Talk:Echmarcach mac Ragnaill

Margad
Benjamin Hudson (Viking Pirates and Christian Princes, pp. 142–143) says that that Margad represents Murchad (i.e. Murchad, son of Diarmait mac Mail na mBo). He doesn't connect Echmarcach with Gutthorm Gunhildarson and the expedition to Wales. Angus McLellan (Talk) 17:08, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Margad is equated with Echmarcach in a footnote in my copy of Heimskringla and that is all I know about this matter.  Fornadan (t) 20:22, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

Possibly the most likely?
There has been some very good work done on this article since I last read it, kudos to Brianann for excellent work. One small matter, I'm not sure wording like "possibly the most likely of all" in the paragraph "Uncertain parentage" is beneficial - might be better to just list the 3 (4) possibilities suggested by scholars without adding more weight than that already given by these scholars. Best regards, Finn Rindahl (talk) 17:19, 5 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Another point to the same paragraph, Downham p 29 is given as a reference after "One possibility[1] is that he was Ragnall mac Amlaíb (d. 980), son of Amlaíb Cuarán, King of Dublin and Northumbria (d. 980 or 981)[2]" - the figure on p 29 does not mention Echmarcach at all however. On the contrary, Downham p 193, figur 12, list Echmarcach as a son of Ragnall (Rögnvaldr) Gudrødsson (d. 1005), albeit with a questionmark. Finn Rindahl (talk) 18:43, 5 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Thanks Finn. OK, I understand what you mean, I'll try to make it more neutral. I guess I figured that her book was the more recent of the others I've used, and that she seems to have atleast leant towards Ragnall mac Gofraid. I think that the only sources I've read arguing for a Waterford connection are listed in her bibliography, and I figured that she must have taken these sources into account and yet still favoured that Ragnall mac Gofraid. From the little I've read atleast, the number of arguments seemed to have been weighted against a Waterford connection: Duffy/Oram vs Hudson/Etchingham/Woolf.
 * There are snippets of a 2006 source on GoogleBooks which I can barely get a glimpse of: Duffy's "The royal dynasties of Dublin and the isles in the eleventh century". It's not listed in Downham's bibliogprahy. I wish I could see what Duffy wrote in it, and I wonder if he added more to his argument for the Waterford Ragnalls. One thing I can just make out is that he seems to have considered rex innarenn to equate to "King of the Isles" rather than "King of the Rhinns" (p.57 "The difficulty lies in proposing '-inna-' as the Gaelic preposition in na ('in the [plural]') since a Latin form should follow rex, as in rex de Hibernia. It may therefore be more sensible to view it as a corruption or misreading of rex insularum, 'king of the Isles', not unlike the title given Echmarcach in the Irish annals"). It made me wonder what it would mean if the evidence for a Gallowegian connection was totally nixed. Could it tie into an argument for a Waterford connection somehow? It would seem to make it less likely that Echmarcach was a native of that region atleast.--Brianann MacAmhlaidh (talk) 10:48, 6 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Regarding Downham, she does indeed lean to Ragnall mac Gofraid - but the current version of this article could give the impression that she supports Ragnaill mac Arailt (d 980) (reference 2). As far as I can tell, only Todd (and Connon, probably(?) quoting Todd uncritically) are supporting this, by calling Echmarcach Sigtrygg Silkenbeards nephew. It seem to me that there are two main alternatives among modern scholars: one of the 2 Waterford Ragnalls or Ragnall mac Gofraid. Perhaps it would be better to present these two alternatives with the scholars supporting them (incorporating in the text what you have already written in note 1), and instead leave Todds outdated(?) proposition in a note?


 * Interesting that Duffy questions "Rex Innarenn"; I note that Etchingham (who often picks at this kind of details) translates it "King of the Rhinns" and also quotes Marianus as rex Inna Renn - not Innarenn fwiw. Finn Rindahl (talk) 13:15, 6 November 2012 (UTC)
 * The second ref just supports the range of dates and the relationship between the two men: "" The first ref, right after "One possibility", supports the possibility that these two men were Echmarcach's ancestors. I didn't mean for the article's refs to lend any weight to statements, or to link names to certain viewpoints, I only meant to show where the presented info came from. I figured that the note identifying the scholars would illustrate who thinks what. OK, I'll get to reworking the section.
 * Etchingham gives this as his source for Marianus' quotation: "Waitz, MGH SS 5, 559=PL 147, 788". Waitz's book is viewable on GoogleBooks, and reads "rex innarenn" on page 559. Do you know who/what "PL 147, 788" refers to? I'm not having much luck pinning it down on Google. When I Googled the transcription given by Etchingham, I turned up footnote 95 of Ó Corráin's Vikings in Scotland and Ireland in the ninth century, here, but he cites Waitz page 559.--Brianann MacAmhlaidh (talk) 10:24, 7 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Ok, I understand what you mean regarding the refs, but I'm not sure we really need a ref on these two mens death dates. Secondly, the way I understand placement of refs, "(d. 980 or 981).[2]" means that it is a ref for the whole sentence, while (d. 980 or 981)[2]. would imply that it is a ref only for the last statement in the sentence. Minor details for sure, but I got confused initially. Finn Rindahl (talk) 13:33, 7 November 2012 (UTC)