Talk:Weapons and armour in Anglo-Saxon England

Further reading section

I don't want dive in and start editing an article when it's in the process of GA review, but would someone with a particular interest in this article care to note that the first item in the 'Further reading' section is wrongly referenced?

"Bone, Peter (1989). Development of Anglo-Saxon Swords from the Fifth to the Eleventh Century. Oxford: Oxford University Committee for Archaeology Monograph" - is not a book or monograph - it's a paper with that title contained in the volume edited by Sonia Chadwick Hawkes Weapons and Warfare in Anglo-Saxon England that is referred to in notes 61 and 62 (it's on pp 63 to 70 of that volume) - and by the way, her name was "Hawkes", not "Hawke" as in the notes.

John O'London (talk) 09:16, 7 August 2016 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Anglo-Saxon weaponry/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Hchc2009 (talk · contribs) 06:24, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

I'll read through properly later on today and review. Hchc2009 (talk) 06:24, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

I've worked through it. I've got some general points, based on my (admittedly limited) knowledge of the period - please shout if you think I'm misunderstanding the literature, I won't be offended! I've also got some minor tactical points. I enjoyed reading the article - a lot of work's clearly gone into it. Just about to put on hold. Hchc2009 (talk) 06:43, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

Well-written:

(a) the prose is clear and concise, respects copyright laws, and the spelling and grammar are correct;

• It would be well worth defining who the Anglo-Saxons were more clearly - e.g. are we talking about those in England, the cultural groups (including those in Northern Europe during the migratory period etc.) Similarly, we talk about the "early" and "later" periods, but don't really explain when they are. I was also surprised not to see changes during the Migration or Viking periods drawn out explicitly.
• Clarity where information is given. At the moment, for example, we don't introduce the term ring-sword when we discuss ring-pommels, but rather several sections below; we inform the reader that it was common for swords to be pattern-welded in the early period, but uncommon in the later period, not in the sword section but under knives.
• "Much archaeological evidence exists for weaponry from the early Anglo-Saxon period because of the widespread inclusion of weapons as grave goods." - My understanding is that grave goods are very limited once Christianity becomes established in the mid-period; if I'm right, it might be worth stating something like this to explain the shift away from weapons being left in graves.
• "M. Swanton categorized these variations into four main groups, each with its own sub-groups." - would be worth explaining, at least in outline, what the four main groups were.
• Swords. Worth noting that rich Anglo-Saxons, at least in the early period, might have multiple swords? (I think 12 is mentioned in one work)

• " Spears were the most common weapon, and were used for piercing and throwing (in which case the spear would be called a javelin)." - as written, this gives the impression that the Anglo-Saxons called it a javelin, which presumably isn't correct.
• "archaeological, textual, and illustrative" - worth spelling out for a casual reader what "illustrative" means? (I'm assuming contemporary art?)
• "Pollington proposed..." - the article is inconsistent in how it introduces commentary; I'd advice going with the example you use earlier in the paragraph, "According to historian Guy Halsall...", which makes it clear who the person is. Ditto later commentators.
• "In Old English (OE)" - do you actually use the OE abbreviation later in the article? If not, worth removing here.
• ""the most symbolically important weapon" " - worth spelling out here what the sword was a symbol of.
• "which was decorated with unique inlaid gold" - in what way is the inlaid gold unique? Or do we mean that this example is unique?
• "Therefore, it has been suggested that the decoration produced by pattern-welding..." - suggested by who?
• "A bead of glass, amber, crystal, or meerschaum" - could any of these be linked?
• "Ownership of a seax indicated the freedom of the owner. " - does this mean that non-free individuals couldn't carry a knife? I ask because we then say "Apparently, most Anglo-Saxon men and women carried knives to prepare food and perform other domestic activities." - do we know how non-free labour undertook these tasks?
• "It was later reintroduced in the eighth and ninth centuries" - does this mean reintroduced to Anglo-Saxon England? Or that just the Vikings used them?
• "The carinated boss was the most common type" - what is a carinated boss?
• " helmets were never common at any in the Anglo-Saxon England" - there's a word missing here

(b) it complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.

• Some duplicated links - worth running through the "Highlight Duplicate Link" tool if you've got it activated.

Factually accurate and verifiable:

(a) it provides references to all sources of information in the section(s) dedicated to the attribution of these sources according to the guide to layout;

• Not a GA requirement, but the formatting of the citations is inconsistent in places - e.g. fn 53, 61, 62 etc. have long citations, as opposed to the short versions used elsewhere.
• Again minor, but the further reading references don't need the "ref=harv" bit in them - it will through up an error message on some views.
• Worth noting the comment on the article talk page about one of the sources...

(b) it provides in-line citations from reliable sources for direct quotations, statistics, published opinion, counter-intuitive or controversial statements that are challenged or likely to be challenged, and contentious material relating to living persons—science-based articles should follow the scientific citation guidelines;

(c) it contains no original research.

• None found (although note the comment below on the caption). Hchc2009 (talk) 07:43, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

Broad in its coverage:

(a) it addresses the main aspects of the topic;

• The role of weapons in political rituals. This includes both the significance of the giving of swords, the pommel, the interpretation of ring-swords etc. Hilda Davidson talks a bit about this in "The Sword in Anglo-Saxon England: Its Archaeology and Literature" for example. Apparently, Dickinson and Harke's "Early Anglo-Saxon Shields" makes a similar argument around the social status of shields.

(b) it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).

Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without bias, giving due weight to each.

• I wonder if a slightly broader range of sources would help here.

• Pattern-welding on swords. Hilda Davidson's description here may help.
• Pattern-welding on spear heads. Ryan Lavelle notes in "Alfred's Wars: Sources and Interpretations of Anglo-Saxon Warfare" that many Anglo-Sxon spear heads were pattern welded in the Viking period
• Smiths and manufacture. David Hinton's chapter on this in Donald Scragg's edited volume, "Textual and Material Culture in Anglo-Saxon England"
• The literature seems to be suggesting that Stephenson's "The Anglo-Saxon Shield" is a critical volume on this bit of the article (NB: not having read it myself, I can't be sure though)

Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.

Illustrated, if possible, by images:

(a) images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content;

• All good. Hchc2009 (talk) 06:49, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

(b) images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.

• File:Reenactor with ango.jpg. The caption, "A re-enactor in Austria dressed and armed in a manner likely similar to Anglo-Saxon soldiers, with shield and angon." needs a reference. Hchc2009 (talk) 06:49, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

Explaining my move

I have boldly moved this page from "Anglo-Saxon weaponry" to "Weaponry in Anglo-Saxon England". I believe that this new title more accurately reflects the scope of the article. It exclusively covers the period of Anglo-Saxon England (the article introduction even says that "different weapons were created and used in Anglo-Saxon England ..." [emphasis mine]), as opposed to the broader timescale of the Anglo-Saxon people. Accordingly, I changed the title for clarity. Other articles on Anglo-Saxon topics have this format; see Coinage in Anglo-Saxon England and Burial in Anglo-Saxon England. If this move is contested, I will start an RM. Biblio (talk) 18:17, 31 December 2017 (UTC)

Hmm - Anglo-Saxon people are those who lived in the Anglo-Saxon period. There is no other definition. The move will not help searches and was probably a bad idea. Johnbod (talk) 17:54, 1 January 2018 (UTC)

The Anglo-Saxon people existed across a larger timespan than the period of Anglo-Saxon England. They originated in Germany, and continued to exist as a people even after the Normans conquered England. That is why there are currently two separate articles for Anglo-Saxons and History of Anglo-Saxon England. Biblio (talk) 17:53, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

No, this is bullshit. The term should not be used outside the Anglo-Saxon period (except for 60 years or so after), although Americans tend to do so, and the Victorians did. Read the articles! Do a RM please. Johnbod (talk) 09:52, 6 January 2018 (UTC)

I'm inclined to agree with Johnbod on this one. I can't recall seeing academics talk about Anglo-Saxons other than in the context of the period of Anglo-Saxon England, except in terms of migration into England at the very start of that period (when the various tribes that became Anglo-Saxons began to come across, so it is useful to talk about the earlier German context), or in the transition phase at the end of the period (when it is useful to distinguish Anglo-Saxon culture from the Norman culture for a few years). We do have separate Anglo-Saxons and History of Anglo-Saxon England articles, but the former covers the broader topic of Anglo-Saxons (including culture etc.), the latter only the historical events. Hchc2009 (talk) 11:11, 6 January 2018 (UTC)

Requested move 22 July 2023

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: Moved to Weapons and armour in Anglo-Saxon England. Consensus below shows that "wargear" is too uncommon. There seems to be a slightly greater consensus for "Weapons and armour" rather than "Arms and armour", particularly considering the article Weapons and armor in Chinese mythology, legend, cultural symbology, and fiction exists.(non-admin closure). estar8806 (talk) ★ 15:36, 7 August 2023 (UTC)

---

Weaponry in Anglo-Saxon England → Wargear in Anglo-Saxon England – This page currently covers both weaponry and armour. It would be more fitting and accurate to use a term that covers both these topics and "Wargear" seems suitable. Ingwina (talk) 19:28, 22 July 2023 (UTC) — Relisting. Adumbrativus (talk) 02:57, 31 July 2023 (UTC)

• Oppose as "wargear" seems to be a very uncommon term, as I can't find any online dictionaries that actually list it as a word. The current title honestly seems fine to me, as dictionaries define "weaponry" as "arms and armour".[1] Rreagan007 (talk) 21:21, 22 July 2023 (UTC)

  Okay yep that's a fair point about "wargear", perhaps that's just my dialect speaking - it does seem to be a bit rare. Perhaps Weapons and armour in Anglo-Saxon England would be better like in Weapons and armor in Chinese mythology, legend, cultural symbology, and fiction. I stand by the fact though that most dictionaries don't include "armour" in "weaponry", using it instead just as a collective for "weapons" (see these for examples [2][3][4][5][6]) Ingwina (talk) 07:06, 23 July 2023 (UTC)

• Support Weapons and armour in Anglo-Saxon England or Arms and armour in Anglo-Saxon England per above. I would dispute that "weaponry" commonly refers to armour as well, whatever dictionaries may say (and the OED, incidentally, does not). -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:06, 25 July 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose nom, per Rreagan. Support Arms and armour in Anglo-Saxon England (best), or the other suggestion. Johnbod (talk) 15:36, 25 July 2023 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.