Talk:Great Heathen Army

WikiProject Military history

(Rated Start-Class)

This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions. Start This article has been rated as Start-Class on the quality scale. Additional information... This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-Class status: Referencing and citation: not checked Coverage and accuracy: not checked Structure: not checked Grammar: not checked Supporting materials: not checked To fill out this checklist, please the following to the template call: | B1 <!-- Referencing and citations --> = y/n | B2 <!-- Coverage and accuracy --> = y/n | B3 <!-- Structure --> = y/n | B4 <!-- Grammar and style --> = y/n | B5 <!-- Supporting materials --> = y/n Associated task forces (nations and regions): Nordic military history task force

Merge?

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

Rename?

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

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

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

I've got no problem with moving the article to

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

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

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

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

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

article title

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

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

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

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

Confusion over dates

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

Information on dates

The dates are fine Bagsecg arrived in England 870 not 871 sense Bagsecg was the leader of The Great Summer Army and that arrived in 870 Bagsecg also captured East Anglia where he destroyed two churches and thats where he landed and pilliaged and he arrived in the Summer of 870 as you were saying. Bagsecg also captured Reading the next year and fought at The Battle of Reading in 871 and a few days latter he fought and was killed at The Battle of Ashdown.

Anglo-Saxon1 —Preceding undated comment added 17:29, 24 November 2009 (UTC).

Do you have a reliable source? You're not the first person to have speculated on this talk page that the arrival was in 870, but, at the moment, there are any number of reliable sources stating that the army arrived in 871. Perhaps they are all incorrect and ignore activities the previous summer, but we need reliable sources to establish the chronology. Warofdreams talk 20:58, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Bagsecg did arrive in 870 because thats when The Great Summer Army arrived in England and pilliaged in East Anglia if it arrived in 871 then Bagsecg would of pilliaged rather then capturing Reading on 4th January 871 and Bagsecg won a great victory at The Battle of Reading that day and four days later he was killed at The Battle of Ashdown and was slain as according to the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle then according to folklore he was buried at Waylands Smithy, Bagsecg may of also been a King of Denmark as well. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Anglo-Saxon1 (talk • contribs) 09:41, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Anglo-Saxon1 ( Anglo-Saxon1 09:44, 25 November 2009 (UTC) )

Please do not remove referenced material and replace it with unreferenced information. If you have these reliable references, do use them when editing the article. Just stating that you are correct is insufficient - we need references! Warofdreams talk 10:17, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

I will and in the mean time i will find Information relvant to Bagsecg arriving in 870 as English Sources do say the whole of The Great Summer Army arrived in 870 in 871 however half the army captured Reading.

Anglo-Saxon1 {Anglo-Saxon1} —Preceding unsigned comment added by Anglo-Saxon1 (talk • contribs) 14:01, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

To be very clear, please do not change referenced information just because you believe it to be incorrect, unless you can provide a reference. Once you have the references, please feel free to change the article. Warofdreams talk 14:48, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Separating fact from fiction

This article really needs a major rewrite, with proper references to the primary sources, in an attempt to separate the historical facts from the unreliable accounts of later chroniclers.

In the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle the invaders are referred to as Danes, but Aethelweard Chronicon Fourth Book states clearly that the fleet arrived in East Anglia "from the north". If the leader of the army (Hingwar, Ingwar, Iguuar, Inwaer, depending on the source) is Ívarr, the son of Guðrøðr the King of Laithlind (a Viking kingdom in Scotland), then this would make sense. Is there really any compelling evidence to link the army with the raiders of northern France (845 ff.)? As for Ivar the Boneless, Halfdann Ragnarsson etc, these figures are taken from much later Norse sagas and are not mentioned in any contemporary sources. The historicity of their father Ragnar Lodbrok is highly dubious. Eroica (talk) 12:51, 16 January 2009 (UTC)