User talk:Kleio Artemia/Roman conquest of Anglesey

Hi, your draft says "The religious Druids of the Celtic tribes had recognized Anglesey as an important religious site, due to its marshes and bogs."

The reference says "one thing's for sure, Anglesey's water and bogs were clearly a prime focus of religious activity." That's not quite the same thing, and I can assure you there's nothing very unusual about Anglesey's water and bogs. If I wanted to put in a sentence like that I'd probably write something more like "The Druids had recognized Anglesey as an important religious site. Evidence of this has been found in its marshes and bogs."

Also, separately, personally I'd really prefer the quotations from Tacitus to a rehashed version. Contextualizing is good, but removing or mangling our only descriptions probably isn't.

And, whatever anyone says, the Menai Strait isn't particularly shallow near Bangor. There are wide sand flats which dry at low tide, and the old route to the ferry went across them, but the main channel is narrow and deep there. At the correct state of the tide, this means it's a shorter distance to swim than across the channel further south. And the banks are steeper, so I presume easier to defend.

I hope this helps. Richard Keatinge (talk) 18:09, 3 March 2021 (UTC)


 * Thank you for the feedback, this is all a first for me so I appreciate your thoughts. I can definitely leave the Tacitus quotes in and just add some of my work to the introductions for each invasion, I have also made some edits to the other concerns you raised.Kleio Artemia (talk) 00:35, 4 March 2021 (UTC)


 * Just trying to be useful, this is entirely a matter for you and your peers/instructors (until it gets into mainspace of course).


 * On the quotations, if there's one thing I dislike, it's paraphrasing good primary sources. That process can't add any more information and can easily garble what there is. Context, background, and interpretation is great of course, but I still have a strong preference for retaining the complete quotations if they're not too long, and in this case I don't think that they are. You have also inspired me to plan a couple of pictures of the various suggested crossing sites - when the weather and COVID restrictions allow. Richard Keatinge (talk) 15:24, 10 March 2021 (UTC)


 * As an example, we have "The ability of the cavalry to swim beside their horses in order to cross rivers, is linked to the Batavians suggesting that Paulinus' cavalry might have come from the Batavi tribe." It's referenced to a perfectly good source, "A companion to Roman Britain. Malcolm, FSA Todd, Historical Association. London: Historical Association. 2004. ISBN 1-4051-2893-3. OCLC 55880775." But it fairly directly contradicts Tacitus, who specifically mentions the Britons' skill in swimming in this section, not the Batavians. I suppose that Batavian skill, which is indeed recorded elsewhere, could form part of an extended disquisition on swimming cavalry, but, despite the reliable source, this article probably isn't the right place even to mention Batavians. Despite the reliable source, to suggest that Batavians were involved seems to be an example of garbling information. I still believe that these quotations, which succinctly encompass the entire written record of the matter, should form the bulk of this article.


 * Again, this is your page and you are in charge of it; even in mainspace I have no more authority than anyone else. Enjoy yourself! I hope Dr Austen gives you extra credit for dealing with editors who disagree with you and her. I'll try to get some pictures of suggested crossing points - our lockdown has just been eased, but the weather was too miserable today. Richard Keatinge (talk) 22:45, 14 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Sorry I haven't responded I've been busy with other school work, but I appreciate your concerns for the article and I see your point about the Batavians. I really appreciate your feedback so no worries about disagreeing, that's how wikipedia works right.Kleio Artemia (talk) 19:37, 3 April 2021 (UTC)

Aftermath etcetera
I wonder how you'd feel about putting the bits about Tai Cochion, forts, etc, in a final section, possibly entitled "Aftermath". I'd write something about effective Roman rule in Anglesey lasting until the late 300s, with extant remains including Tai Cochion and the Holyhead fort, and the Parciau hill fort showing something of the life of the native population. Unfortunately I'm not aware of any relics of the actual battles or campaigns, nor would we expect to find anything identifiable.

I find another factoid, again from William Manning: "the Druids used Anglesey as a religious site because of its marshy landscape." Again it appears to be unsupported speculation - which is OK from a reliable source if it's a view compatible with an academic consensus, that's useful to readers of an encyclopedia. This really isn't useful here, nor does it represent an academic consensus. Britain has plenty of other marshes and nobody else has suggested that Anglesey's admittedly rather large marshlands were particularly relevant to Druids.

I'm off work for a long weekend, the weather is sunny here, and our lockdown is slightly relaxed; I hope to get you a relevant picture or two by next week. Richard Keatinge (talk) 11:22, 2 April 2021 (UTC)
 * I think this is a good idea and I will change this section to Aftermath etcetera. I hope to touch on most of the sites you mentioned, and I'll look into the Manning quote you raised. Thank you so much for trying to take some pictures, that would be very helpful! I hope your long weekend is enjoyable and the weather stays nice! Thanks again for all the feedback, it's nice to get input from other editors! Also just letting you know that I will be adding my work to the mainspace in the next couple of days, it's the last step for my class, so feel free to improve it as you see fit, I definitely don't know everything.Kleio Artemia (talk) 19:37, 3 April 2021 (UTC)