Talk:Battle of Glenmama

Some sources

Here is what the few sources I had at hand right now has to say about the battle:

• Clare Downhamn:Viking Kings of Britain and Ireland (p58):

"Then in 999 a battle was fought at Glen Máma, west of Dublin, in which Brian [Boru] and Mael Sechnaill won a victory over Sigtryggr. Sigtryggr's brother Haraldr fell in the engagement and losses appear to have been heavy on both sides, The victory was followed by the sack of Dublin A.D. 1000, when the settlement was burnt." She makes reference to

• Cronicon Scotorum

"A great army was led by Mael Sechnaill son of Domnall and by Brian son of Cendétigh to Glenn Máma and the foreigners of Áth Cliath came to attack them, and the foreigners were defeated and slaughter inflicted on them, including Aralt son of Amlaíb and Culén son of Etigén and the nobles of Áth Cliath, and Mael Sechnaill and Brian went thereafter to Áth Cliath and were a week there and carried off its gold and silver and captives, and expelled the king i.e. Sitric son of Amlaíb."

• Annals of Inisfallen

"AI999.4

A slaughter of the foreigners of Áth Cliath by Brian,son of Cennétig, together with the choice troops of Mumu, and the best part of the foreigners of Ireland fell therein, i.e. in the battle of Glenn Máma."

as well as AFM (already qouted in article), Annals of Clonmacnoise 991=998 and Annals of Boyle. She doesn't however refer to

• Annals of Ulster

"U999.8

Brian, king of Caisel, led an army to Glenn Máma and the foreigners of Áth Cliath, accompanied by the Laigin, came to attack him. And they were defeated and a slaughter was inflicted on them, including Aralt son of Amlaíb and Cuilén son of Eitigén and other nobles of the foreigners. This happened on Thursday the third of the Kalends of January 30 Dec. Brian afterwards entered Áth Cliath, and Áth Cliath was plundered by him."

Hope some of this might be helpful, Finn Rindahl (talk) 00:09, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

It's still a bit unclear as to whether Sigtrygg was at the battle or in Dublin, as being expelled from there would imply (I suppose if he was at the battle, he would have had nowhere to retreat to other than Dublin, but it's seems strange that he would do so only to be expelled two days later). --Grimhelm (talk) 00:21, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Granted, your point is a valid one. Might be worth while mentioning actually. On the other hans we make the assumption that Haraldr led the Dublin forces solely on his fatal presence. Btw, which source does O Corrain quote when he states Maelmorda was present (I don't have "Ireland Before the Normans")? Finn Rindahl (talk) 00:38, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

He doesn't specify. He just says "He took Máel Mórda of Leinster and held him until he received the hostages of the Leinstermen" (p 123). This sentence comes immediately after the "crushing defeat" of Glenmama and is followed by the occupation of Dublin, which would indicate Máel Mórda's presence at Glenmama. --Grimhelm (talk) 01:03, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

I have included Sigtrygg in the infobox as a commander and added a note on the ambiguity of the sources. --Grimhelm (talk) 16:02, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Ok, it might have been even "tidyer" to write "unknown" (or something like that), and either discuss the uncertainty about who was really in command/present at Glen Mama in just one note or in the text. Another thing that's not really clear is the relationship between the dubliners/foreigners and the "Laigin": an alliance of "equals" or one part assisitng the other. But I'll stop nagging about this (should probably make an effort to improve my "juvenile sin" Battle of Tara instead) ;) Finn Rindahl (talk) 17:37, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

That's a good question. It would seem that it was an alliance of equals, because the two kingdoms were independent of each other but both subject to Ború. Leinster might have been recognised as having some 'seniority of command', if only because Máel Mórda was Sigtrygg's uncle, but in principle Máel Mórda had no command over Sigtrygg. --Grimhelm (talk) 23:40, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Accuracy

Just a note: the section on the location of the battle is entirely based on outdated and discredited information. It needs to take cognisance of later research. Todd's book appeared in 1867 and Shearman's theory, on which it was based, was discredited as early as 1911.~~ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Avocainthevalley (talk • contribs) 10:14, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

Location

Agree with above, excellent article but the Dunlavin thesis has long been disproved. Dun Liamhain and Liamhain are different places. Dunlavin would have involved a considerable detour by the Munster army, whereas Liamhain, Newcastle Co Dublin, is, then as now, on the direct approach to the city and was the seat of the Kings of Leinster at the time.Aina Rouge (talk) 14:02, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

Assessment comment

The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:Battle of Glenmama/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.

two sentances and unref. ErikTheBikeMan (talk) 02:04, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Last edited at 02:04, 9 October 2008 (UTC). Substituted at 09:10, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Battle of Glenmama. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080416173828/http://multitext.ucc.ie/d/Culture__Religion_in_Tudor_Ireland_1494-1558 to http://multitext.ucc.ie/d/Culture__Religion_in_Tudor_Ireland_1494-1558

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 02:10, 16 July 2017 (UTC)