File talk:Britain 500 CE.png

Copying from talk page of this file at en.Wiki [1] Dougweller (talk) 20:33, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

What is the source of the base map?

Nice to mention the Bavarians, but actually they are mislocated. The Bavarians setteled more to the east along the Danube, that is only very marginally on the very eastern edge of the map. This quotation of the map should by changed to the Alemanni, who actually lived at the Upper Rhine. --El bes (talk) 22:50, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Please don't take this personally, but this map is not accurate: "Based in part upon David Nash Ford's "Early British Kingdoms" and on information derived from Mike Ashley's Mammoth Book of British Kings and Queens, Bruce Gordon's Regnal Chronologies, and other sources." I appreciate the effort that went into it, but there are a number of trustworthy books by respected historians on the period so why base it on these unreliable sources? (see also the discussion started at Wikipedia Reliable Resources). Enaidmawr (talk) 23:51, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

This map shows all of Nottinghamshire above the River Trent as being part of Elmet. I can find no other reference anywhere to Nottinghamshire having been in the Kingdom of Elmet and belive it is incorrect.--139.166.245.178 (talk) 13:35, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

There are so many problems with this map it is difficult to know where to start. The first problem is that it draws borders where non borders are known. We know very little about the political struction of Britain and Ireland c. 500; while to the unwary this map sets out a neat comforting picture, we don't know the names of most of the kingdoms let alone their borders. Also, many of the names of these areas are totally spurious (e.g. Galwyddel is a modern Welshification of Gall-Gaidheallaib, "Land of the Norse Gaels", and there were no Norse in the region c. 500). Could go on. Map should be deleted, but as that's not possible without going through a ridiculous ordeal, we can content ourselves with removing it from English wiki (though sadly it will probably continue to spread like a virus through non-English wiki). Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 16:47, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

Seems like the best solution, knowing from experience what 'en:' wikibureaucracy can be like. Long overdue move. Thanks.

PS Galwyddel is not exactly a "modern" word; it's found as gallwyddel in the Book of Taliesin and a couple of other sources and could date to about the 10th century. Meaning is unclear in those sources but cf. Middle Welsh allt-wyddyl, meaning '(inhabitants of) Galloway' perhaps. I think the association with "Land of the Norse Gaels" is probably from 18th/19th century antiquarian authors (haven'r any refs though). Just out of interest... Enaidmawr (talk) 19:06, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

The word Gall-Gaidheal-laib is used from the early 11th century (people term comes from the 9th). That's where Galloway is derived. The above etymology, which I think was propounded by Daphne Brooke (a semi-amateur historian) has long since been thoroughly debunked and was never believed by many if any specialists. Its appearance in later Welsh sources would be derived from the Gaelic term or perhaps from the Gaelic term's Anglicization. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 19:36, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

Add of 2016, May 6

Add some details according with Frank M. Stenton, Anglo-Saxon England, Oxford University Press, coll. « Oxford history of England »,‎ 1970, ISBN 0192801392, and shoreline of the time on the SE coast of the North Sea according with "Flevoland", uit: Groeten van Elders. Plaatsnamen en familienamen als spiegel van onze cultuur Rob Rentenaar. Uitgeverij Strengholt, 1990 and Jan Buisman & A.F.V. van Engelen on Duizend jaar weer, wind en water in de lage landen, deel 1 tot 1300, blz. 361, Uitgeverij Van Wijnen 2000, ISBN 90-5194-075-0. -- 13:30, 6 May 2016‎ Julieta39