Talk:Ivar of Limerick

Relation with Ui Imair

The article read "Presumably Ivar of Limerick belonged to the Uí Ímair or "House of Ivar", a principally Danish kindred based in the Norse Kingdom of Dublin and Kingdom of York, but it has not been possible to discover his precise relation to them. The Uí Ímair appear likely to have been descendants of Ivar the Boneless.[2]" - I haven't been able to find where Downham presumes that (if the note [2] was for the whole paragraph and not just the last sentence). As I tried to explain in my rewritten version, it seem likely that Ivar was more of a rival to than a member/ally of the Ui Imair. Of course, the rivalisation may have been strife within the dynasty - but I fail to see where he would fit it here. If he'd been a third son of Aralt surely the Annals would have mentioned that? Finn Rindahl (talk) 17:29, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

I don't think it suggests that at all. In fact it might suggest he was a near relative of the Limerick branch. DinDraithou (talk) 17:53, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

Note that their were several dynasties by this time, and also that the Son of Aralt (possibly Maccus, AFM being a late source), did not have him killed. That Maccus was claiming Limerick is conjecture. It could have been a family feud over spoils for all we know. DinDraithou (talk) 18:11, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

Fair enough, my interpretation was probably just that, a personal interpretetion and as such not suitable for Wikipedia. Do we have any sources for that Ivar was related to the Ui Imair? Cogadh describes him as Ivar grandson of Ivar, chief king of the foreigners (Todd, 49) with a note to what I presume is a different MS reading "Ivar with Amlaibh the great, grandson of Ivar. Finn Rindahl (talk) 18:40, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

He may or may not be confused with Ímar ua Ímair, king of Dublin, whom Downham covers on p. 260, died 903/4. In Todd p. 48, line 3, he is called just that, Ímar ua Ímair, Ivar grandson of Ivar, versus "of the Uí Ímair". Our Ivar, died 977/8, could not be a grandson of Ivar Beinlaus, although he could be a great-grandson. Todd (p. 274; cv-cvi) goes into it but has "him" alive in Ossory (AFM 928.11, 929.11) around 930, which can't be right, but here he is Downham's (p. 276) "ua Ímair", ??? grandson of Ivar. Nowhere do we have Ivar, grandson of Ivar, in Limerick except in Cogad... but at least page 48 suggests he belonged to the kindred, it being an early source, much earlier than AFM. I'm at a loss. The "B" (Brussells, the complete one. See intro. p. xv) MS I guess reads "with Olaf the Great, grandson of Ivar". The incomplete Book of Leinster version can be read here, and assuming that's all of it, our Ímar ua Ímair must come, I presume, from the also incomplete Dublin MS (intro. p. xiii). DinDraithou (talk) 00:03, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

The Ua Imair being banished from Ossory 930 by Gofraid ua Ímair I would have thought would much more likely be Aralt of Limerick (d.940), that it should be our Ivar doesn't make much sense. Cogadh decribes him as ua Imair in connection with his "coming" to Limerick - which as a story doesn't fit very well with what we now from other sources. AFAIK there are no other sources for a major new viking army arriving on the westcoast of Ireland in the mid 10th Century, and the Norse presence in Limerick dated more than a hundred years bafore Ivars death.

"of the Uí Ímair"? Is that phrase used at all about anyone in the Annals? Finn Rindahl (talk) 08:34, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

No it doesn't look like it and I made a mistake there, so disregard that. I'm rather less familiar with the annals than most because they're not very helpful for the period I'm more familiar with. But it may be a fortunate mistake and tell us that all we might have is a 12th century author simply assuming Ímar Luimneach was an Ua Ímair, although it wouldn't mean he wasn't. I still think he was, because his name and those of one or two of his sons are still "Uí Ímair names", which can't be overlooked. Plus we obviously don't have a complete picture of the dynasties and there are probably dozens of important people missing, two or three of whom might be a perfectly real link between Ivar of Limerick and the died 873 original. I agree with you that Ossory 930 was likely Aralt of Limerick or associated. DinDraithou (talk) 14:27, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

And looking at Downham again, I've found on p. 34 that Woolf has been given eternal credit for suggestion the obvious, which I and countless others have thought of too, that not all of the Uí Ímair need have been male line descendants. Ivar of Limerick lacks a patronym just like "Sigtryggr, Røgnvaldr and Guðrøðr". Then Downham herself does even better, I think, when she says "Another possibility is that they were descended from a son (or sons) of Ívarr who pursued a career outside Ireland", which she should have repeated when covering our Ivar. Maybe she will in a revised, expanded edition. DinDraithou (talk) 14:51, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

My impression is that Downham already has gone quite far trying to indicate ties to the Ui Imair when these are uncertain, lot's of "may have", "could suggest" etc etc. But the possibility that Ivar was related to them certainly excists, and the author of Cogadh (or some copyist) seem to make that assumption. Presently this article only states "his relationship with... ...the Uí Ímair kindred... ...remains uncertain." (my wording). I still think your original "Presumably Ivar of Limerick belonged to the Uí Ímair" is going to far in the other direction, but I'll try to reword this part a bit to incorporate Cogadhs use of "Ua Imair" at least. Finnr Rindahlr 16:37, 19 October 2009 (UTC) Couldn't resist those extra r's :)

Danish or Norse

I've been wondering what you think about the Danish or Norwegian identity of the Limerick Norse during this period. Traditionally they have been viewed as Danes, but we know there was a strong Norwegian presence for some time because the pronunciation of Limerick is West Norse. I know little about the archaeology or if it's even helpful. DinDraithou (talk) 21:26, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

I added a new heading. Interesting question, but one that I haven't given much thought actually. In general, I think we should be very careful when we try to identify these Norse unwanted vikings/settlers as "Norwegian" or "Danish". If they, (or rather their ancestors four-five generations back) came from present day Norway or Denmark, it can probably only be deduced from linguistic or archeological findings like you mention. From what I've seen, the chronicles can't be trusted in separating one from the other: "Dene" and "Northmen" are used, but it's not clear that this is really understood as Danish/Norwegian as we undertand it, and the classic translation of dubhgaill/fingaill ("dark vs fair foreigners") as Danish/Norwegian seem to have been discarded by modern historians. If you want to I could look through whatever books I have, but I do believe you have a larger library than I have ;) Best regards, Finn Rindahl (talk) 22:01, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

King of Munster

Finn, are you still with me? Would you consider it original research to mention that from the 950s Munster had become a free-for-all, and Ivar may have thought that as a member of a family established in Ireland for a century and intermarried with the Irish, that he might have had as good a claim as anyone to the kingdom? I can piece it together from different sources. And he could very well have had an Irish wife, especially noting his children and friends. Ivar of Waterford certainly did, as well as other members of the dynasty from the beginning. I point out that the Norse were less patrilineal in their thinking about inheritance than the Gaels.

Because he features so prominently in the Cogad and in Irish mythology to this day there seems to be a limited amount of scholarship on the possible background of the actual person. I have just received Valante's 2008 The Vikings in Ireland: Settlement, Trade and Urbanization and she agrees that he should be considered a member of the dynasty and lists him among the more prominent of its members in her small chart. Also she favours a Vestfold and Norwegian origin, although this is complicated by the temporary dominance there of the Danes, and she goes on and on about the Fair Foreigners, whom she believes the dynasty were, versus the Black Foreigners... this subject being your specialty. The book is short and expensive but worth the money: 154 pages of text in fairly small print; very extensive footnotes in tiny print; plus an exhaustive bibliography, coming to 23 additional pages; no less than 15 maps in a "map appendix"; one genealogical chart, oddly placed among the maps; a nice one and a half page glossary of Irish terms; and an index. She masterfully discusses the Irish class structure and pre-Norse economy in the beginning of the book, among other subjects. Intermarriage between the Norse and Irish aristocrats then becomes a recurrent theme.

Also see User:DinDraithou/Ivar of Limerick for nearly everything in the annals possibly associated. I have not gotten around to the Annals of Clonmacnoise yet. DinDraithou (talk) 22:55, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

For anyone reading reading this talk page without having followed our user talk conversations, this will look funny - me posting something october 2009 and then the next post is "Finn, are you still with me?" from a year later... The tricky part about the possible OR in your first paragraph here would be what Ivar may have thought about having a claim for Munster. We can't even be sure that he really tried to set himself up as king of Munster (he could have just tried to extend his own/Limericks influence without regard to any coiced division of the island), and we don't know his family background apart from a likelihood that he was somehow linked with the Ui Imair... It also seem to me that noone outside Eoganachta had a claim for Muster except the "right of the strongest", despite pseudo-historical constructions by later O'Brien writers. Do you know of any secondary sources discussion Ivars possible motivations? Finn Rindahl (talk) 05:57, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

I have the feeling I have come across one or two but I don't trust my memory. They may have been my own speculations. However the suggestion is not terribly revolutionary because I do know it has been suggested that his contemporary Olaf Cuaran was making his own bid for the High Kingship. Then his family were routed in the Battle of Tara. For all we know Olaf was inspired by Ivar! In Munster the Dal Cais were only able to become so unbelievably pretentious after the Eoganachta crippled themselves. Mael Muad of Raithlinn was an outsider but still theoretically a legitimate claimant, and following the annals we can see he evidently tried to establish himself before Mathgamain, who then officially began his usurpation when he seized the hostages already taken by Mael Muad. At this point the Dal Cais were still probably regarded as utterly illegitimate but as Mael Muad was based in the south Mathgamain and his people (mostly thugs, probably) had much easier access to leaderless Cashel. So then we have Ivar, who as you say was probably not new to Limerick at all, and might be considered a Munster native (for all we know he and Donnuban grew up together), watching from the sidelines and likely well informed about Mathgamain's illegitimacy and Mael Muad's semi-outsider status. We know that just fighting and winning battles, like Mathgamain was now known for, does not make one royal or potentially kingly of the greatest type, and just being legitimate, like Mael Muad, does not help with geography and automatically relocate your substantial power base from south Desmond all the way up to Cashel.

So comparing the reliable and believed to be contemporary Annals of Inisfallen plus the later AFM with the Cogad we can see that Ivar probably wasted no time, if he actually made a major move. Donnuban was almost surely helping him but I doubt Cogad's claim that Mael Muad was also doing so at this time. Note he sided with Mathgamain against Ivar in 972 and if the two were ever allies it was probably only a few years later when Ivar's position was already ruined. I suspect that Donnuban's association with both, combined with later O'Brien claims, are responsible for the confusion. Pretty obvious.

Another thing to consider is the great possibility that Cogad puts in the early and mid 960s what Ivar was actually doing in the late 960s and early 970s, either the result of confusion or for the purpose of making the Dal Cais victory at Sulcoit against an unnamed leader, who may not even have been Ivar, look like it resulted in the significant Norse expulsion the collaboration of 972 actually produced. This I may have read somewhere. In any case we can be fairly confident Ivar was the problem solved in 972 and we still have a potential attempt at at least the overlordship of the province.

Finally we have Ivar of Waterford to consider. We don't know what he was doing. Also Woolf suggests that his appearance as an "ally" of Mathgamain in Leinster in 969 may be a mistake and that it might have been Ivar of Limerick (personally I doubt this). The help of the Deisi Muman in 972 is very interesting, and then we have to remember that Donnuban was also associated with Ivar of Waterford. Then we also have the Limerick-Waterford collaborative raid on Emly following Sulcoit. This probably puts Ivar of Waterford in Munster proper. So we might have a considerable "Two Ivars" problem. And finally if you check the Annals of Inisfallen in 990 you'll see that a son of one or the other Ivar was in both Waterford and on Scattery. I have seen this entry elsewhere assigned to 972, conveniently the year of the great expulsion/revolt. I get the sense that Munster for a period found itself under major assault from both Limerick and Waterford at once. No doubt Ui Fidgenti was more than a little involved. Donnuban, probably half Norse, is not mentioned helping "Gaeldom" in 972. He was not to be trusted.

Really I should write a paper but then I might be accused of plagiarizing myself. Maybe I'll write one anyway. DinDraithou (talk) 17:28, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

If you ever do, please send me a copy :) A different thing to consider (pointing in the opposite direction) - regarding the CGG (and probably other accounts of this time as well), is that Mathgamain (and thus Dal Cais and BB) are portrayed as seeking leadership in Munster in order to be able to stand against the foreigners (i.e. Ivar&co). The stronger the foreigners had been before Mathgamain&Brian took, the more just their "usurpation" would seem for the following generations. Thus it would be in the interest of O'Briain historians to describe Ivar as more foreign, more cruel and most importantly - more powerful - than he (probably) actually was. Per O'Briain propaganda it would be most convenient to say that Mathgamain took the (non-existent) throne of Munster from Ivar the foreigner rather than from the hereditary Eoganachta (or from the weak&divided Eoganachta to prevent Ivar from taking it). Finn Rindahl (talk) 19:24, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

All of that is a definite possibility (maybe we should write that paper together). But anyone can be strong briefly and Ivar surely did have some regional support. And the province could be effectively dominated from the city as Brian and his descendants, who were technically Ivar's successors, would later prove. Notably Cashel ceased to be the capital of Munster after Ivar, so he very well might have inspired his successors, which I'm almost sure has been written somewhere. His great dun was specifically targeted by the Gaelic alliance in 972. I have to concede that from the Gaelic perspective the Dal Cais could really have "saved" Munster from Ivar's dynasty temporarily because the Eoganachta, with the exception of distant Mael Muad, were incapable of doing anything after the end of the dynamic Cellachan. Notably CGG says Ivar took strong overlordship over everyone Gael and Norse alike. But you're probably right he was not as powerful, however briefly, as he is portrayed in CGG. I doubt he would have gotten the submission of the distant Mael Muad and others like the Deisi Muman near Ivar of Waterford's territory, so we are probably talking about at most a brief overlordship of modern counties Limerick, Kerry, Tipperary, and north Cork. If achieved this would have made him "High King with opposition", two steps away from actual monarch. Munster was of course like Ireland in miniature and a limited number of the Eoganachta were ever monarchs in control of the whole thing. Conceivably Ivar could have established this overlordship of "Luimnechmumu" quite quickly given the resources of the city. Or it could have been a slower process beginning in the 950s when Cashel was "guttering out" as Kelleher properly put it. Norse expansion within the province may not have been much of a threat until a strong dynast "appeared" and started giving orders. Also Cellachan was allied with Limerick, as were previous kings of Cashel (like Tara and Dublin). The Eoganachta seem to have had a particularly good relationship with Limerick and very few attacks from it in the province are reported in the annals. Typically Connacht was the victim, or anywhere near the Shannon. Outside the ridiculous CCC, in real life, the Eoganachta were not anti-Norse at all, and even in his account the author has a hard time with it. Amlaib became a popular name in Desmond, especially among the descendants of the Eoganacht Chaisil. DinDraithou (talk) 22:43, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

Authority in Irish society was hedged with tradition and even notional overlordship was usually recognised to some degree. However, as was proved by the Dal Caisians and later the Anglo-Normans, the only way to overset the status quo was the application of raw military power. I think that the prerequisite for making a case for Ivar making a serious bid for overlordship in Munster is pinning down the nature and degree of the military force he had access to.Urselius (talk) 08:46, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

Excellent points. We know that Limerick was viable on land at this time because of Sulcoit, which is mentioned in the AI and referred to in AFM, both independent of CGG. We also know that there were several longphuirt in the countryside to the south and southeast of Limerick in the first half of the tenth century, although how long into the second half these remained is unknown. Evidently at least Donnuban's native territory, the northeastern quarter of Ui Fidgenti, was crawling with Norse people in the second half, and this likely extended into northeastern Tipperary. We can easily imagine he recognized Ivar's authority, and/as they were also evidently related, and CGG appears to say as much in several passages. Ui Fidgenti at this time controlled possibly one seventh of Munster and Donnuban was the third or fourth strongest king within the province's 10th century borders. And we know Ivar's army was still viable in the year after he was killed on Scattery because we find it likely now under Donnuban's command in one or possibly two instances, for which see his article (probably some of what of this force survived never left Ui Fidgenti again and have many descendants in Munster and around the world today. Some probably adopted a certain Gaelic surname, and I am not the first to wonder. See some later weird and suspicious activity). Moving out of this territory, there was some Norse presence in Kerry and it has been associated at least economically by scholars with Limerick. See the paper on Begenish by Sheehan/Hansen/O Corrain, and also Valante's book. Kerry connected Limerick to Cork with waystations, Begenish apparently being one. Scattery was the first major stop from Limerick and is considered to be the alternate seat of the kingdom, which is why Ivar was still king of Luimnech to 977. Brian, still a Dalcassian thug and no royal at this point in his career, probably destroyed most everything on Scattery in 977 and he was much criticized for it. Back to Ivar's possible resources in the 960s and early 970s, I add to the list Ivar of Waterford, noting they probably attacked Emly together and at least do not appear to have been competitors, since Waterford was mainly active in Leinster and was eyeing Dublin. So he may have been perfectly willing to help, and was also associated with Donnuban (who seems to have rather gotten around). However, Waterford was also perfectly happy to associate with the Dal Cais at least indirectly at first, since they both showed up, among several others, to defend Ossory from Leinster (which it was more or less now in) in 969. Later he would be an ally of Brian but that does not mean he would not have helped his likely kinsman Ivar of Limerick in Munster earlier. So potentially Limerick's combined resources were very substantial, and enough to overwhelm the area of the province mentioned above, namely modern counties Limerick (automatic), Kerry, Tipperary, and north Cork... with the possible addition of Waterford also which may or may not explain the mention of the king of the Deisi Muman in 972. Clare and south Cork were probably out of the question. DinDraithou (talk) 17:17, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

Good to see things are coming along nicely. Before I'm off again, one brief comment about the 'Irish' style of kingship portrayed in the Cogadh. Charles Doherty ("The Vikings in Ireland: A Review") cites the passage where Ivar/Ímair is shown appointing "kings and chiefs, township reeves and king's agents, in every territory and in every district after that, and he levied the royal tax." The text then elaborates a bit about the burdensome system he set up, but it does so in anachronistic terms which reflect the "political hierarchy and tax structure of Munster [Uí Briain territories] in the beginning of the 12th century". In a way, that does seem to tally with Finnrind's remarks about Uí Briain propaganda exaggerating the threat presented by a foreign ruler. Cavila (talk) 19:06, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

Great find, Cavila. It does in a way, by showing us much or all of that passage does not belong to the 10th century. Clearly this part of the text is full of exaggerations and all the (unfortunately abbreviated) Annals of Inisfallen confirm is that Imar was "up to something", although this is better than being up to nothing. Because he is the first we have after the death of Aralt mac Sitric in 940, for all we know he was mostly focused on reestablishing the Hiberno-Norse kingdom, or simply defending it against the increasingly maniacal Dál Cais, who were looking more and more like the early Third Reich every day (an interesting parallel). This is one way to read CGG by the moment, to see Sulcoit as a preemtive strike or retaliation, and the Norse officials as some attempt to restore or maintain order in the increasing chaos. I have seen the attack on Emly guessed to be relaliation for the plunder after Sulcoit but cannot remember where.

I draw attention to the more annalistic passages still to be found in the main narrative. Here we have Ivar moving around in Munster for the submission of the various kings before Sulcoit. On p. 73 we have three kings who won't submit that he kills, the first one listed being Faelán mac Cormaic, king of the Déisi (the other two are found in no other surviving source). Todd points out that AFM thus agrees chronologically because he is mentioned dying in 964.10[966], although no cause is given. AI966 also gives no cause. But I wonder if our Faelán is possibly really the one alive in 972 (AI) and involved in the expulsion? CGG-inspired interpolations in both to remove Faelán as a helper from 972? That's not supposed to be the case with AI. Interestingly Brian later had some issue with his son Domnall and attacked him. Maybe we really have two Faeláns involved in all this or AI972 should be read mac Faelán? AI975 then gives us "Death of Cormac, son of Faelán, by the army of Mathgamain." Anyway, who knows. I can find no other Faeláns besides the father of the king in Leinster. But I don't like that AI appears to contradict itself, or worse, that our period may be quite tampered with. Notably we don't get to know what happens after AI974.5: "The son of Bran took the hostages of Mumu from Luimnech southwards, and marched against Mathgamain". But I can guess. And we don't have any entries at all for the second half of 969, or all of 970 and 971, before in 972 we all of all sudden have the great expulsion, led by Mathgamain. What a bunch of crap. Now we don't even know where some of it really goes. Our AI redactor obviously did not have the same purpose as the author of CGG. DinDraithou (talk) 03:01, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Although I'm not convinced, I may have found a solution to the Faelán problem. We have in AI980.5 the "Repose of Faelán son of Caellaide, abbot of Imlech Ibuir." Ivar or his relations of course attacked Emly in 968.

Also Cavila, if you can tell me the page number in Doherty it would be great, or you can add him and his observations to the article yourself. I see his article is in an important volume I don't have. DinDraithou (talk) 03:14, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

OK so, I've let Doherty interfere with the text a bit. The volume which contains his article is a great read, absolutely. A good mix of history, archaeology and literature, though it's nowhere near comprehensive. The article you'd need most is probably the one you're already familiar with (Corráin's "Viking Ireland - an afterthought"). I'm off again. Cavila (talk) 18:57, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

Thank you! The article now looks worthy of expansion. I have created rather too many in my short time at Wikipedia and so left many neglected. Right now I'm working out how to do it right here because this expulsion comes five years after Sulcoit, at least in AI. We're looking at a chronological mess because he doesn't appear to actually leave Ireland after the battle in AI, and in 969 kills Beolál Litil, whom Downham identifies with the king of south Brega or Loch Gabor. Since this follows Emly it just looks like his army went inland. I'm beginning to suspect roots in Dublin. One writer online has guessed he was a son of Amlaíb mac Gofraid (died 941), noting the name of one of Ivar's sons, but I don't think the annals offer enough support to even mention the possibility here. Also one way to interpret the soon to come actions of Maccus is to assume Ivar himself was related to Aralt mac Sitric. Cogad of course gives his third son as Aralt.

I just discovered you are the principle author of Eric Bloodaxe. I aspire to that quality here. You know we could probably find a way to connect them just for fun. Not only are the characters similar but we have the possibly common element of the Isles dynasty! I've found in your talk archives that Aralt mac Sitric was your own scholarly addition to Eric and will see who and what I can find that might support it. DinDraithou (talk) 16:52, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

Ah well, I never finished writing that article, with has left me with the slightly nagging feeling that I will have to face my responsilibities and resume work one day. As it stands, there are about four major concerns. First of all, the structure. Many of the details derived from later sagas and such would be more at home in sections on the development of Eric Bloodaxe as a literary figure, including one on the authors' use of skaldic poetry and other sources. Second, I will have to track down an important article by Clare Downham, published in the journal Mediaeval Scandinavia. The libraries in my vicinity don't hold a copy of volume 14 (2004) last time I checked. Third, I'm not terribly familiar with the important works produced on Old Norse literature (let alone those published in Scandinavian languages). Perhaps Finnrind or Haukurth could be of some assistance here (wink wink, nudge nudge)? Fourth, some comments still need support from secondary sources or else they should be deleted for falling foul of original research. That's the current state of affairs in a nutshell, as far as I can recall. 'Real life' business currently prevents me from addressing these concerns, but it will come to that, I'm sure. In the meantime, you may enjoy this (from 1981, not too shoddy). Regards, Cavila (talk) 10:57, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

You're right, it was surprisingly good, and I actually watched the whole thing. Back to academia, I would like to see this article by Downham too. It's nice that Eric is well covered and has a lot of friends out there. Not so our Ivar, whom scholars after Todd don't seem to know what to do with and no longer care about, except for maybe Downham, who could be his savior. Here is someone who could very well have set himself up as a regional overking for a little while when the Dál Cais were little more than pretentious celebrities and the Eóganachta were doing whatever they were doing, being royal as ineffectually as they could possibly manage. It would not have been hard for Ivar, and the Annals of Inisfallen allow for the possibility. Back to Eric, I now have serious doubts about his legendary pedigree but also note that Eric was not a Norse-Gaelic name. Most importantly, this was likely not an Uí Ímair dynast. I wonder if Downham or anyone notes this. I am not well read in Eric or Northumbria. DinDraithou (talk) 04:57, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

Downham does in fact suggest that he is Ui Imair. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 01:20, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

So she does, in both her book and in that paper. I was worried I might have said something stupid, but got sidetracked and didn't come back to it. Though I've not seen her paper I have had the book for a long time, but I didn't know my Irish sources well a year ago and was just getting started when I first read it. I don't find her argument that he should belong to the Uí Ímair the most convincing but a separate article for the historical York dynast is required to explore this and other possibilities without the Scandinavian sources. She cites Woolf having also suggested his membership and the possibility is easily enough found in our primary sources. Whether he belonged to the Uí Ímair or not he looks less and less like Bloodaxe. Cavila, you might find it much easier if you split your work into two articles. Similarly we will eventually need an Ímar (died 873) distinct from Ivar the Boneless. At least in the case of Ivar of Limerick here we have a character in later literature who is certainly "identical" with the person in the annals, requiring this particular article be difficult. The others don't have to be as much. DinDraithou (talk) 04:25, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Sources

So I've reread the article by Ní Mhaonaigh on the Cogad and the annals, which I first read a long time ago. Here are some key points:

1. The Annals of Inisfallen, the best surviving chronicle for Munster, are quite abbreviated as they have come down to us, but they preserve by far the most and most reliable mentions of Imar's activities. It can no longer be known what entries might be missing and any victories or successes could have been edited out by Ua Briain redactors.
2. Much of the Cogad itself is now regarded to be more or less reliable except where obviously flowery and exaggerating. It probably preserves entries which should appear in the Annals of Inisfallen (or its source) but do not in the abbreviated version we have.
3. The Cogad also preserves some history from local sources now lost.
4. I was wrong above and the Annals of the Four Masters are in fact influenced by the Cogad, although this is not necessarily so bad in itself. The problem is that they are not the best source "on their own" and are probably riddled with not the best interpolations. I have noticed that Mathgamain gets a lot of victories over the Gaill of Limerick in AFM and that these basically all look the same, like Sulcoit over and over again. So here Cogad is probably more reliable than AFM!
5. The Annals of Ulster are not of much use for this period in Munster.
6. The Annals of Tigernach might have been but after a long gap start again just a few years too late.
7. The Chronicon Scotorum is an abbreviated version of the source for the Annals of Tigernach.
8. The Annals of Clonmacnoise are not of much use.

So we have the Annals of Inisfallen, abbreviated as they are, and the Cogad itself for the majority of our history of Imar. Some entries in AFM for this period look harmless enough and are probably fine. AI gives us a maximum of nine entries involving Imar, for which and AFM again see User:DinDraithou/Ivar of Limerick. Ten we do not have because Máel Muad's foray in 974.5 was soon after Imar was abducted by Maccus, although this is might be related (somehow). DinDraithou (talk) 02:56, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

Rí Gall

So far as I have been able to discover Ímar is the only king not of Dublin or the Isles, Northumbria or Norway ever to be so styled. He is styled this in the Annals of Inisfallen only, but I see no reason to question it because that source, although tampered with, and sharing sources with it, is not at all like the Cogad. In the latter he is styled Ard Rí Gall (p. 48) and later on in the same has become Ard Rí Gall Muman ocus Gáedel (p. 70). And interestingly, even though he has allegedly already been driven out of Limerick twice and had his fortress burned twice, in the Annals of the Four Masters he is still styled Imhar, lord [king] of the foreigners of Luimneach in 974.

Concerning Ímar's degree of sovereignty, maybe I'm just a partisan but I feel no obligation to include in the article Downham's totally unsupported speculation that he may have been subject to Mathgamain when active in the neighborhood of Dublin in 969. First of all Downham buys the Dalcassian propaganda and "myth of sovereignty" we're all familiar with, and she is weak in Munster, the same thing. Second, there is no such thing mentioned in the Cogad! Moving on to Woolf, I don't know what to do with his suggestion that it may actually have been Ímar of Limerick and not Waterford supporting the Osraige alongside Mathgamain and others in 969. This is our "AFM967.12[969]: An army was led by Murchadh, son of Finn, into Leinster and Osraighe, and they remained five nights there; but he was overtaken by Mathghamhain, son of Ceinneidigh, with the men of Munster, the two Eili, the Deisi, and Imhar of Port-Lairge, with the foreigners and the Osraigh. Murchadh burned Dun-Ua-Tochmairc by force; but they escaped before his eyes, without leaving a man or a horse behind." This is only reported in AFM and thus could record anything if there is anything genuine about it at all. But it does at least have the virtue of being possible in some way. This would be some months after Ímar kills Beolán so we know he is probably still in Ireland and that Osraige and Leinster are within his reach. Also it does seem rather early for Ímar of Waterford who does not appear "again" until 982.

But I have my own suggestion: the Annals of Inisfallen and the Cogad, both relying on the same source, are wrong and it was actually Ímar of Waterford who killed Beolán Lítil in 969. He is the one who had the rivalry with the Dublin dynasty. Thoughts? DinDraithou (talk) 19:03, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Your explanation does indeed seem more plausible than that Ivar of Limerick, acting on his own iniative, should engage in warfare around Dublin at this time (and Downham only "suggests" that "perhaps" Limerick was acting on behalf of Mathgamain), but it does seem strange that AI should confuse the two Ivars - a later gloss is possible I suppose. It would certainly be helpful to have critical comments to the text of AI here. But, alas, the curse of Wikipedia - as long as noone else suggests that perhaps it was Ivar of Waterford who killed Beolán Lítil it's a no-go here as OR...

Moving on to Woolf: Where does he make that suggestion about Ivar of L. vs Ivar of W. ?

...and concerning Rí Gall, for instance AI995.3: Death of Ragnall grandson of Ímar, king of the foreigners. / Bas Regnaill h-uí Ímair, ríg Gall. Finn Rindahl (talk) 20:40, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

He's assumed to refer to Dublin, with AI probably being confused in addition. For 994.7[995] AU reports "Ragnall son of Ímar was killed by Murchad." This was when his father Ímar of Waterford was reigning in and then being expelled from Dublin. Some seem to interpret this as Ímar installing his son there but in the end the meaning is the same. AT and AFM give no patronymic but the two are included in the same entry. For 988[?] the Annals of Clonmacnoise report "Hymer raigned in Dublin after Awley. Randolphe was killed by the Leinstermen, Hymer was put to flight and Gittrick was king of Dublin in his place." In her Prosopography Downham fails to include the AClon entry.

Check your email. Yeah, it would be serious OR to mention it in the article but a respectable case can certainly be made that AI/Cogad have it wrong (I'm rather proud of myself). There would appear to be some debate about the reliability of the Annals of Inisfallen. I noted in the paper you sent me that Ó Corráin questions them. Ní Mhaonaigh simply says that they increasingly became an Uí Bhriain chronicle, and that is saying plenty. However, Ímar of Limerick is undeniably associated with the most Norse activity in western Ireland, winning or losing, since the 930s. It's a damned shame about that gap beginning mid 969, and the other sources too. DinDraithou (talk) 21:50, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

I must be tired. Woolf makes his suggestion on p. 216 in From Pictland to Alba. Check your email. DinDraithou (talk) 22:27, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Got he e-mail, thanks a lot! I had actually already found that reference in Woolf but not gotten around to respond to you - I don't think it's worth mentioning in this article proper, but it could be added in a note. After all, he just writes "may" with no added support for this suggestion - and while I hold Woolf in very high regard this Ireland isn't really his field of expertise. Finn Rindahl (talk) 23:26, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Annals of Inisfallen

• AI1004.5 Death of Muiredach son of Diarmait, king of Ciarraige Luachra; and the grandson of Aralt died in Mumu.