User talk:Artowalos

Welcome Artowalos! Now that you've joined Wikipedia, there are users!

Hello, Artowalos. Welcome to Wikipedia and thank you for your contributions! I'm Ghmyrtle, one of the other editors here, and I hope you decide to stay and help contribute to this amazing repository of knowledge. Alternatively, leave me a message at my talk page or type  here on your talk page, and someone will try to help. Remember to always sign your posts on talk pages. You can do this either by clicking on the button on the edit toolbar or by typing four tildes   at the end of your post. This will automatically insert your signature, a link to this (your talk) page, and a timestamp. The best way to learn about something is to experience it. Explore, learn, contribute, and don't forget to have some fun! To get some practice editing you can use a sandbox. You can [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Mypage/sandbox&action=edit&preload=Template:User_Sandbox/preload create your own private sandbox] for use any time. Perfect for working on bigger projects. Then for easy access in the future, you can put  on your userpage.

 Sincerely, Ghmyrtle (talk) 20:40, 3 March 2013 (UTC)  [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Ghmyrtle&action=edit&section=new&preload=Template:Welcome_to_Wikipedia/user-talk_preload (Leave me a message)]

Español

Deutsch

Français

Italiano

עברית

Русский

日本語

Polski

فارسی

Cornwall
I have reversed some of your edits on Cornwall, for the reasons stated below.

"However, it is not stated whether the Cornish fought the West Saxons or whether this was an internal matter, or they were fighting some other enemy."

True, but the fact that the Britons are said to have won the battle strongly implies that their opponents were not other Britons, since this would render the statement meaningless. Therefore, while the possibility remains that this battle was fought against another foreign opponent (Irish?), it is unlikely to have been an internal conflict, and Wessex remains the most obvious opponent.

Artowalos (talk) 23:09, 13 November 2011 (UTC) I do not accept your reversion of my post. The assumption that you are making cannot be upheld - and my post is both technically correct and reasonable. Please reverse this back to my original. Thank you. Artowalos (talk) 23:09, 13 November 2011 (UTC) ARTOWALOS

"If they were indeed fighting the West Saxons it would seem most likely that this was either at the Tone or Parret estuary coinciding with an attack by the South Saxons at King Ine of Wessex's fortress at Taunton (Anglo-Saxon Chronicles). Since the entire penisula comprising Cornwall and Devon was in Cornish hands it seems improbable that Hehil was deep inside Cornwall."

This is quite speculative and in a summary account, I don't think that this much analysis of the location of one battle whose significance is unclear is really proportionate, except perhaps as a footnote. Also, some of it (the link with Sussex) is of dubious relevance and some (the rejection of a site well inside Cornwall) is persuasive at first glance, but less so when you make the comparison with events such as the invasions of Northumbria by Cadwallon in the 630s and Penda in the 640s, both of which involved much deeper penetration of hostile territory without producing any lasting result.

Artowalos (talk) 23:09, 13 November 2011 (UTC) Okay. Please retain as you suggest. Artowalos (talk) 23:09, 13 November 2011 (UTC) ARTOWALOS

"We are certain however, that the West Saxons only attempted physical control over North Somerset in 653 A.D. at the Battle of Bradford-on-Avon and East Somerset in 658 A.D. at the Battle of Penselwood ."

You may be certain, but I see no evidence to support such assertions. Also, the ASC does not identify Cenwalh's opponents at Bradford-on-Avon, while the tenth-century chronicler Aethelweard describes the battle as part of a civil war. We therefore seem to be dealing with a conflict within Wessex. Finally, given the degree of separation in both time and space, West Saxon expansion into Somerset is hardly relevant to an article on Cornwall in any case.

Artowalos (talk) 23:09, 13 November 2011 (UTC) No, this is not my assertion but the curators or Bristol City Museum and Somerset Archaeological Society. It fits well with the general timing and East-west growth of Wessex. Please reverse this change back. Thank you Artowalos (talk) 23:09, 13 November 2011 (UTC)ARTOWALOS

"Despite the close relationship between administrative, military and eccliesiastical power in the Seventh and Eighth Centuries, the West Saxons only achieved control over Wareham Abbey around 700 A.D. and Glastonbury Abbey sometime between 688 and 725 A.D. (Anglo-Saxon Chronicles), strongly suggesting the border between the Cornish and the West Saxons becoming finalised somewhere near the present Eastern border of Devon around 722 A.D."

Inaccurate. You cite the ASC (without specific textual references), but I can find no reference there to Wareham Abbey at this time, while the mention of Glastonbury is a reference to building work conducted there by Ine, which certainly indicates that it was under the control of Wessex during his reign but tells us nothing whatsoever about when this state of affairs had come into being.

Artowalos (talk) I can't dig out the references to either at the moment - I suspect they are in Susan Pearce's Kingdom of Dumnonia - so okay to leave as per your suggestion. Thank you. Artowalos (talk) 23:09, 13 November 2011 (UTC)ARTOWALOS

"This statement is problematic: The "Men of Devon" is a formula in Welsh manuscripts usually taken to mean "comrades" and is taken to apply to men in military service from a particular district. The "Welsh" in this context may or may not suggest the Cornish, and the Anglo-Saxon Chronicles is apparently disinterested in the outcome: All of which suggests an internal dispute for some unspecified reason."

The ASC is not a Welsh manuscript, nor do I see any plausible reason why, when identifying the participants in a battle as the men of Devon, it should mean anything other than, well, the men of Devon. I would say that it does indeed apply to men in military service from a particular district, that district being...Devon.

Artowalos (talk) 23:09, 13 November 2011 (UTC) No, I do not agree. "Men of" is a typically used device in Welsh poerty of the time. Please would you revert this section back. I stand by my posting. Thank you Artowalos (talk) 23:09, 13 November 2011 (UTC)ARTOWALOS

The argument based on the claim that the author was "apparently disinterested in the outcome", based presumably on the fact that the victors are unidentified, is flimsy to begin with and falls apart completely when you observe how many other battles appear in the ASC without the winning side being specified. Examples include the battles fought by Cynegils and Cwichelm against Penda at Cirencester in 628, by Cenwalh at Bradford-on-Avon in 652 and at "Posentes byrig" in 661, by Ine against Geraint in 710 and at "Woden's Barrow" against Ceolred in 715, by Aethelbald and Cuthred against the "Welsh" in 743, by Cuthred against the "Welsh" in 753, by the men of Kent at the Holm against the Danes in 902, by Edmund Ironside against Cnut at Penselwood in 1016...etc.

Furthermore, I cannot think of one single example of the ASC describing conflicts between the non-English inhabitants of the British Isles which did not involve any of the English kingdoms. Presumably therefore, if this really had been an internal Celtic dispute the authors of the ASC would indeed have been uninterested, and would consequently not have mentioned it at all. Zburh 13:48, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

"There is no evidence that Wessex had gained control over any part of Cornwall until the tenth century (although Alfred the Great owned land in Cornwall in the 880s)."

Yes there is. That IS evidence of it. The king of Wessex owned parts of Cornwall, indeed parts of it that were contiguous with the territories of Wessex. Ergo, he controlled those places. He presumably controlled them more closely than he did most of Wessex, since a king's grip on his own estates would be much tighter than that on lands which were merely part of his kingdom but owned by someone else.

Artowalos (talk) 23:09, 13 November 2011 (UTC) No, this does not follow. Rulers all over Europe owned land outside their own territories. As a compromise, may I suggest that you amend this to "there is evidence that estates were held.... although no charter relating to ruling the territory of Cornwall. Thank you. Artowalos (talk)ARTOWALOS

"The chronology of English expansion into Cornwall is unclear, but there is no evidence that it was ever absorbed into Wessex, no such statement being made in any of the primary sources of the time."

Depands what you mean by Wessex. In the case of the kingdom of Wessex (as distinct from the kingdom of England which it later became), you are correct. In the case of that expanded kingdom, and of the earldom of Wessex which for a time was a subdivision of it, you are not. There is evidence, as referenced in this article: the ASC's mention of the redistribution of earldoms in 1051. A statement in a primary source of the time. If you wish, you can argue about whether it amounts to categorical proof (although I find it hard to come up with any other interpretation of the evidence that does not strain credulity), but to say that there is no evidence is incorrect.

Artowalos (talk) 23:09, 13 November 2011 (UTC) There are NO charters stating Cornwall was ever part of Wessex. EVER. It is not good enough to omit this important information from any section on Cornwall. Please would you make this clear or else revert the edit. Many thanks. Artowalos (talk) 23:09, 13 November 2011 (UTC)ARTOWALOS

Zburh 13:11, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Royal Barge Gloriana showing the Flags of the United Kingdom (England, Scotland, Wales, Cornwall, Northern Ireland and Mann).png
 Thanks for uploading File:Royal Barge Gloriana showing the Flags of the United Kingdom (England, Scotland, Wales, Cornwall, Northern Ireland and Mann).png. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. —S MALL JIM   12:32, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

Disputed non-free use rationale for File:Royal Barge Gloriana showing the Flags of the United Kingdom (England, Scotland, Wales, Cornwall, Northern Ireland and Mann).png
Thank you for uploading File:Royal Barge Gloriana showing the Flags of the United Kingdom (England, Scotland, Wales, Cornwall, Northern Ireland and Mann).png. However, there is a concern that the rationale provided for using this file on Wikipedia may not meet the criteria required by Non-free content. This can be corrected by going to the file description page and adding or clarifying the reason why the file qualifies under this policy. Adding and completing one of the templates available from Non-free use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your file is in compliance with Wikipedia policy. Please be aware that a non-free use rationale is not the same as an image copyright tag; descriptions for files used under the non-free content policy require both a copyright tag and a non-free use rationale.

If it is determined that the file does not qualify under the non-free content policy, it might be deleted by an administrator within a few days in accordance with our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions, please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you. —S MALL JIM   12:35, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

Accusation
I strongly suggest that you read WP:No personal attacks. Accusing another editor of vandalism is a serious matter, and I recommend that you apologise for that comment. (You can't undo an edit summary - otherwise I'd simply suggest that you withdraw it.) The text that was added at Ide - whether by you, or another editor, is unclear - was unreferenced and apparently original research, which is unacceptable here. If it can be verified from reliable sources, it can be added in to the article text - but in my view it is inappropriately detailed for the opening paragraph. We can discuss that question further at the article talk page, if you are prepared to abide by the standards of civility required here. Ghmyrtle (talk) 17:18, 3 March 2013 (UTC)