This article is rated List-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||
|
I've removed the map from the article as it is problematic in several respects. The main problem is that the modern borders need to be removed and the colourisation should be backed up by a good source or removed completely. The map currently conveys the impression that some ancient border ran exactly where the modern border is between Denmark and Germany. No documentation presented for this very controversial statement. 2) The map conveys the impression that the Saxons were the first settlers in Holstein. No sources for this statement either, and it is definitely incorrect to lump the region east of modern Kiel along with the rest of Holstein. The area east of Kiel was originally settled by Slavic tribes, the German settlement came later. See e.g. Jette Kjærulff Hellesen & Ole Tuxen (1988): Historisk Atlas Danmark, Copenhagen: G.E.C. Gad, page 107 map c. for the outline of the original Slavic settlement. Please do not reinsert new maps unless they can be backed up by very solid scholarship. Valentinian T / C 21:30, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
[outdent] I think the map is OK. According to legendary accounts Offa defeated his Saxon/Myrging opponents in a holmgang on an island in the Eider River, so presumably the Eider was the border between the Saxons and the Angles. As for the Slavs they did not arrive near the Elbe until the 6th century, at the earliest. Before the great migrations, Germanic tribes lived along the Baltic Sea coast as far east as the Vistula. These eastern settlements are thought to have been established during the Nordic Bronze Age and the Pre-Roman Iron Age and they lasted until the rise of Attila the Hun.-- Berig ( talk) 13:32, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
PS, I think that the top area should be coloured to be Jutish, unless it is to be used in an article on the Wendles of Beowulf.-- Berig ( talk) 16:06, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
The article states that "if the genealogy is correct then Queen Elizabeth II is the 76th generation descendant of Sceaf". This is ludicrous. Nobody has ever claimed this. Presumably the author would have us believe that the Hanoverian kings were direct descendants of the Stuarts, who were direct descendants of the Tudors, who were direct descendants of the Plantagenets, and so on and so on all the way back to Sceaf? Mardiste ( talk) 06:32, 31 August 2008 (UTC)
The section headings in this article need to be altered. The use of "Legendary kings" for the first list implies that those in the second list are not, while their historical reality is, at best, debatable. Basically, the division is just pre- and post-Woden/Odin, but I cannot come up with any elegant way of expressing it. Any suggestions? Agricolae ( talk) 05:31, 23 November 2008 (UTC)
The article needs to be put back on track. It is supposed to discuss genealogical traditions on the kings of Angeln. It is not supposed to be about the Angles in general (who have their own article), let alone about possible developments in the 2nd century BC which may or may not ultimately have contributed to the formation of Angeln. I will take the liberty of pruning the material to result in an article that is actually discussing the topic advertised in the page title. -- dab (𒁳) 09:16, 7 April 2012 (UTC)
This article is rated List-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||
|
I've removed the map from the article as it is problematic in several respects. The main problem is that the modern borders need to be removed and the colourisation should be backed up by a good source or removed completely. The map currently conveys the impression that some ancient border ran exactly where the modern border is between Denmark and Germany. No documentation presented for this very controversial statement. 2) The map conveys the impression that the Saxons were the first settlers in Holstein. No sources for this statement either, and it is definitely incorrect to lump the region east of modern Kiel along with the rest of Holstein. The area east of Kiel was originally settled by Slavic tribes, the German settlement came later. See e.g. Jette Kjærulff Hellesen & Ole Tuxen (1988): Historisk Atlas Danmark, Copenhagen: G.E.C. Gad, page 107 map c. for the outline of the original Slavic settlement. Please do not reinsert new maps unless they can be backed up by very solid scholarship. Valentinian T / C 21:30, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
[outdent] I think the map is OK. According to legendary accounts Offa defeated his Saxon/Myrging opponents in a holmgang on an island in the Eider River, so presumably the Eider was the border between the Saxons and the Angles. As for the Slavs they did not arrive near the Elbe until the 6th century, at the earliest. Before the great migrations, Germanic tribes lived along the Baltic Sea coast as far east as the Vistula. These eastern settlements are thought to have been established during the Nordic Bronze Age and the Pre-Roman Iron Age and they lasted until the rise of Attila the Hun.-- Berig ( talk) 13:32, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
PS, I think that the top area should be coloured to be Jutish, unless it is to be used in an article on the Wendles of Beowulf.-- Berig ( talk) 16:06, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
The article states that "if the genealogy is correct then Queen Elizabeth II is the 76th generation descendant of Sceaf". This is ludicrous. Nobody has ever claimed this. Presumably the author would have us believe that the Hanoverian kings were direct descendants of the Stuarts, who were direct descendants of the Tudors, who were direct descendants of the Plantagenets, and so on and so on all the way back to Sceaf? Mardiste ( talk) 06:32, 31 August 2008 (UTC)
The section headings in this article need to be altered. The use of "Legendary kings" for the first list implies that those in the second list are not, while their historical reality is, at best, debatable. Basically, the division is just pre- and post-Woden/Odin, but I cannot come up with any elegant way of expressing it. Any suggestions? Agricolae ( talk) 05:31, 23 November 2008 (UTC)
The article needs to be put back on track. It is supposed to discuss genealogical traditions on the kings of Angeln. It is not supposed to be about the Angles in general (who have their own article), let alone about possible developments in the 2nd century BC which may or may not ultimately have contributed to the formation of Angeln. I will take the liberty of pruning the material to result in an article that is actually discussing the topic advertised in the page title. -- dab (𒁳) 09:16, 7 April 2012 (UTC)