Home
Posted By: Birdwatcher Clontarf revisted - 01/09/07
Though I'd run a short thread recounting what Edward Rutherford wrote in his excellent piece of historical fiction "The Princes of Ireland". Selected passages in total a bit to much to quote in one post...

First, on the origins of Brian Boru...
Quote
It was six centuries since Niall of the Nine Hostages had founded the mighty dynasty of O'Neill, and in all that time, despite the ebb and flows of power among the island's Celtic chiefs. no one had ever dislodged the O'Neills from the High Kingship, until now.

Brian: his father's given name was Kennedy, so he was properly called Brian, son of Kennedy. But like Niall of the Nine Hostages many centuries earlier, Brian was so well known for the tribute he collected that he was called "Boruma", the cattle counter, or Brian Boru. he had astounded all Ireland by his rise.

His people, the Dal Cais, had only been a small and unimportant Munster tribe in his grandfather's day. They had lived on the banks of the Shannon just upstream from where it opens out into its long western estuary. But when the Vikings founded their settlement nearby at Limerick, Brian's grandfather had refused to come to terms with them.

For three generations the family had conducted a guerrilla war against the Viking's river traffic. The Dal Cais had become famous. Brian's grandfather had called himself a King; Brian's mother had been a princess from Connacht; his sister had even been chosen as a wife by the king at Tara - though this hadn't done the family much good after she was executed for sleeping with her husband's son.

The Dal Cais were ambitious. They had a hardened fighting force. Brian's brothers had already tested their strength against several of the other rulers in the region. But no one could have imagined what they did next. All Ireland gasped when the news of it came.

"They've taken Cashel."

Cashel - the ancient stronghold of the Munster kings. True, the Munster kings were not what they were. But the cheek of it! And when the King of Munster got the Vikings of Limerick to join him to punish these insolent upstarts, the Dal Cais beat them all, and plundered Limerick, too. A few years later Brian Boru took over as King of Munster.

A minor chieftain's family had taken one of the four great kingships of Ireland - where the Celtic royal dynasties went back into the mists of time....

Brian was in his prime. The tides of fortune were with him. He was King of Munster. Where else could ambition take him? Only gradually did it become clear that he had decided to aim at nothing less than the High Kingship itself.

He was bold, methodical and patient. One year he moved against the nearby territory of Ossory; another, he took a great fleet into Connacht; a dozen years after becoming King of Munster, he even moved into the island's central heartland and camped by the sacred site of Uisnech.

He had taken his time, but the message to the O'Neill was clear; either they must crush Brian Boru or give him the recognition he asked for.

It was fortunate for Brian, and probably all of Ireland, that the O'Neill High King at this time was of a noble and statesmanlike mind. The choice was clear, but not easy; either he must challenge the Munster man to a war, which could only involve a huge loss of life, or he must swallow his pride and come to terms with him, if the thing could be done with honor.

He chose the latter course. And reviving the ancient division of the island into two halves, the upper Leth Cuinn, and the lower Leth Moga, he declared, "Let us rule jointly: you in the south, and I in the north."

"I should rule Leinster as well as Munster then, while you keep Connacht and Ulster," Brian solemnly agreed. "Which means," he pointed out to his followers afterwards, "that I shall control all the cheif ports, including Dyflin" [Dublin]. Without having to strike another blow, he had just gained all the richest prizes in Ireland.

Or thought he had.


Birdwatcher
Posted By: Birdwatcher Re: Clontarf revisted - 01/10/07
The Battle of Clontarf is commonly held to be the occasion the Brain Boru "drove the Vikings out of Ireland", a fiction as it turns out, largely derived from an account written by one of Boru's great-granchildren. By the time the battle was fought (1014) Dublin was a Viking settlement 150 years old, and from the beginning has Celtic residents as well as Norse.

The Viking King of Dublin, Sytric "Silkbeard" Olafsson, was the son of the famously beautiful but dark-hearted Gormflaith, who after the death of Sytric's father had been married for a spell to the O'Neill High King himself.

Gormflaith was Celtic Irish royalty, and Sytric himself was blood kin to the King of Leinster, Mael Morda,

Neither was Clontarf the first time Brian had moved against Dublin, in 999 he met and defeated in battle at Glen Mama ("Valley of the Gap") the combined Celtic/Viking forces of Leinster and Dublin, subsequently going on to occupy the city.

'Tweren't the first time Dublin had been overawed by the Irish niether, in 978 and again in 989 the then Irish High King O'Neill had laid seige to Dublin and exacted tribute, the second time defeating the Dubliners in open battle.

Clontarf then was the last of four times during those decades that the Dublin Vikings had battled and lost to the surrounding Irish.

Anyways, back to Rutherford's story, in the year 999, on the events leading up to the battle of Glen Mama.

Quote
The High King might have meant well, but when he gave the overlordship of their kingdom to Brian, the proud men of Leinster were unimpressed. Nobody had asked them. The king and the chiefs in particular were incensed. The new overlord, to be sure, would be wanting tribute and taking their sons as hostages for their good behaviour, in the usual way.

Whatever the Leinster men might have felt about the Vikings of Dyflin [Dublin] when they first arrived, the two communities had been living together for generations now....

True, many of the Vikings were still pagan, but even religion had to take second place where matters of honor were at stake. As for the Vikings themselves, they had been stubbornly resisting the control of the High King for a long time. They were hardly likely to submit to Brian Boru just because the O'Neill High King, who was too weak to fight, had told them that they should.

So it was that autumn that the King of Leinster and the King of Dyflin had decide to refuse to recognise the Munster man.... And now the Munster man was coming, and they had gone out to meet him


Hard to find any descriptions of the Battle of Glen Mama, other than it was long and bloody. Viking and Celts, by then as interrelated as Sigurd and Mael Morda, fought on both sides of that battle.

The aftermath was typical of that era, Brian briefly occupied Dublin, and afterwards gave his own daughter in marriage to Sitric. Brian himself took in marriage Gormflaith, mother of Sitric, who was to bear him a son.

Clontarf lay fifteen years in the future.

Birdwatcher
Posted By: Steelhead Re: Clontarf revisted - 01/10/07
That's the way I learned it.
Posted By: toltecgriz Re: Clontarf revisted - 01/10/07
So Steelie, what happened next?
t <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/smile.gif" alt="" />
Posted By: Birdwatcher Re: Clontarf revisted - 01/13/07
Other than the fact he wasn't killed, the aftermath of the defeat at Glen Mama did not go well for Mael Morda, the Celtic King of Leinster. Story has it that after the battle Boru's men found him hiding up a tree, and that he personally had been responsible for the defeat, having given poor advice to his Dublin allies.

Things apparently came to a head one year when a party of Leinstermen under the personal direction of Morda were en route to Limerick in the west (Lienster being east) with three huge tree trunks , these being part of the annual tribute due to Brian Boru who needed them to construct his ships.

(Couple of notable points here: Brian had learned a thing or two about the tactical value of ships from the Vikings. The other notable point being that back in the Celtic era parts of Ireland were famous for their forests, long since disappeared.).

Due to heavy rains the trip was not going well, and in an ill temper Morda took shelter at an inn where a son of Brian Boru happened to be staying. Upon defeating a friend of Morda at chess the son is said to have mocked Morda to the effect that his advice to his friend at chess had been about as bad as his advice to Sitric had been at the battle of Glen Mama.

Such things alone could apparently spark a war in that time and place, but there was more than that.

Gormflaith must have been a remarkable woman, and a child bride when she married Sitric Silkbeard's father. She was born a princess of Leinster around 960, making her 39 and reportedly stiil a great beauty at the time of Glen Mama.

The exact date of birth of Brian Boru is unknown, probably around 940, making him around 60 at the time of his marriage to Gormflaith, and she did bear him a son (or at least bore _A_ son, but no suggestion of cuckoldry comes down through legend). The marriage was the third for both, and reportedly a stormy one. Brain eventually cast her off and by the time of Clontarf she was back living with her son, King Sytric of Dublin.

The story goes that, as the war clouds gathered before Clontarf, she herself sent Sytric to invite the participation of the Manx Vikings (Isle of Man) under Brodir and the Orkney Vikings (Northwest Scotland) under Earl Sigurd.

A belittled King and a vengeful woman? Cause enough for war maybe, but there were other forces at work. Continuing his conquest of his fellow Irish after Glan Mama, Brian Boru initiated a campaign against the then High King in AD 1000, and claimed the High Kingship for himself in 1002, a move which left many embittered enemies.

Outside of Ireland at that time too Viking fortunes were on the rise, this being the swan song of the Viking era. To the likes of Brodir, Earl Sigurd and their Danish kinsmen, Clontarf doubtless presented the prospect of high adventure, and much gain.

Birdwatcher
Posted By: mathman Re: Clontarf revisted - 01/13/07
When I saw the thread I thought you were on your second tasting. <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/grin.gif" alt="" />

http://www.clontarfwhiskey.com/index2.php
Posted By: Birdwatcher Re: Clontarf revisted - 01/15/07
Naah, just me talking to myself about history again is all.

I never did know much about Brian Boru or Clontarf, until the book I mentioned sparked further investigation. Now I know a little more.

One thing puzzling about the Irish is how they managed to be so retrograde for so long compared to the rest of Europe and actually succeed in keeping their own sod. Turns out at Clontarf some of the Irish nobility showed up in chariots, which had gone out of fashion in Europe maybe 500 years earlier.

Nearly six hundred years AFTER Clontarf, the last free Celtic Lord of Ulster, the hard drinking, woman-chasing and reportedly charming Hugh O'Neill, would be the talk of London when he showed up at Queen Elizabeth's court in "wild" Celtic dress and with his personal retinue of Gallowglass.

Gallowglass at that time were a staple of Irish warfare, Gaelic-speaking Scots/Norse mercenaries from far west Scotland who wore helmets and chain mail and fought with Viking axes or two-handed swords (claymores). Essentially armed and armored similar to the Vikings had been at Clontarf (except that the claymore, or "great sword", was a more recent invention), this in an age where in the rest of Europe pikes, muskets and artillery had long been the order of the day. English mothers in Shakespeare's time would hush their little one's with the threat "Quiet, or the gallowglass will come".

During that same era, modern Tudor armies in Ireland were opposed by lightly armored Irish cavalry who had yet to adopt the saddle and stirrup, and who hurled javelins overhand in a manner contemporary with Ancient Greece.

But I digress, OK back to 1014, this is what Rutherford has to say about the events outside Ireland leading up to Clontarf...

Quote
The trouble had begun in England. More than a dozen years ago, at the very time that Brian Boru had crushed the Dyflin [Dublin] men at Glen Mama, the foolish Saxon king of southern England, known to his people as Ethelred the Unready, had unwisely attacked the Vikings of northern England at their mighty port of York.

He had soon paid for his foolishness. A fleet of Viking longships had crossed the sea from Denmark and returned the compliment. For the next decade, the southern English had been forcd to pay Danegeld - protection money - if they wanted to live in peace.

And now, this year, the King of Denmark and his son Canute had been assembling a great Vikng fleet to smash poor Ethelred and take his English kingdom from him. The northern seas were echoing with the news.

Every week, ships had come into the port of Dyflin with further reports of this adventure; small wonder then, if some of the Dyflin men were growing restless....

Because of the excitement caused by the English business, every Viking troublemaker and pirate in the northern sea was on the lookout for an adventure.

And now the men of Dyflin were going to get their chance. If the Celtic King of Leinster wanted to revolt, his Viking kinsman the ruler of Dyflin was ready to join him


Birdwatcher
Posted By: WMacD Re: Clontarf revisted - 01/15/07
Quote
Naah, just me talking to myself about history again is all.


Birdy, you're not talking to just yourself, I look forward to each of your installments with a great deal of interest. I know full well about the Gallowglass, it was a legitimate occupation and many members of Clan Donald hired themselves out as mercenaries. They were raised to fight and fight they did. It often mattered little who or what they were fighting for.

Another member of Clan Donald, in the person of Somhairle Buidh Mac Domhnaill (Sorley Boy MacDonald), the namesake of my youngest son, also had a lot of impact on County Antrim and the surrounding area. If you look it up, you'll also learn where the term, "beyond the Pale" originated.

I have spent many enjoyable hours reading about the Red Branch and the Tales of the Ulster Cycle. It's great mythology and a little bit of it might even be true. The Celts have an interesting history and one that I'm proud to be part of, even if only as a member of the Scottish diaspora.
Posted By: Birdwatcher Re: Clontarf revisted - 01/15/07
Well I DID know of the Pale, that Anglo-Norman legacy of Strongbow, for centuries the "English" part of Ireland before the establishment of the Ulster Plantations (and I'll look up the connection to your likely ancestor <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/cool.gif" alt="" />).

But there again though, after what? 400 years? it weren't the Irish "beyond the Pale" that became more English, but the English in the Pale that became largely Irish, Fitzgerald and such now being stereotypically Irish names.

IIRC the term "going native" was originally coined to refer to the frequent outcome when Englishmen were sent to live in Ireland. At least one Historian has it that it was largely Irish women who were responsible for this corruption, these women being famous both for their charms and their freedom of action, enjoying considerably more rights in a Celtic society than they would have in England, especially by the Tudor era.

Along those lines the aforementioned Hugh O'Neill himself was technically an Earl (of Thormond?), although thoroughly Irish, and had been raised in England and in the Pale specifically to try and Anglicise him. Didn't work apparently.

Near as I can tell things turned ugly for good in the Sixteenth Century with the founding of the Plantations and the introduction of religious differences into the fray, and sad to say the Native Irish were as least as much to blame as the Prods when the whole conflict took on an especially brutal and genocidal cast.

Birdwatcher
Posted By: WMacD Re: Clontarf revisted - 01/15/07
I should have known that you would be familiar with the Pale, you take your history seriously. The Highland Scots and the Irish both suffered the same fate at the hands of the English. The English viewed the Celtic peoples as barbarians and subhuman.

It wasn't until Samuel Johnson travelled to Scotland in the 1700's and his journey was chronicled by James Boswell in his work, The Life of Samuel Johnson, Including The Tour To The Hebrides, that Johnson, followed by the English readers of Boswell's influential book, began to see the Scots as an interesting people, even though they were from a very different and somewhat ancient culture.
Posted By: Sycamore Re: Clontarf revisted - 01/15/07
Quote
Along those lines the aforementioned Hugh O'Neill himself was technically an Earl (of Thormond?), although thoroughly Irish, and had been raised in England and in the Pale specifically to try and Anglicise him. Didn't work apparently.


Birdy, Birdy, Birdy!!

You're confusing the Dal Cassians with the O'Neills again. Brian Boru was probably the King of Thomond, (one half of Munster) The other half of Munster was called Desmond, and a MacCarthy was the Earl/Baron there.

Blessed Red Hugh O'Neill was the Earl of Tyrone, his buddy Hugh O'Donnell was the Earl of Tyrconnell.

I'm not making any of this up. Got to be better than reading about Ethelred the Unready, isn't it?

Sycamore
Posted By: Birdwatcher Re: Clontarf revisted - 01/15/07
Quote
You're confusing the Dal Cassians with the O'Neills again. Brian Boru was probably the King of Thomond, (one half of Munster) The other half of Munster was called Desmond, and a MacCarthy was the Earl/Baron there.

Blessed Red Hugh O'Neill was the Earl of Tyrone, his buddy Hugh O'Donnell was the Earl of Tyrconnell.


Oh... so now everyone's an expert..... <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/grin.gif" alt="" />

(thanks)
Posted By: Birdwatcher Re: Clontarf revisted - 01/15/07
Quote
It wasn't until Samuel Johnson travelled to Scotland in the 1700's and his journey was chronicled by James Boswell in his work, The Life of Samuel Johnson, Including The Tour To The Hebrides, that Johnson, followed by the English readers of Boswell's influential book, began to see the Scots as an interesting people, even though they were from a very different and somewhat ancient culture.


Interesting reference, thanks. Worth noting that the remarkable Mr Johnson took that journey with his friend Boswell in 1773.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_Journey_to_the_Western_Islands_of_Scotland

Worth noting IMHO on a few accounts; remarkable that gentlemen COULD take that journey for purposes of recreation in that time and place (Johnson was in his sixties at the time).

Also, Culloden and the last Jacobite uprising was already about thirty years over, and a full forty years in the past by the time Boswell publicised the journey.

Weren't there a tremendous romanticising in England of all things Scottish about that time? Human nature to get all nostalgic over yer enemies long after they've been thoroughly whupped, look at how we commonly regard the Indians for example.

Sort of in the same vein, I think folks (not including yourself and Sycamore) commonly look at the Irish too through rose-colored glasses, forgetting that all that derring-do was usually turned upon each other. I'm recalling the not-often-talked about old Irish custom of gouging out the eyes of your rivals, who were often relatives, and leaving them alive as a warning as well as out of pure spite.

(Anyways, when googling up "eye gouging Ireland" to firm up recollections from a work read years ago, here's a quick recap I came across of the O'Byrnes of Leinster. Not surprising really that the Irish themselves likely plundered more monasteries over the years than even the Vikings did http://www.colonsay.org.uk/byrne/locharprom/byrneclan.html )

Brian Boruma was a prodigy who briefly came close to uniting that troubled island by force of arms even though it took him a lifetime to do it. Just luck I guess it was the likes of him who was still around to face the Vikings at Clontarf, Brian had been winning fights against his fellow Irish and Vikings his whole life (turns out even his own mom had been killed by Vikings).

Birdwatcher
Posted By: ClaretDabbler Re: Clontarf revisted - 01/15/07
Sorley Boy O'Donnell is certainly an interesting character and worth reading into.

Another interesting character is Somerled MacDonald of the Scottish side of Clan MacDonald. He was "lord of the Isles" and was reponsible for driving the vikings from the Hebrides. Somerlead must have been a real man, a recent DNA survey in Scotland found that there is a "Somerled" gene akin to the Genghis gene - though on a more modest scale.

The plantation of Ulster was a early seventeenth century event, implemented in part after the "fight of earls", Red Hugh, O'Donnell and others, the 400th anniversary of this is this year. The plantation was further enforced after the Cromwellian wars in the 1650's.

Another interesting character is Owen Roe O'Neill. He inflicted some serious defeats on the English, notably at Benburb (about 15 miles from here).

The main problem of the Celtic peoples in fighting modern English armies of the period was their set of personal ethics. Combat for a celt was a personal matter, you rushed into battle with your sword and looked for someone to fight individually. If you brother was next to you, you did not intervene on his behalf, he fought his fight, you fought yours until the bitter end. This hampered the celts as far back as Julius Ceasar in Gaul. Fighting in a regimental formation was anathema to the celts.
Posted By: Birdwatcher Re: Clontarf revisted - 01/16/07
Golly, it would appear an actual Irishman has chimed in.... <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/cool.gif" alt="" />

Anyhow, speaking of genes, I've been all in a tizzy since finding out we Celts have a Y chromosome of our very own. I had thought to get mine specced out (all my grandparents being Irish), but then what if I turned out to be French or something? <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/grin.gif" alt="" />

And speaking of genetic surprises, it turns out ol' Scottish Celtic hero Sommerled himself had a Norse grandpa somewhere in the line...
http://news.scotsman.com/scitech.cfm?id=442642005

Browsing around, I found an Icelandic Viking Saga that has things to say about Clontarf....
http://www.sacred-texts.com/neu/ice/njal/njal153.htm

On Gormflaith, here in the context of Sytric's visit to Earl Sigurd, and the deal that was struck. Note the high regard in which Brian Boru is mentioned....

Quote
Earl Sigurd bade to his feast at Yule Earl Gilli, his brother- in-law, out of the Southern isles; he had to wife Swanlauga, Earl Sigurd's sister; and then, too, came to see Earl Sigurd that king from Ireland whose name was Sigtrygg. He was a son of Olaf Rattle, but his mother's name was Kormlada [Gormflaith]; she was the fairest of all women, and best gifted in everything that was not in her own power, but it was the talk of men that she did all things ill over which she had any power.

Brian was the name of the king who first had her to wife, but they were then parted. He was the best-natured of all kings. He had his seat in Connaught, in Ireland; his brother's name was Wolf the Quarrelsome, the greatest champion and warrior; Brian's foster-child's name was Kerthialfad..... and loved him more than his own sons. He was then full grown when these things happened, and was the boldest of all men.

Duncan was the name of the first of King Brian's sons; the second was Margad; the third, Takt, whom we call Tann, he was the youngest of them; but the elder sons of King Brian were full grown, and the briskest of men.

Kormlada was not the mother of King Brian's children, and so grim was she against King Brian after their parting, that she would gladly have him dead.

King Brian thrice forgave all his outlaws the same fault, but if they misbehaved themselves oftener, then he let them be judged by the law; and from this one may mark what a king he must have been.

Kormlada egged on her son Sigtrygg very much to kill King Brian, and she now sent him to Earl Sigurd to beg for help.

King Sigtrygg came before Yule to the Orkneys, and there, too, came Earl Gilli, as was written before.

The men were so placed that King Sigtrygg sat in a high seat in the middle, but on either side of the king sat one of the earls. The men of King Sigtrygg and Earl Gilli sate on the inner side away from him, but on the outer side away from Earl Sigurd, sate Flosi and Thorstein, son of Hall of the Side, and the whole hall was full....

Then King Sigtrygg stirred in his business with Earl Sigurd, and bade him go to the war with him against King Brian.

The earl was long steadfast, but the end of it was that he let the king have his way, but said he must have his mother's hand for his help, and be king in Ireland, if they slew Brian. But all his men besought Earl Sigurd not to go into the war, but it was all no good.

So they parted on the understanding that Earl Sigurd gave his word to go; but King Sigtrygg promised him his mother and the kingdom.

It was so settled that Earl Sigurd was to come with all his host to Dublin by Palm Sunday.

Then King Sigtrygg fared south to Ireland, and told his mother Kormlada that the earl had undertaken to come, and also what he had pledged himself to grant him.

She showed herself well pleased at that, but said they must gather greater force still.

Sigtrygg asked whence this was to be looked for?

She said there were two vikings lying off the west of Man; and that they had thirty ships, and, she went on, "They are men of such hardihood that nothing can withstand them. The one's name is Ospak, and the other's Brodir. Thou shalt fare to find them, and spare nothing to get them into thy quarrel, whatever price they ask."

Now King Sigtrygg fares and seeks the vikings, and found them lying outside off Man; King Sigtrygg brings forward his errand at once, but Brodir shrank from helping him until he, King Sigtrygg, promised him the kingdom and his mother, and they were to keep this such a secret that Earl Sigurd should know nothing about it; Brodir too was to come to Dublin on Palm Sunday.

So King Sigtrygg fared home to his mother, and told her how things stood.

After that those brothers, Ospak and Brodir, talked together, and then Brodir told Ospak all that he and Sigtrygg had spoken of, and bade him fare to battle with him against King Brian, and said he set much store on his going.

But Ospak said he would not fight against so good a king....

Then they were both wroth, and sundered their band at once. Ospak had ten ships and Brodir twenty.

Ospak was a heathen, and the wisest of all men. He laid his ships inside in a sound, but Brodir lay outside him.

Brodir had been a Christian man and a mass-deacon by consecration, but he had thrown off his faith and become God's dastard, and now worshipped heathen fiends, and he was of all men most skilled in sorcery. He had that coat of mail on which no steel would bite. He was both tall and strong, and had such long locks that he tucked them under his belt. His hair was black.....

Then Brodir was so wroth that he could answer never a word, but he went at once to his men, and made them lay his ships in a line across the sound, and moor them by bearing their cables on shore at either end of the line, and meant to slay them all next morning.

Ospak saw all their plan, and then he vowed to take the true faith, and to go to King Brian, and follow him till his death- day.

Then he took that counsel to lay his ships in a line, and punt them along the shore with poles, and cut the cables of Brodir's ships. Then the ships of Brodir's men began to fall aboard of one another when they were all fast asleep; and so Ospak and his men got out of the firth, and so west to Ireland, and came to Connaught.

Then Ospak told King Brian all that he had learnt, and took baptism, and gave himself over into the king's hand.

After that King Brian made them gather force over all his realm, and the whole host was to come to Dublin in the week before Palm Sunday.


Those old Vikings sure had a way with words didn't they?

Birdwatcher
Posted By: 1akhunter Re: Clontarf revisted - 01/16/07
I'm waiting for confirmation from Steelhead. (grin)

Sorry Birdy, but I can't just put blind faith in a guy that figured out the best way to skin panties was to take 'em birdwatching. (nuther grin)
Posted By: Birdwatcher Re: Clontarf revisted - 01/16/07
Egad man!..... "skin panties"? ... perish the thought! I prefer "dallying in the woods" or something similarly obtuse.

As to the tactics chosen, all's fair in love and war ain't it? The rules are there are no rules. Whatever works, works.

And take this back to that OTHER thread where it belongs... <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/grin.gif" alt="" />

Birdwatcher
Posted By: Birdwatcher Re: Clontarf revisted - 01/17/07
How the Leinster men set the ball rolling was to raid north into Ulster. Hard to say after nearly 1,000 years if it was a plan. The O'Neill King of Ulster, recently obliged to cede High Kingship to Brian, brought the matter to Brian's attention. After all, a war between Leinster and Brian Boru would only weaken both parties involved, leaving the O'Neills stronger by comparison.

This message, and the fact that a messenger from Brian to the Leinstermen had been thrown out and beaten, precipitated the war. In the fall of '13 Brain marched an army from Munster and Connaught and beseiged Dublin, content to hem them in behind walls while his army reaped the harvests of the Leinster lands.

At Christmas they went home and the matter might have ended there, yet another siege of Dublin, just another twist in the endless power play between clans and kingdoms.

From Rutherford....

Quote
"It was February when the news began to arrive at the port...

The Vikings were coming. From the Isle of Man, just over the horizon, its Viking ruler was bringing a war fleet. From the faraway Orkney Islands in the north, another great sailing was coming. Warrior cheifs, merchants, adventurers, Nordic pirates - they were all making ready.

It would be another great Viking adventure. Who knew, if they defeated old Brian Boru, there might even be a chance to take over the whole island, just as Canute and his Danes were doing in England. At the least, there would be valuable pickings.


..and from the viewpoint of a character in the book, in this case an Irish monk crossing the Wicklow Mountains south of Dublin....

Quote
They passed over a high mountain gap.... The day was pleasant, the April sky remaining unusually clear. It was past mid-afternoon when they emerged on the northern slopes and saw below them to the east the wide magnificence of the Liffey estuary and the huge sweep of the bay laid out before them.

Then Osgar saw the Viking sails.

It was the whole Viking fleet, strung out from the northern curve of the bay, past the Ben of Howth, and away into the open sea where, finally, they became indistinct in the sea mist.

Square sails: He could see that those nearest were brightly coloured. How many? He counted three dozen; no doubt there were more. How many fighting men? A thousand? More?

He had never seen such a sight before. He stared in horror, and felt a terrible, cold fear.


...and the next day through the eyes of Caoilinn, a minor member of the Leinster nobility, then staying in Dublin...

Quote
There were no palm trees in Dyflin, so on Palm Sunday Christians went to church with all kinds of greenery in their hands. Caoilinn carried a sheaf of long, sweet grasses.

It was a strange sight that morning to see the streams of worshippers, Leinster and Dyflin people, Celtic Gaedhil and Nordic Gaill, carrying their greenery through the wooden streets, watched by the men from the longships.

Some of the warriors from the northern lands were good Christians, she noted with approval, for they joined the procession. But most seemed to be either heathen or indifferent, and they stood by the fences or in the gateways, leaning on their axes, watching, talking amongst themselves or drinking ale.

It had been a remarkable sight when the longships had started coming up the Liffey the evening before. The two fleets had arrived together. The Earl of Orkney had brought with him Vikings from all over the north, from the Orkneys and the Isle of Skye, from the coast of Argyll and the Mull of Kintyre.

From the Isle of Man, however, the scar-faced warlord Brodar had brought a fearsome collection, drawn, it seemed, from the ports of many lands. Fair-haired Norsemen, burly Danes, some were light coloured, some dark and swarthy. Many, she judged, were nothing more than pirates. Yet these were the allies that her Leinster king had called upon to strike at Brian Boru.

She could have wished he had found other sorts of men.


...and I wish someone had a camera.

Birdwatcher
Posted By: Birdwatcher Re: Clontarf revisted - 01/17/07
Brodir from the Isle of Man is usually cast as the villain of this battle, not without reason as it turns out. Whatever his true colors might have been, the Isle of Man, perched out in the Irish Sea between Ireland and England, was well situated to be a pirates' nest. Sorta like any number of Caribbean Islands in a later age, or how Galveston was for Jean LaFitte in an age later than that.

Amazing how closely the Icelandic Sagas fit what we know of the battle, or more likely much of what we know of the battle comes from those same sagas, the version we know put to paper two hundred years after the fact.

Might be they are pretty accurate, perhaps there was a premium on oral tradition and accurate storytelling in that mostly pre-literate age. For instance the sagas ( http://www.sacred-texts.com/neu/ice/njal/njal156.htm ) record that, before the battle "On the fifth day of the week a man rode up to Kormlada [Gormflaith] and her company on an apple-grey horse, and in his hand he held a halberd; he talked long with them." This being a sort of eye-witness detail that might have survived, even if what transpired at that meeting and how it affected the flow of events, if it was ever remembered, has been lost.

Massive omens mentioned in the sagas too (showers of boiling blood ??) likely embellished after the fact, but this particular portent of Brodir's sound credible.

Quote
Brodir tried by sorcery how the fight would go, but the answer ran thus, that if the fight were on Good-Friday King Brian would fall but win the day; but if they fought before, they would all fall who were against him.

Then Brodir said that they must not fight before the Friday.


Besides portend, another pratical reason the Dublin host chose to go give battle on that Good Friday morning might have been this...
Quote
Now it must be told of King Brian that he would not fight on the fast-day, and so a shieldburg was thrown round him, and his host was drawn up in array in front of it.


Rutherford describes the mixed Leinster/Viking force thus...
Quote
Good Friday, 23 April 1014. One of the most holy days of the year. They marched out of Dyflin at dawn....

...it was a fearsome sight. And most terrifying of all, the Leinster people agreed, were the Vikings from across the sea.

It was their armor. The Celtic people of the Island no longer stripped for battle as their ancestors had done. The Leinstermen who marched out of battle wore long, brightly colored vests or leather padded tunics over their shirts; some had helmets, most carried the traditional painted shield, strengthened with bosses of iron.

But splendid as this battle gear was, it did not compare with that of the Vikings. For the Vikings wore chain mail. Thousands of tiny links of iron or brass, tightly woven and riveted, worn over a leather undershirt, that stretched to below the waist or even the knee, the chain mail was heavy and slowed the warrior down, but it was very hard to pierce...
...to the people of the western island it made them look strangely grey, dark and evil. This was the armor worn by most of the men from the longships.

It was a huge force that marched out of Dyflin and went across the wooden bridge. Though their armor was different, the weapons carried by the Irish Gaedhil and Viking Giall were not so unlike, for as well as the customary spear and sword, more than a few of the Celtic warriors carried Viking axes.

There were some archers with poisoned arrows, and there were several chariots to carry the great men. But the battle would be fought not by manouver but by massed lines of hand to hand fighting.


...and of a fictional Irish-born Danish mercenary fighting for Brodir, here during the battle...
Quote
He had killed five men so far and wounded a dozen others. he had chosen a steel sword to fight with today. In close fighting he found it better to stab than try to swing an axe.

Though good blades were forged in Dyflin, the Viking armaments were still better than anything made on the Celtic island, and the blue-bladed, double edged sword he had acquired in Denmark was a deadly weapon.


Birdwatcher
Posted By: kutenay Re: Clontarf revisted - 01/17/07
This is all rather amusing as Birdy strongly objected to my presentation of much of this material nearly two years ago, when, in his usual fashion, he took exception to my using the term "Nordic" to describe certain European regions and peoples.

Of course, this was in service of his deep concern for the "downtrodden" of the world, in his liberal, un-informed view at least, thus he continually deviated into side issues in order to appear both literate and learned, a common ploy among academics.

The Viking Era was NOT ...pre-literate..., geezuz, where do these pseudo-intellectual ideas come from? The various sagas WERE written in the runic script of the times, as well as being transmitted by storytellers, much like peoples everywhere.

The lack of literacy so obvious in contemporary society, especially among certain academics who post here and continually make both spelling and grammatical errors, is not reflective of other eras or societies.

It is a result of public "education", powerful teacher's unions and an attitude that what is really important is the "gutlevel" of a given topic; this is a result of the '60s and the decadence that became so apparent then and persists until the present.

The Viking blades were actually forged, at least most of them and the finest, in Germany, the original source of the Viking blood. In this respect, the Vikings preceeded the use of other superior German weapons technology by their descendants, the British, as witness the Rigby-Mauser connection of "The Golden Age" of British firearms.

Having actually read some of the sagas, such as "Burnt Nial", "Laxdaela" and parts of others as well as the foremost scholar on Viking issues, Gwyn Jones, I am amused by the attitudes Birdie displays here. The Celtic and Norse peoples inter-bred from the initial contacts, just as most other humans did and do, so, any references to Brian Boru and his ...driving the Vikings out of Ireland..., as in earlier posts by Birdy are simply bullschitt.

One of my greatest heros, Eric Bloodaxe, was actually a king in what is now Britain and so were various other Vikings, Canute being the most famous among populist "historians". Thus, as I originally posted, the Nordic peoples include the Irish, British, Germans, some French and the Scandanavians.

Since Canada was founded and largely built by these peoples, it is a Nordic country and, in many respects is the USA. Birdy, it seems, is slowly coming to see the light!
Posted By: Birdwatcher Re: Clontarf revisted - 01/17/07
Geeze Kute, don't you have someones grammar to correct? <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/grin.gif" alt="" />

And as you'll admit, you described the Irish Celts as "Nordic" too, a description which I believe most present day Irish would find odd. Note that Edward Rutherford himself draws a fine distinction.

And never have I implied that Germanic and Celt never hopped into the sack together, indeed that OTHER form of warfare usually being a partner to the conventional sort when dissimilar peoples mingle.

It is though fascinating to observe the present day distribution of the typically Celtic Y chromosome and what it suggests about the movement and migrations or lack thereof of the two populations over the ages, at least the males.

My own suspicion is that you yourself clearly do NOT have that Celtic Y.

Note that I said "mostly pre-literate", to the effect that it is unlikey a large percentage of either society in that day and age were literate, and bards and wandering storytellers were prized guests at the tables of both. For good reason.

A bit beside the point, but we don't have teacher's unions worth anything in Texas (ain't we already discussed my salary, or lack thereof <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/grin.gif" alt="" />). And my grammar school education was of the Catholic persuation in working class England (I used to get "the strap" frequently <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/grin.gif" alt="" />), and geeze, history classes in England can be glorious.

"...'mongst Indians, a tribe's greatness is measured by how mighty their enemies be..." (W. Geer 1973). I figured you'd be lurking somewhere out there, like those longships hidden in the sea mist, and welcome to the thread <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/cool.gif" alt="" />

Birdwatcher
Posted By: WMacD Re: Clontarf revisted - 01/17/07
Quote
Amazing how closely the Icelandic Sagas fit what we know of the battle, or more likely much of what we know of the battle comes from those same sagas, the version we know put to paper two hundred years after the fact.

Might be they are pretty accurate, perhaps there was a premium on oral tradition and accurate storytelling in that mostly pre-literate age.

Birdwatcher


In those days, each Irish and Scottish clan had a Seannachaidh (anglicized to Sennachie, Senachie, Shanachie, and other variants) who was the historian, genealogist, bard and poet of the clan. The sennachie was often from a sept with a different name, but related to the chief by blood.

This position was highly esteemed and passed from father to son, generation after generation. The traditions, deeds and history of the clan were kept alive in oral form (and later written) for centuries before literacy was common.
Posted By: kutenay Re: Clontarf revisted - 01/17/07
Both sides of my family do in fact have Celtic blood and your post demonstrates, as usual, a total disregard of the specific points I mentioned. Rutherford is enjoyable, light reading and his research is usually very sound, however, there are other sources where one can learn about these issues in greater detail and from a more scholastically credible source. One should actually READ the sagas before making reference to them in order to be an honest commentator on them....or anything else.

My comment on teacher's unions was not made about you specifically, it was concerning the general state of public education in contemporary North America. This is appalling and as I also attended a Roman Catholic private school, in addition to two public schools and three post-secondary institutions, I have some first-hand knowledge of this.

If, I were a teacher, I would NEVER post as you do and then claim to be any sort of a reliable source on matters historical. You are certainly underpaid and I am quite certain that you probably are a kind, supportive and decent teacher and human being, but, you are a sloppy and devious debater of these topics and I find that a sad circumstance in one who should be a leader in discussion and in an appropriate manner for a professional.

Ribbing me about my concern for historical accuracy and proper epistolary style simply demonstrates the typical weakness in so many of your posts. You cannot discuss these issues concerning ethnicity without allowing your very obvious liberal bias to distort factual reality, so, you "stoop to conquer" by attempting to mock someone whose knowledge and writing you are unable to match.....as others here have told you in the past.

There are NO "pure" Norse OR Celtic peoples alive now and there have not been for centuries, so, the term "Nordic" which refers to geographical, cultural, AND ethnic aspects of certain peoples, Irish included IS correct, but, you need to actually READ a bit beyond Rutherford to understand this. Try reading Gwyn Jones to start and THEN tell me about the Norse-Celtic-Saxon-Angle-Flemish (also Nordic) and other peoples of the British Isles, etc. BTW, if IRCC, the first "Irish" were actually settlers from "perfidious Albion" as Rutherford states, EH!

You need help, Birdy, so, I decided to pitch in and assist you in my characteristic mellow, un-biased and soft-spoken fashion.........
Posted By: WMacD Re: Clontarf revisted - 01/17/07
Jeez kutenay, let me remind you how Birdy started this topic;

Birdy said in his opening post:

Quote
Though I'd run a short thread recounting what Edward Rutherford wrote in his excellent piece of historical fiction "The Princes of Ireland". Selected passages in total a bit to much to quote in one post...


Emphasis mine.

This started out as an interesting diversion from the usual fare in this forum. Please allow Birdy the opportunity to continue sharing the excerpts from the book without your condemnatory remarks.
Posted By: kutenay Re: Clontarf revisted - 01/17/07
Please allow me to avail myself of MY right to free speech/expression without attempting to act as the "moderator" of this forum. Birdy and I have been exchanging friendly epistolary ripostes here concerning these matters for over two years and while I accept your right to comment, may I suggest that my right is equal.
Posted By: Birdwatcher Re: Clontarf revisted - 01/18/07
Kutenay, perhaps it would be more effective to post factual info, specific quotes and references. Merely quoting authors while avering superior knowledge accomplishes little.

For example, kindly give the source of the "Albion" quote you attribute to Rutherford. And, if I am misquoting/misusing the Sagas, point out where.

With regards to my motives and such I will observe this... it is my experience that when one makes assumptions as to the motives of others, it is universal human nature to project one's own nature upon theirs, hence such assumptions generally reveal more about the author than the target.

With respect to racial/cutural distinctions I am going to gently suggest again that your definition of "Nordic" seems mostly unique to yourself, if it isn't, provide links.

Racial distinction are always difficult and arbitrary, cut it fine enough and every different familial lineage becomes a "race", but the fact remains recent research has shown there are previously unsuspected differences in at least some gene frequencies between traditional discontinuous "Celtic" strongholds and the rest of Europe.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/wales/1256894.stm
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/wales/2076470.stm

Not surprising per se, but what IS surprising is the relative absence of "Celtic" genotypes in the rest of Europe, suggesting displacement rather than widespread commingling.

Birdwatcher
Posted By: Sycamore Re: Clontarf revisted - 01/18/07
Quote
...BTW, if IRCC, the first "Irish" were actually settlers from "perfidious Albion" as Rutherford states, EH!
...


I always was taught that it was the other way 'round, the first "Scots" were from Ireland. After the Picts were wiped out, Irish raiders/settlers occupied the northern part of Britain. Scots Gaelic being closer to Irish Gaelic, and derivative from Irish. Also Duns Scotus, the philosopher, was John the Irishman.

Sycamore
Posted By: Birdwatcher Re: Clontarf revisted - 01/18/07
MacD.... I'd be lying if I said I wasn't trying to get at the truth beneath the fiction, and I think Rutherford distills the gist in accessible form, and certainly livng in Ireland and publishing in England his work would be subject to quite rigorous review..

But you do get at my motives; this stuff is just plain INTERESTING, and hits especially close to home when it pertains to one's own bloodlines.

With respect to the accuracy of oral tradition, pertaining specifically to Clontarf, turns out the author of the particular saga I quoted, "Njal's saga" is unknown, but another similar Icelandic chronicler (??) of the same century, one Snorri Sturluson, admits of his writings "although we do not know the truth of these, we know, however, of occasions when wise old men have reckoned such things as true".

Again, the recounting of Brodar and his men being showered with boiling blood while harbored at Man does strain credulity. OTOH I have been sadly disappointed by the common old Irish folklore, Cucullain (sp?) and the like, simply because they are too fantastic (used here in the "unreal" sense) to make interesting reading.

Anyhow, turns out there is are extant Irish sources on Clontarf too... http://www.libraryireland.com/HullHistory/Clontarf1.php

Quote
The battle of Clontarf is famous alike in Irish and Northern story. Of few battles have we so many independent accounts. Besides the long recital of the fight and the causes that led up to it in the "Wars of the Gael with the Gall", we have a Norse account of the battle in Njal's Saga and fragments of a separate saga called the Saga of Thorstein, Sidu Hall's son, which is later than Njal's Saga and quotes from it. Both may, as Vigfusson thinks, be parts of a lost Brian's Saga. Were it not for these saga tales we should hardly have realized the importance of the battle from the Icelandic point of view.


Hmmm... "Wars of the Gael with the Gall"... I'll have to do some more googling.

Relative to other battles, Clontarf does seem to be confidently described by Historians though. I was curious as to how the numbers of participants in the battles of that era related to the total population of England and Ireland at the time (best I can come up with is about three to four hundred thousand for Ireland and two million for England).

I have already commented on the paucity of information pertaining to Glen Mama, more surprising was the lack of specifics on the numbers involved in the general Ethelred/Viking fracas over in England.

Confident numbers are easily obtainable for Hastings (1066), but suprisingly vague for the probably equally important Battle of Stamford Bridge, three weeks earlier that same year.

Birdwatcher
Posted By: Birdwatcher Re: Clontarf revisted - 01/18/07
Sycamore.. Peripheral to your question, and far be it from me to fight Kutenay's battles for him, but it turns out the Scots are an especially hybrid bunch....
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/1689955.stm

But as you point out, most everyone has it that the Scots' grandads were Irish.

Birdwatcher
Posted By: kutenay Re: Clontarf revisted - 01/18/07
Once again, Birdy, you strive to avoid an honest admission of your errors in historical recounting by attempting to discredit me; the silly, "pop psychology" comment about projecting, etc. is the over-used excuse "du jour" of so many poseurs on intellectual matters, surely you can do better?

This is the second time this week that an academic has used this hackneyed phrase against me in lieu of actually being able to best me in honest debate, both "liberals", as one might expect.

As to specific quotes and links, Birdy, I have provided many such attempts to alleviate your lack of basic historical literacy. You NEVER quote the Sagas, because YOU have never read them or much other serious, scholastic historical or literary work.

You haven't the slightest idea who Gwyn Jones is/was and you do not even recognise the provenance of the term, correctly delineated in quotation marks, "perfidious Albion".

This is NOT a quotation from Rutherford as it would be set forth in periods if it were as is correct with written work(s). An example would be ...avering superior knowledge... and did you mean AVERRING?

If, you are going to continue with your sanctimonious preaching about matters of race and culture and intend to use uncommon words/terms to do so, I suggest using a dictionary in order to spell them correctly.Esoteric or arcane usage is, when incorrect, perhaps the most obvious indicator of a lack of real knowledge of the topic by the user, so, this is actually pertinent to your credibility.

Now, Birdy, you may be a teacher, but, you really are sloppy in intellectual terms and seem to miss the precise references which I have repeatedly provided you. Concerning my use of the term "Nordic", see "The Kingdom of Canada"- Dr. W.L. Morton, "Colony to Nation"-Dr. A.M. Lower and the specific chapters dealing with the Norse-Celtic entry into North America.

I have already mentioned "The History of the Vikings" by Dr. G. Jones and while these are only three of the most recognized texts on this issue and are very scholarly tomes that you might find inaccessible in some repects, they WILL support my points. Birdy, you need to read beyond Rutherford and various British popular press journals if you really want to learn about issues of this type.

The term "perfidious Albion" is used by Shakespeare as well as divers lesser British and Continental writers as a surrogate name for "merrye Englande", again, this IS the way one refers to such terms within a written essay. Capeche?

Ah, Birdy, what potential you show, but, you must move beyond Wikipedia, popular fiction and especially your own liberal prejudices in order to learn about historical reality and it's effects upon the contemporary world. If, you lived close by, I would lend you some of these books, my marginal notes and all, but, since some of them are out of print and VERY hard to replace, I will not mail them.

So, Birdy, maybe it is not I who am imprecise, misinformed or mistaken in my use of ethnic terms or in my historical comments, eh? Strive on, old chap, there is hope for even a Mick-Limey-Yank-Texican !!!!!

Ah, this is FUN, but, my Rottweilers, Krauthunds that they are, are raising hell, so, I gotta go. <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/smile.gif" alt="" /> <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/smile.gif" alt="" /> <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/smile.gif" alt="" />
Posted By: alaskacanoe Re: Clontarf revisted - 01/18/07
Kutenay, "Quiet, or the gallowglass will come".
lol
Max
Posted By: ClaretDabbler Re: Clontarf revisted - 01/18/07
Regarding the genetic origins of the populations of Britain and Ireland, can I refer you to "Blood of the Isles" by Bryan Sykes. This guy is a professor of genetics at Oxford University.

It might be worth the read.
Posted By: Birdwatcher Re: Clontarf revisted - 01/18/07
"Pop psychology"? I wish. How about sad experience? I came up with that one all by myself, and find it to be invariably true.

..and ya got me on Shakespeare, but then you were an English major. Me? Studying English or literature as a topic was always about like listening to nails dragged down the blackboard. I will say to constantly call folks to task for it on a board such as this is merely tiresome and uncharitable.

However in the sense Shakespeare uses the term, the Celts do appear to have come from far Southeastern Europe via Britain. Near as I can tell the Germanic types originated in Scandinavia.

Thanks for the heads-up on Gwynn Jones, W.L. Morton and A.M. Lower, but once again... why not quote from them? More importantly, WHEN were they published?

How long can the pertinent passages be? Quote some.

You assail me on academic grounds, saying I resort to personal attacks, but pretty much a constant in a great many of your posts ARE personal attacks, to anyone who disagrees with you.

Case in point my "sanctimonious preaching". Here? Where?

I will note that you are now using the hyphenated term "Norse-Celtic", if Celts are "Nordic", why the hyphen? and is "Norse" different from "Nordic".

Since you have not elucidated the provenance other than naming authors, browse around and you'll note most of those using the term "Nordice race" are the various White supremacy groups, which we have already established you are NOT a member.

Nearest common usage I can tell to what you mean most people call "Germanic", and I'm coming up with a Scandinavian source for them.

OK, to make your long reply shorter.... we already know about my sloppy academics/faults of teachers/sanctimonious preaching etc etc etc.... when you write back kindly jump right to the topics at hand.

Once again (as it was not answered) kindly define the term "Nordic", thus far the best I have gotten from you is vague references to all of Northwestern Europe in general, and a Northern Rhine origin in particular.

And while I'm asking things twice, where did I misquote or misuse that Icelandic saga?

So here I am.... bring on that academic stuff, at this point I have titles and authors but nothing more.

I'm gonna defend Rutherford once again, ALL history is in some degree fiction, however I would once again aver ( <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/grin.gif" alt="" />) that the factual underpinning of his works as far as his known are sound.

For example his marvellous recounting of the spectacle of the Viking fleet in Liffey Bay, and of the mixed force leaving Dublin are of course largely speculation, but as good a description as any of what those things probably looked like.

And I post them here not for reasons of ego, but to share something cool.

After all in the words pop-psychologists attribute to one of your faves, them aboriginal natives... "Happiness was born a twin, to have joy you must share it."

Birdwatcher
Posted By: Birdwatcher Re: Clontarf revisted - 01/18/07
Claret, thank for the reference, although the 2006 publishing date means I'll have to pay for hard cover. <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/frown.gif" alt="" />

Anyhoo, might be a waste of time in my case, SOMEONE around here has in the past suggested that my own forebearers were "probably mongrels from the time of the Armarda".... <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/grin.gif" alt="" />

Birdwatcher
BIRDY-- it's done thawed up, man. Go to work. <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/grin.gif" alt="" /> <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/grin.gif" alt="" /> <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/grin.gif" alt="" /> <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/grin.gif" alt="" />


BCR
Posted By: WMacD Re: Clontarf revisted - 01/18/07
Quote
I will note that you are now using the hyphenated term "Norse-Celtic", if Celts are "Nordic", why the hyphen? and is "Norse" different from "Nordic".

Birdwatcher


Birdy, I have no idea what kutenay is referring to when he uses the term "Norse-Celtic" but in the history of Scotland at least, a Gall-Gaidheal literally means a "Foreign Gael."

Rather than try to explain it in my own words, I'll draw your attention to this site:

Gall Gaidheal

Please note that the term refers to a specific people and by no means conveys Nordic heritage to all Celts, nor Celtic heritage for the native peoples of Denmark or Scandinavia.
Posted By: fish30ought6 Re: Clontarf revisted - 01/18/07
"...and I wish someone had a camera."
aye. <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/grin.gif" alt="" />
Posted By: Birdwatcher Re: Clontarf revisted - 01/19/07
MacD thanks for the link (and the careful wording), but note that the gist of this started way back when when Kute stated flatly that "Ireland is a Nordic Country", and it has been going on since then.

I HAVE painted myself into a corner by bringing up the genetic, especially given that, if I were King, entry into the Celtic club would be a cinch, but so be it....

Ya gotta admit, the concept of a Celtic Y is something that has huge popular appeal. Turns out several studies have been launched on European and specifically English/Irish/Norse/Saxon descendant populations.

A recent discussion of one specific to Ireland called the "Ui Neill Study" can be found here...
http://archiver.rootsweb.com/th/read/GENEALOGY-DNA/2006-11/116474006
Quote
Jim Wilson noted in one of his 2001 papers that R1a was the only unequivocal indicator of Viking ancestry in Britain. Five years later this conclusion may need to be modified slightly to take into account a modicum of R1a in the Anglo - Saxon invaders. Certainly R1a from Ireland or Scotland is much more likely to be Norse Viking than anything else. The "Ui Neill study" by Moore at TCD study collected 796 Irish samples and only 3 were R1a, which certainly is very low indeed and supporting the hypothesis that Viking genetic input was minimal. However there were fairly substantial numbers of haplogroup I whose origins are a mystery (at least to me).

I suppose it is possible that even if 5% of the R1b was R1b1c9 this might reflect a notable Viking input but I would put this into the same category as haplogroup I since it may be via Anglo - Saxon or Norse sources. A more persuasive argument could be made if there was a detectable R1b1c10 (S28) input. This is probably much like R1a in that the only likely source is Norse Viking. To date S28 has, however, not been observed in Ireland, at least via the customer base of EthnoAncestry.

In my opinion the .004% R1a in the Irish sample (the percentage being typically about 30% in Norway) does argue for a very limited genetic contribution of the Vikings to the Irish gene pool. In looking at a map of the areas the Vikings raided (just about everywhere there was a river) the findings are quite surprising - given the reputation of the Vikings in the rape and pillage department (but the numbers may also be telling us something about Viking behavior; or the response of the Irish women to same). How many of the apparently few Irish Viking Y-chromsomes are attributable to "casual encounters" versus stable Viking families integrated into the Gaelic community. Considering the documented presence of Norse and some Danish Vikings in Ireland it is surprising that their genetic signature is not apparent.


But like the author said, all the results ain't in yet, and if you browse up the results of the study, IIRC 'tweren't ALL Irish looked at, but just some.

So... I may yet go down in flames, but not just yet. And regardless, I'll be getting back to Clontarf directly.

Birdwatcher
Posted By: Birdwatcher Re: Clontarf revisted - 01/19/07
Claret... just a follow up; for we here across the Pond, Sykes work has been retitled "Saxons, Vikings, and Celts"....
http://www.amazon.com/Saxons-Vikings-Celts-Genetic-Britain/dp/0393062686

...and some pretty good reviews, posted here for general consumption...

Quote
Half the book is taken up with thumbnail sketches of the countries of the Isles - England, Ireland, Scotland, Wales - with the focus on early history and prehistory. Depending how much you know about the Isles and how much you want to know, you may find this interesting. In each case the author describes how he collected DNA samples.

To tell the truth, some readers have been known to take against the Prof's style ('I did this, I did that') but it flows well and it grows on you. He sorts the data into clans and plots them on maps of the Isles by reference to the birthplace of the donor's maternal grandmother. What we have at this stage looks, to the untrained eye, like a set of maps called Helena, Jasmine etc. with measles.

In a later chapter he summarizes his conclusions, which are briefly as follows. The genetic bedrock of the Isles was laid down by hunter-gatherers who moved in after the last Ice Age, followed by farming folk coming from Spain several millennia later.

The most paradoxical not to say disappointing result for some readers will be that he finds no genetic affinity between the Celtic fringe (Wales, Ireland, Gaelic Scotland) and the Iron Age Celts of continental Europe. The 'Celts' of the Isles talked the talk, but that seems to have been as far as it went.

He does find a significant Norse overlay in the Northern Isles of Scotland, and a less pronounced north German/Danish input in parts of England. Another genetic archaeologist recently claimed that the majority of English people - contrary to orthodoxy since the Second World War, for obvious reasons - are descended from incoming Anglo-Saxons.

It all depends on interpretation, and I have a feeling that a lot remains to be thrashed out. Invasions might not come in waves but academic fashions do.


Birdwatcher
Posted By: Birdwatcher Re: Clontarf revisted - 01/21/07
Might be that the reputation of the Vikings in common perception is a bit overblown. Not their individual courage, nor their spirit of exploration, and certainly not their beautiful longships which are among the finest blendings of form and function ever produced by the hand of man.

(Among other things to be remembered by, on our next probe that will leave our solar system we should include instructions on how to build a longship).

What may be overblown is the Vikings' success rate on the field of battle. No surprise that the surprise landing of a shipful of highly trained and motivated men should have made a lasting impression, sorta like a chopper full of Navy Seals landing in your back yard.

But devastating raids upon the Irish? The Irish for one were old hands at that. Sacked monasteries? Not as many as were sacked by the Irish. And the Irish fought back.

Consider Dublin, a quintessential Viking port.... founded prior to 850, the Vikings expelled entirely in 902, having made little headway in controlling Irish real estate in the interim.

The Vikings return to Dublin in 917, and in the nearly 100 years from then until Clontarf, Dublin was beseiged and/or occupied by the surrounding Irish at least ten times.

Typical was the occupation by Brian Boru in 999 following the Dubliners' defeat at Glen Mama. At that time many of the Dublin "Ostmen" and their families were systematically rounded up and sold into slavery.

The reality being of course that the Viking ports wherever they were located weren't really about pillage, but trade, at least after the first bloody rush of founding. An enduring trade profitable to both sides.

By the Tenth Century the collective effect of the Viking port cities on internal Irish politics was mostly through alliances made and tribute paid, the Viking ports themselves being valuable sources of wealth for whatever Irish King could wrest lordship over them from rival Irish.

Earl Sigurd and Brodir tried to change that at Clontarf and were killed for their trouble, as Vikings had been many times previous in Ireland and elsewhere.

If the Viking footprint in modern Irish DNA seems to be minimal, the most likely explanation is that there were never very many Vikings in Ireland.

Birdwatcher
Posted By: Birdwatcher Re: Clontarf revisted - 01/28/07
Just thought I'd start with a gratutious slam on Vikings... <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/grin.gif" alt="" />
http://www.doyle.com.au/battleclontarf.htm
Quote
Unlike the Vikings, who felt that any form of deceit, subterfuge or underhandedness simply proved the wisdom of a leader, the Irish disdained the use of stealth and guile, though ambushes were considered a normal form of warfare. The Irish often extended courtesies to their enemies, a practice that perplexed the Vikings. In the year 1002, for instance, Brian Boru marched to Tara (the Irish capital) to demand that the High King Malachi either submit or do battle. Malachi asked for a month�s delay - time to muster his army, and Brian upholding the Irish tradition of honourable fairness in war, granted his request. The Irish sense of honour brought the grantor of such graces even greater glory in the end - provided that he was the victor!


There seems to be a pretty good consensus as to the numbers and dispostiion of the forces on the Viking/Dublin/Leinster alliance that day. This Dublin side was lined up facing generally west, backs to the sea. Some distance off the Dublin right wing lay a patch of woodland along a minor river called the Tolka, the Dublin left was anchored on the Liffey, the city of Dublin itself lying on the far shore of that river.

Some accounts have it that the collective Viking force had feigned a withdrawal the evening before and returned before dawn to land on the beach, perhaps intending to flank the Irish left. Possible I guess, but such would imply close cooperation between Earl Sigurd of Orkney and Brodir of Man. In any event, if that manouver happened, it seems to have had little effect on the disposition of the forces at the start of battle. As it turns out the repositioning of the ships may have been merely to support the disposition of the line of battle.

Brodir, the long-haired, heavily armored sorcerer-pirate, led the Dublin right wing with his force of 1,000 Vikings. To his own right was the wooded area along the Tolka, to his rear the shore and the ships.

Next in line, under an infamous black raven banner, was Sigurd, Earl of Orkney with another 1,000 Vikings "....1,000 well-armoured, axe-wielding veterans of many wars...."
Quote

http://www.eiretek.org/chapters/books/General/clontarf.htm
Along with the great Orkney Earl came a great gathering of his chiefs and followers, called to the war from every island on the Scottish main from Uist to Arran, beaten blades who had followed the descendant of Thorfinn the skull-splitter in many a roving cruise - half heathen, half Christian men, who trusted perhaps to the sign of the cross on land, and to Thor's holy hammer on shipboard. . . . Along with their island levies came many Icelanders of the best blood in the land. Flosi would have gone himself, but the Earl would have none of his company, as he had his pilgrimage to Rome to fulfil, but 15 of the Burners went to the fray, and Thornstein, Hall of the Side's son, and Halldor, son of Gudmund the powerful, and many other northern champions of lesser note."


To Sigurd's left were massed the Leinster clansmen under Mael Morda, 3,000 strong and, as convention has it, collectively less well armed and armored than their Viking allies.

The Dublin left wing, closest to the bridge across the Liffey from the city, consisted of 1,000 Dublin Vikings under Sytric's own son (who's name is remarkably elusive in the record).

An additional 1,000 Dublin men were held in reserve behind the city walls, Sytric himself observing the battle from that refuge.

Closest to Dublin and to the river on the Irish right were a force of 1,000 Vikings and assorted professional warriors allied to Brian, well armed and armored and, as some accounts have it, superior to the Dublin force facing them. Ospak of Man and his force numbered among this contingent.

The Irish center was composed of clansmen, Rutherford (presumably reflecting the most recent scholarship) says of the Irish "....They had drawn up for battle in three great lines. In the centre, the from line was made up of men from Brian's own tribe [Dal Cas], led by one of his grandsons; behind them came the Munster host, with the Connaught men in the third line."

The composition of the Irish left facing Brodir's force appears to be an open question. Rutherford has them as another Viking/mercenary force, older sources say they were primarily Irish clansmen. The question is significant, because events on this end of the battle lines would affect the eventual outcome.

Particularly, there was on the Irish left wing that day a renowned warrior with the remarkably evocative name of Wolf the Quarrelsome. The Icelandic saga has it that Wolf was Brian Boru's brother, which is possible even though Brian was 74 at the time and Wolf still in his prime. Other sources state that Wolf was a renouned Irish warrior without mentioning kinship.

Rutherford identifies Wolf as Norse, and certainly the name has a Viking ring to it. Equally likely he was of mixed parentage, as many of the Dublin Vikings on the other side certainly must have been.

Regardless, Brian brought to the field a combined force of 7,000 men that day, predominantly clansmen but probably including well more than 1,000 assorted Vikings and foreign mercenaries. Opposing him on the field were a force of 3,000 Leinster Irish and 3,000 Vikings.

Keeping his forces close while observing the outcome of events was the previous Irish High King, nominally allied and subservient to Brian but previously deposed by him, and with little reason to risk his own neck on Brian's behalf. As it turns out the late entry into the battle of these further 1,500 fresh Northern Irish clansmen would turn the eventual Viking/Dublin defeat into a slaughter.

The battle would be decided by brute combat between lines of massed men on foot, no mention of archers or cavalry. A sort of tactic which would seem to have prevailed in the British Isles at least until Hastings in 1066.

One gets the impression that organized Roman Legions could have cleaned up against ALL these guys of that era; Irish, Saxon or Viking.

Birdwatcher
© 24hourcampfire