Talk:Second Battle of Corbridge

Untitled
The text the article is purportedly taken from seems to be a copy of Battles of Corbridge, the article which I am splitting. ErikTheBikeMan (talk) 02:03, 28 October 2008 (UTC)


 * You should have moved Battles of Corbridge to First Battle of Corbridge, then split of this article from it. That way the edit history for both these articles would not be buried at a redirect to a disambiguation page. Srnec (talk) 02:45, 28 October 2008 (UTC)


 * I don't see that a split is necessarily in order. Woolf (Pictland to Alba, 2007), Downham (Viking Kings, 2007) and Duncan (The Making of the Kingdom, 1975) say one battle, as did everyone writing before 1942. One Ragnall and one battle suffice. The "first battle" can be mentioned in the same article. Angus McLellan (Talk) 17:59, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
 * That's what everyone before 1942 said. Shouldn't we be using current information on Wiki? And Srnec, sorry. This is my first spilt. ErikTheBikeMan (talk) 00:01, 29 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Everyone before 1942 and some people since and perhaps rather more today than was once the case. Essentially, it turns on whether the Historia de Sancto Cuthberto really does record two distinct battles at Corbridge, or just one battle twice. The other sources, the Annals of Ulster and the Chronicle of the Kings of Alba have just one battle, and the recent edition of the Historia by Ted Johnson-South (2002) goes with it being one battle twice rather than two battles. Recent work is generally on the side of one battle, witness Woolf and Downham, but not universally so. Hudson's Viking Pirates (2005, but probably rather earlier in reality as it doesn't use Johnson-South's edition of the Historia) sticks with two battles. It is as certain as anything to do with C10th Northumbria can be that there was a battle at Corbridge in about 918, much less so that there were two battles there in that decade. Angus McLellan (Talk) 01:00, 29 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Well, I seem to be in a minority of one, so I suppose we'll have to live with two articles. Angus McLellan (Talk) 00:16, 10 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Well, I created one article, you suggest one battle, and one user has split it into two. Seems like you're in a sort of majority of two against one. I would re-merge them, except that you apparently have a better awareness of the sources. I based the original article solely (I think) on Stenton. My merger would not do it justice. Srnec (talk) 01:07, 10 November 2008 (UTC)