Talk:Kings of the Angles

Map
I've removed the map from the article as it is problematic in several respects. The main problem is that the modern borders need to be removed and the colourisation should be backed up by a good source or removed completely. The map currently conveys the impression that some ancient border ran exactly where the modern border is between Denmark and Germany. No documentation presented for this very controversial statement. 2) The map conveys the impression that the Saxons were the first settlers in Holstein. No sources for this statement either, and it is definitely incorrect to lump the region east of modern Kiel along with the rest of Holstein. The area east of Kiel was originally settled by Slavic tribes, the German settlement came later. See e.g. Jette Kjærulff Hellesen & Ole Tuxen (1988): Historisk Atlas Danmark, Copenhagen: G.E.C. Gad, page 107 map c. for the outline of the original Slavic settlement. Please do not reinsert new maps unless they can be backed up by very solid scholarship. Valentinian T / C 21:30, 23 April 2008 (UTC)


 * The map indicates places described in the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle. It is really nothing to do with Germany and I don't know why this article is flagged as a German article. TharkunColl (talk) 23:08, 23 April 2008 (UTC)


 * I don't either, but the problem isn't with the WikiProject banner, the problem is the actual map itself. In its current state, the conveys the impression that the border between Angles and Jutes corresponded with the modern Dano-German border, which is not the case. It also conveys the impression that the Saxons lived in all of modern Holstein which is also incorrect. If you wish a map included here, please create one without the political borders. Valentinian T / C 20:09, 24 April 2008 (UTC)


 * I've changed it to reflect the ambiguity better. Some borders, however, are based on rivers and other natural features and are therefore more secure. TharkunColl (talk) 21:27, 24 April 2008 (UTC)


 * I prefer this version to the former one, but Skelbækken (the modern Danish border) is a tiny creek one or two meters wide, in contrast to the Eider which is an actual river. No similar geographical features exist in all of Northern Schleswig and there is no documentation that Skelbækken ever functioned as a border prior to 1920. The depiction of Saxons east of Limes Saxoniae also remains a problem. Do we have a credible source that the Saxons settled this region prior to the Wends, to be replaced by them later, but returning as part of the Ostsiedlung? Valentinian T / C 22:17, 24 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Would you like to amend the map to take this into account? TharkunColl (talk) 22:23, 24 April 2008 (UTC)


 * I'll start by asking User:Berig for a little input. He might have more information about this one since he predominantly works on Norse legends. Valentinian T / C 23:52, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

[outdent] I think the map is OK. According to legendary accounts Offa defeated his Saxon/Myrging opponents in a holmgang on an island in the Eider River, so presumably the Eider was the border between the Saxons and the Angles. As for the Slavs they did not arrive near the Elbe until the 6th century, at the earliest. Before the great migrations, Germanic tribes lived along the Baltic Sea coast as far east as the Vistula. These eastern settlements are thought to have been established during the Nordic Bronze Age and the Pre-Roman Iron Age and they lasted until the rise of Attila the Hun.--Berig (talk) 13:32, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

PS, I think that the top area should be coloured to be Jutish, unless it is to be used in an article on the Wendles of Beowulf.--Berig (talk) 16:06, 25 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Agree with the colouring of North Jutland, but it sounds to me like you're saying that everything south of the Eider River should be coloured with the Saxon colour? Valentinian T / C 00:08, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I don't know what to do with the south-eastern and south-western Saxon borders. In the south-west there should be Frisians and in the south-east there should be Varni.--Berig (talk) 07:03, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

genealogy
The article states that "if the genealogy is correct then Queen Elizabeth II is the 76th generation descendant of Sceaf". This is ludicrous. Nobody has ever claimed this. Presumably the author would have us believe that the Hanoverian kings were direct descendants of the Stuarts, who were direct descendants of the Tudors, who were direct descendants of the Plantagenets, and so on and so on all the way back to Sceaf? Mardiste (talk) 06:32, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

section headings
The section headings in this article need to be altered. The use of "Legendary kings" for the first list implies that those in the second list are not, while their historical reality is, at best, debatable. Basically, the division is just pre- and post-Woden/Odin, but I cannot come up with any elegant way of expressing it. Any suggestions? Agricolae (talk) 05:31, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

On topic
The article needs to be put back on track. It is supposed to discuss genealogical traditions on the kings of Angeln. It is not supposed to be about the Angles in general (who have their own article), let alone about possible developments in the 2nd century BC which may or may not ultimately have contributed to the formation of Angeln. I will take the liberty of pruning the material to result in an article that is actually discussing the topic advertised in the page title. --dab (𒁳) 09:16, 7 April 2012 (UTC)