Talk:Bridei son of Beli

Southern Ambitions?
Is there any evidence to support the statement that he was:

putting himself in a position to attack the Anglian possessions which existed in the far south - Lianachan 14:19, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
 * The evidence is deductive. His previous attacks, (unusually reported in the Irish sources) which follow a regular pattern, certainly did put him in a position to attack the anglian possessions in the far south. Direct evidence has it that he was fighting for "fighting for his grandfather's inheritance", and the only difference between the lands ruled by Bridei, and those by his grandfather, is that territory in the south had passed into (some form) of English domination. - Calgacus 14:28, 26 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Indeed. But I still think that the sentence I quoted is making a large assumption with regards to Bridei's intentions.  His grandfather's inheritance could just as easily mean a Fortriu that's free of Northumbrian overlordship. Lianachan 15:11, 26 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Well, it is clear that he was already king of Fortriu by that period. The whole issue depends on how much actual control the Northumbrians had of southern Pictland. If they controlled it, then Bridei clearly invaded; if they just claimed overlordship, then Ecgfrith invaded Bridei's kingdom, not the other way around. I'll stick a "perhaps" in. - Calgacus 15:14, 26 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Cool. I'm probably not making myself very clear.  Bridei was indeed King of Fortriu by that stage, as you say, and had recently either expanded or reasserted his influence.  James Fraser suggests, in his book The Battle Of Dunnichen, that Ecgfrith may have ventured north in response to a rejection of Northumbrian overlordship of Fortriu.  In meeting him in battle, I was suggesting that Bridei was fighting for his grandfather's inheritence by trying to prevent Ecgfrith reasserting his own hold on Fortriu.  Although I agree that he could have been maneuovering into a better position to attack southwards - I don't think there's sufficient evidence to confirm that this was indeed what he was up to. Lianachan 15:24, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
 * James Fraser was influenced by the idea that Fortriu was in central Scotland. This idea has be proven to be wrong, and the view in the article is very close to Fraser's current view. - Calgacus 15:26, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
 * I'd assumed that he meant a sort of Greater Fortriu, meaning the extent of Bridei's rule and including modern Angus/Tayside. However, I know what you mean. Given his recent acts of aggression, if that area hadn't already been under his sway it's certainly not unlikely he would have quite fancied it. Lianachan 15:51, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

Bridei's birth-date
How do you know Bridei was born no later than the year 628? What is your source(s)? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Cruithneach (talk • contribs).


 * I imagine that it would be the twin assumptions that (a) he was the son of Bili son of Neithon, and (b) that Bili son of Neithon was dead by c. 628 (e.g. Annales Cambriae translation s.a. 627: Belin dies.) Angus McLellan (Talk) 20:09, 8 April 2006 (UTC)


 * P.S. Please sign your comments like this: ~


 * Would you give any credence to the claim I read somewhere that Bili died in 633, possibly at the battle of Hatfield fighting alongside his fellow Britons? cruithneach (Talk) 08:22, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

I was wondering about both conjectural dates (i.e. 616 and 628). The first problem is that the identification of Belin in the AC with Beli of the Harleian genealogies is unconvincing for two reasons: that it is an isolated note of a North British ruler at a time when AC has no other such entries (they start only in '722' with Beli filius Elfin), and that Bartrum (Welsh Classical Dictionary) has another reasonable candidate in Belin of Llyn (who has the advantage of having the same name; i.e. 'Beli' is not the same as 'Belin'). The second problem is that Brude III's recorded intensive military activity falls in 680x685, this would surely be more likely of a war-leader in his 30's or 40's than an elderly ruler in his 50's or 60's. The general picture suggests Brude was about ten years younger than Ecgfrith, and born perhaps around 655x660. --Henrywgc 15:15, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Mother
This source says his mother was the daughter of Eanfrith of Bernicia. I don't know the evidence (or if it conflicts), but the article now says his mother was probably a daughter of Edwin. Everyking 08:58, 3 November 2006 (UTC)


 * The evidence is the Historia Brittonum's comment that Bridei and Ecgfrith were cousins (fratruelem suum). The literalist interpretation given here comes from Woolf's "Pictish matriliny reconsidered". It at least has the virtue of avoiding the Humpty Dumpty "it means just what I choose it to mean" school of scholarship. There are words in Latin for a vague relationship - agnatus, affinitas, cognatus - which would have served as well, if vague had been what was wanted. Ziegler has the relationship marked as hypothetical, and there are plenty of other interpretations of the kinship between Bridei and Ecgfrith in print.
 * The verse about fighting for his grandfather's inheritance comes from the C11th Fragmentary Annals of Ireland [which mistakenly links the poem with Aldfrith/Flann Fina rather than Ecgfrith]. The [?date?] Betha Adamnáin says that he was "the son of the King of Dumbarton" (mac rig Ala Cluaithi). Hope this helps, Angus McLellan (Talk) 10:24, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Requested move 18 March 2023

 * The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: MOVED. Hadal (talk) 22:13, 25 March 2023 (UTC)

Bridei III → Bridei son of Beli – Straightforward application of WP:COMMONNAME. Brocher Tam (talk) 18:51, 18 March 2023 (UTC)

Pretty much all modern reliable sources in English on Pictish history use this form or something very close to it. Examples:


 * - "Bridei son of Beli" (eg p. 37)
 * - "Bridei son of Beli" (eg p. 135)
 * - "Bridei son of Beli" (eg p. 95)
 * - "Bridei son of Beli" (eg p. 126)
 * - "Bredei son of Beli" (eg p. 188)

There are a few outliers, eg:
 * - like a few others predominantly uses the Gaelic form "Bruide mac Bili", but Clancy also gives the above form as an alternative when first mentioned: "Bruide mac Bili (a.k.a. Bridei son of Beli, 672?–693)" (p. 135)
 * - uses the Latin form "Bredei filius Bili" (eg p. 16), which is present in primary sources but rare in secondary ones.

These two are relatively unusual and as well as not being WP:COMMONNAME, would also be less preferred by WP:ENGLISHTITLE

No serious contemporary historian uses the completely anachronistic, fictional and obscure system of regnal numbers for Pictish kings that seems to have become the standard on Wikipedia, such as "Bridei III" here.

This change would obviously not be in conformance with WP:CONSISTENT, as most other Pictish kings (with a few exceptions eg Nechtan mac Der-Ilei) do seem currently to be named with regnal numbers. I am implicitly arguing here that all Pictish kings articles should be renamed to this format, as the same arguments used here are true for them as well. I havn't done a mass page move proposal because:
 * There are lots of them, and with inbound links, double redirects etc moving all at once would be a huge piece of work, and
 * While the status quo use of regnal numbers is indefensible in all cases, there are a lot of spelling variations and other factors that would warrant individual discussion on some individual pages as to what we should change them to (eg Nechtan vs Naiton; Wrguist vs Uurguist vs Urgust vs Vurguist; how do we disambiguate the two "Onuist som of Uurguist"s?).

I am going through these articles and improving them one-by-one, and would suggest moving them as part of that process Brocher Tam (talk) 18:51, 18 March 2023 (UTC)


 * Support. Srnec (talk) 16:09, 20 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Support – sounds reasonable.  Aza24  (talk)   03:41, 21 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Weak support I guess. I don't think the king is well known at all, and all the other Pictish kings have these numerals, yet it is true that he is better known as the 'son of Beli' than III and it may be that there needs to be a better way of handling Pictish kings. Deacon of Pndapetzim ( Talk ) 16:35, 23 March 2023 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.