Talk:Thegn

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 This article is within the scope of WikiProject Norse history and culture, a WikiProject related to all activities of the Norse people, both in Scandinavia and abroad, prior to the formation of the Kalmar Union in 1397. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
??? This article has not yet received a rating on the Project's quality scale. Please rate the article and then leave a short summary here to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article.
??? This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale.

[edit] Thanes in Scotland

I removed the sentence "It comes from a confusion with an unrelated Gaelic term, tanaiste, "second-in-command"." from the article. This seems unlikely as thanes and thanages were two-a-penny in Scotland - as I recall, there are over 60 thanages listed in Grant's "Thanes and thanages in Scotland" - while tanists were not. Whether or not thane is related to toiseach is another story. Grant in "Thanes and thanages" and the later "Construction of the early Scottish state" clearly believes that they were one and the same thing. Angus McLellan (Talk) 17:30, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] The map

Pretty map, but where on earth is it? It's just blue and white with red dots. There's nothing to locate it. Suggest it's removed. Bazj (talk) 17:46, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Yes, it is a pretty map. Can you elaborate on why you would like it to be removed rather than identified and explained in the caption?--Berig (talk) 17:52, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
  • None of the land masses are identified. Requires amendment of the image rather than description in the caption.
  • There's no identifying features to allow the viewer to place it (modern city or similar). Again, requires amendment of the image rather than description in the caption.
  • It's not oriented. Which way is North? Again, requires amendment of the image.
  • There's no scale. Is it a map of east Denmark and south Sweden with a historic coastline (a 100 miles square)? Or a waterside cemetery (a 100 metres square)?
  • The article is focussed almost exclusively on Thegns in an English/Scottish context. A map of what I presume is a part of Scandinavia seems unrelated to the text.
I can see now that it's the area around the Kattegat, but I had to get my atlas/encyclopedia off the shelf to identify it. Isn't that what Wikipedia's supposed to do?
Bazj (talk) 20:04, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
well, you could have looked at the Scandinavia article for a nice map of Scandinavia without needing to get your dead tree atlas off your shelf. Are you going to call for the removal of all maps which do not explicitly state they show north at the top? dab (𒁳) 20:53, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
If I'd KNOWN it was Scandinavia, yes. Since I didn't, and since the dead-tree still offers the best way of looking up a map by the shapes... :-)
And No, I'm not questioning the map for just that one reason. In this case it's one of four things missing that I'd expect to see on a useful map. Let's be honest, without a scale AND without any identifying locations AND without an identifying caption AND without any orientation, what distinguishes it from a Rorschach inkblot test?
You, and the two other people who've commented on my comment, all seem to have a deep knowledge the area, which I respect. All I ask is that you take a step back and look at it from the perspective of someone searching for enlightenment.
The whole point of the article is to inform people who don't have your expertise, just a curiosity. Of the article's 11 paragraphs, 10 touch on the Anglo-Saxon perspective, 2 a Norman perspective, and 2 a Latin translation. Just 1 paragraph mentions Scandinavia. As a newcomer to the topic you're presented with a map you've not come across before. Now, answer honestly, presented with an overwhelmingly Anglo-Saxon context, are you REALLY going to expect to see a map of Scandinavia?
I'm NOT saying that a map of Scandinavia is inappropriate here. But the map needs to explain itself.
Having read the article closely in order to write this follow-up it strikes me that the article needs some expansion on the Norse/Scandinavian influence on Anglo-Saxon Britain.
...and all I really wanted at the start of all this was a background for a passing mention of Thegn in Abbots Langley  :-)
Bazj (talk) 22:20, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
Yes, it certainly needs an expansion on the Norse part. I have considered doing so for quite a while, but it is a big undertaking since the exact meaning of thegn in Scandinavia is a matter of much debate. I have seen the meanings "freeman", "warrior", "vassal", "bailiff/sheriff", "retainer", etc. with discussions on their exact roles. In all likelihood, it was just as variable as in England.--Berig (talk) 08:21, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
Speaking of the map, the Glavendrup stone seems to be missing. 83.89.43.14 (talk) 20:51, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
Yes, it's missing several runestones. It's also missing a runestone on Bornholm.--Berig (talk) 21:01, 23 May 2008 (UTC)