his defeat and capture by the king of Brega in 1029 brought his authority to a new low. If not actively assisting Niall in 1022 - Ulaid is not otherwise noted as a significant maritime power - then the meic Ragnaill may have capitalised on the eclipse of Dublin's naval power to seize control of Man. From that base Ragnaill or Echmarcach extended their influence over the lesser Scandinavian colonies along the northern coasts of the Irish Sea.


[edit] pg 202

A. Forte, R. Oram, F. Pedersen, Viking Empires, pg 202. This is an extract:

Canute's preoccupation with consolidating his hold on the English heartlands and his lands in Scandinavia, and the political weakness of Northumbie after 1016-18, provided the Scots with the opportunity to entrench their power within a zone that the kings of the English from the time of Edmund had considered vital to the security of their kingdom. It was not until the early 1030s that Canute was in a position to redress the shift in the balance of power in the north. Recent arguments have proposed his primary objective may have been containment of any treaty to his authority in Norway from the rulers of Orkney, rather than rolling back Mael Colluim mac Cinaeda's power in Cumbria, but his campaign in 1031, which achieved the submission of Mael Colluim, Echmarcach and, possibly, Macbeth (Macbethad mac Findlaich), represented a reaffirmation of English power north of the Humber and, more particularly, over the north-west. From 1029-30 Canute was certainly flexing his muscles in the Irish Sea zone, extending his influence to Dublin, and directing campaigns against the Welsh

[edit] pg 206

A. Forte, R. Oram, F. Pedersen, Viking Empires, pg 206. This is an extract:

Canute... had brought Sigtrigg Silkiskegg under into his clientege by 1030 and had used this Dublin alliance to good effect in his invasion of north Wales in 1030. This had seen the possible establishment of a possible Dublin colony on Anglesey, which may have been Sigtrygg's first destination after his final expulsion from Dublin in 1036.

Right enough. "Military cooperation between Sitric and Cnut is revealed by the Annals of Tigernach that record a raid on Wales by ships from England and Dublin in 1030." (Hudson, Viking Pirates, p. 120) The Annals of Tigernach, AT 1030.11, say "Orguin Bretan o Saxanaib & o Gallaib Atha Cliath" or, more or less, "Destruction of the Britons by the Saxons and the Dublin Foreigners" The land of the these Britons is generally, as we have seen, read as Wales.
Of course, this being the 11th century, there's more than one version on offer. "There is another item in an Irish chronicle that could mark an initial stage in the demise of Strathclyde. In the 'Annals of Tigernach' [AT] it is noted that in 1030 there was 'a ravaging (orguin) of Britons by the English and the Foreigners of Dublin'. This has, not unnaturally, been taken to refer to a raid into Wales; and a possible explanation for an attack by Dublin Vikings into Wales has been suggested (although this involves redating the raid to 1033). There is certainly some evidence of Dublin's military involvement in Wales by this date, and a cogent argument has been made that King Sigtryggr/Sitriuc of Dublin and Knútr (Canute) of England may have shared an interest in limiting the expanding interest of the Welsh king, Rhydderch ap Iestyn, at this time. There is no allusion in any other source, however, to an attack on Wales by English and Dublin Vikings. The mention of 'Britons' does not mean that the victims were necessarily in Wales: the raid recorded in AT 1030.11 could just as well refer to a ravaging of Strathclyde by Northumbrians and Dubliners. ..." (Broun, "The Welsh identity of the kingdom of Strathclyde c.900–c.1200" in The Scottish Historical Review, vol. 55, no. 2, pp. 111–180 at pp. 136–137). Angus McLellan (Talk) 18:51, 24 April 2008 (UTC)