This draft comes with various issues. It may at some point become a legitimate article, but my working assumption is that it is more of a project page that summarises scholarly opinion. Ben Mac Dui 15:18, 21 January 2012 (UTC)
"Amlaib" (no accent on the i) is "Amlaib Conung". Whether it is more correct to use "Amlaíb" is arguable, but "Amlaib Conung" is a bit daft once you know its literal meaning and as he otherwise lacks an agreed patronymic it is helpful to so distinguish him from other "Amlaíbs".
"Ímar" is the progenitor of the the Ui Ímar. "Ivar"/"Ivarr" is the Danish Ivar the Boneless/Ingwar of Anglo-Saxony.
The subject matter is clearly encyclopedic in some ways, but I have yet to read a clear discussion that focuses purely on this specific issue. I imagine that Smyth does so, but I don't have access to a copy.
There are implied critiques of respected historians that follow directly on from what they have stated and how reactions to their work has been recorded. Arguably, some of the notes encourage the forming of opinion based on primary rather than secondary sources, but I can't see how the material can be properly presented without that.
The motivation for writing it is more that there is a puzzle to be understood than that there is knowledge to be disseminated. Perhaps when I have fully understood what published opinions are and what they mean the difference may be reduced.
The final section attempts to summarise some of the main options but unlike the Lochlann overview by Barret this is (as far as I know) not covered elsewhere - although it is hard to imagine that such debate is not recorded somewhere, even if not recently.
Started reading this, and I'm opening a section for my comments. Please feel free to erase/move comments as you see fit.
This draft comes with various issues. It may at some point become a legitimate article, but my working assumption is that it is more of a project page that summarises scholarly opinion. Ben Mac Dui 15:18, 21 January 2012 (UTC)
"Amlaib" (no accent on the i) is "Amlaib Conung". Whether it is more correct to use "Amlaíb" is arguable, but "Amlaib Conung" is a bit daft once you know its literal meaning and as he otherwise lacks an agreed patronymic it is helpful to so distinguish him from other "Amlaíbs".
"Ímar" is the progenitor of the the Ui Ímar. "Ivar"/"Ivarr" is the Danish Ivar the Boneless/Ingwar of Anglo-Saxony.
The subject matter is clearly encyclopedic in some ways, but I have yet to read a clear discussion that focuses purely on this specific issue. I imagine that Smyth does so, but I don't have access to a copy.
There are implied critiques of respected historians that follow directly on from what they have stated and how reactions to their work has been recorded. Arguably, some of the notes encourage the forming of opinion based on primary rather than secondary sources, but I can't see how the material can be properly presented without that.
The motivation for writing it is more that there is a puzzle to be understood than that there is knowledge to be disseminated. Perhaps when I have fully understood what published opinions are and what they mean the difference may be reduced.
The final section attempts to summarise some of the main options but unlike the Lochlann overview by Barret this is (as far as I know) not covered elsewhere - although it is hard to imagine that such debate is not recorded somewhere, even if not recently.
Started reading this, and I'm opening a section for my comments. Please feel free to erase/move comments as you see fit.