Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Offa of Mercia

The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted 01:33, 23 January 2008.

---

Offa of Mercia

Check external links

Another Anglo-Saxon king; the most significant one so far. FAs for comparison: Æthelbald of Mercia, who reigned in Mercia in the first half of the eighth century; Eardwulf of Northumbria and Egbert of Wessex overlap somewhat. Thanks for all comments. Mike Christie (talk) 01:44, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

• Support but a few minor things, mostly from the lead.

• "brother of King Penda" - Assumes knowledge of Penda. Some context?

I made this "Penda of Mercia"; the reason to mention him is to connect Offa genealogically to previous kings. Is this enough? Mike Christie (talk) 12:47, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

I'd have added "the legendary" or similar but it's your call. --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 14:30, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

The problem with "legendary" is that you don't have to get much further up Penda's family tree before you get to ancestors who really are legendary. I'll see if I can think of another word; and I'll see if others comment. Mike Christie (talk) 00:04, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

• "Charlemagne refers to Offa as 'brother'" - Context? Standard formal greeting between sovereigns.

Yes, it is, but there are a couple of reasons historians might mention this. One is the disparity between Offa and Charlemagne's power -- the argument has been made that Charlemagne treated Offa as an equal, and this is perhaps evidence for that. (The idea that they were equals receives rather less respect these days, but it still appears.) The second is that this is a very early surviving example of diplomatic correspondence. What if I cut it from the lead, but leave it in the body, where there is a little more context to explain it? Mike Christie (talk) 12:47, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Sounds fine.--ROGER DAVIES ^talk 14:30, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Done. Mike Christie (talk) 00:04, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

• "mid 7th-century" ---> "seventh", for consistency with other centuries.

Done. Mike Christie (talk) 12:47, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

• "five miles from the coast ... less than fifty miles from the Bristol Channel ... about sixty-four miles." - Distances need metric equivalences.

Done, using the convert template, which I've never used before. I see it forces the numbers to be numeric, rather than words. I suppose that's OK since the parenthetical metric numbers would look odd spelled out as words. Mike Christie (talk) 12:47, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Pity. However, I see that WP:UNITS mixes and matches words and numerals "one mile (1.6 km)" so I'd be tempted to crib the conversion values, ditch the template, and follow suit, but maybe that's just me being buccaneering :) --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 14:30, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Done, while muttering "Avast there, ye swabs". Mike Christie (talk) 00:04, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

• Variously "south-east" and "southeast".

Now consistent. Mike Christie (talk) 12:47, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

--ROGER DAVIES ^talk 02:41, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the support. Mike Christie (talk) 12:47, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

• Comment Overall, a good job getting the article so large, clean and comprehensive. I just have some comments to make on the article:

The nature of Mercian kingship is not clear from the limited surviving sources.

Given the length of the article, and its devotion to historical narrative, some discussion of the sources would make this article far more useful to the reader.

That power can be seen more usefully in charters dating from Offa's reign.

What about charters? At several points in the article, charters are used and incorporated into a snowballing narrative leaning towards a highly favourable position of Offa's power, e.g.

There is less agreement among historians on whether Offa had general overlordship of Kent thereafter. Offa is known to have revoked a charter of Egbert's on the grounds that "it was wrong that his thegn should have presumed to give land allotted to him by his lord into the power of another without his witness", but the date of Egbert's original grant is unknown, as is the date of Offa's revocation of it. It may be that Offa was the effective overlord of Kent from 764 until at least 776. The limited evidence for Offa's direct involvement in the kingdom after 765 includes two charters of 774 in which he grants land in Kent, but there are doubts about their authenticity, and so Offa's intervention in Kent may have been limited to the years 764–765.

So, laying out for the reader in the background section a overall perspective of the particular charters would be useful. All it does currently is tell the reader what a charter is. The kind of thing that could be useful would be something along the lines of Collins:

"... by the time of Offa a number of charters or documents recording gifts made by some of the lessers kings of southern England also contain the Mercian ruler's signature ... The absence of such such confirmatory signatures from Kentish charters in the years 775-85 is one of the major pieces of evidence used to substantiate the independence of the kingdom from Mercian overlordship during this decade. It must be noted, however, that the number of such charters that have survived - virtually all in later cartulary copies - from this period is very small, and that, statistically, it is unwise to make too many subtle deductions from so small a sample. Of Offa himself only forty-three charters are known for his thirty-nine years of rule, and of these seventeen have been judged to be spurious or interpolated by some or all of the scholars who have commented on this".

As it currently is, I as a reader not very familiar with non-Northumbrian, post-Bede Anglo-Saxon history, do not know what the sources for Offa are or understand them very well even though I just read this article. The best we get is :

No contemporary biography survives of Offa,[3] and the main literary source for the period, the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle, was a West Saxon production, and may not fully convey the extent of Offa's power

All I'm really getting from this is "Shit, if there weren't so few sources, we'd really know how great Offa was". I understand that laying out a survey of the sources systematically is very demanding in terms of time and resources, but there can be no doubt that the better an article on this period does this, the better it is. The less you do this, the less the reader will learn and gain, and the less they'll be able to think for themselves about the topic and move onwards and upwards.

Comment. I'm copyediting the article at the moment, prior to reviewing it, and I'm finding that the sources are there: the summary is in the last paragraph of the background section: "A significant corpus of letters dates from the period, especially from Alcuin. These in particular reveal Offa's relations with the continent, as does his coinage, which was based on Carolingian examples". Add that to the charters and the Chronicle and a picture starts to build up. As I read the article, I find that at each point Mike refers to the sources and lays out the issues connected to them—for example, whether Ecgbert was away for three or thirteen years, whether Offa was in constant or sporadic control in Kent, even whether Offa's daughter was such and such an abbess with the same name. It's a mosaic with most of the pieces missing. The pieces we do have hint that Offa was operating all over the Anglo-Saxon kingdoms except Northumbria: he's there in Kent and Sussex, and even if smaller kings pop up here and there, he still noses back into the charters later on: and these other kings never appear granting land in his heartlands: he's bigger than them. He respects Cynewulf of Wessex (but he pounces when there's a succession contest, as he does in Kent), and then he sees off Ecgbert and marries his own daughter to his man Beorhtric. Is it a fair assessment to call him the most powerful Anglo-Saxon king prior to Alfred? I'd say yes, because he seems to be imposing himself and his dynasty rather than making overlordship agreements in the manner of the earlier Northumbrian kings, or Penda and Wulfhere: that's why the Kentishmen and the South Saxons don't want him, that's probably why he executes the Anglian king. Add all this to the sheer length of Offa's ascendancy, compared to the brevity of, say, Oswiu's (whose control of Mercia was relatively brief). Æthelbald is something of a precursor, but he takes defeats and loses areas of influence: Offa understands about forts and boundaries and he can't be budged. And Offa imposes his will on the papacy, which he pressures into giving him his own pet archbishopric at Lichfield. At the same time, he is in marriage, trade, and pilgrimage negotiations with Charlemagne and holding his own. So much can't be said of any other Anglo-Saxon king before Alfred.

Having said all that, I agree that first-best-greatest claims are tedious, and perhaps Mike could reduce the repetitions and maybe find subtler wordings: if we're going to quote historians, Stenton goes for: As the history of his reign is traced from one fragment of evidence to another, it gradually becomes clear that this formidable and unsympathetic king was a statesman. He grasped the idea of a negotiated frontier. He was the first English king to play an independent part in continental affairs, and he was not overshadowed by the greatest ruler of the whole Dark Ages. He understood that it was the duty of a king to encourage foreign trade. He used the papal authority over the English church for his own political advantage. No other Anglo-Saxon king ever regarded the world at large with so secular a mind or so acute a political sense.

Stenton is a clever wordsmith. Each statement here has a certain area of evidence peeping through from behind it. qp10qp (talk) 03:23, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

It's not that the sources aren't there, of course they are. I think they could be introduced better, however. Direct and naked citation of sources in the article is limited (as it should be per WP:OR), and as it is they are discussed as the writers cited discussed them, meaning that the article approaches source evaluation differently at different points of the article. A systematic survey of sources at the beginning of the article would reduce the possibility of this, and frees the reader somewhat from the editors choices ... i.e. helps them think for themselves; it would also help the editor, as creating the following article would proceed in a more coherent and rigorous manner. This isn't an FA criterion of course ... but I personally do think we should have topic specific FA criteria ... in this case such an article won't be of "top quality" unless it has this kind of thing. The historical narrative in the current Offa article smothers source perspective, sidelining it as incidental. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 04:37, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

I think this is a deep issue. If I understand you correctly, you're not simply asking for another paragraph at the front, giving a bit more detail and background on the sources. You're suggesting that instead of constructing a consensus historical narrative and supporting that with citations to historians who make the individual assertions, I should instead treat each section as a discussion of sources. Is that a correct paraphrase?

If so, I have some sympathy with that viewpoint. I'd prefer to create an article called Early Anglo-Saxon sources, though, and direct readers of a section to that as a relevant discussion. I think we would be asking too much of readers to talk of sources primarily, and only secondarily mention some possible historical narratives they indicate. It's a fairly sophisticated viewpoint to ask of a new reader. I do think Wikipedia should provide that view on the sources, but I don't think that's appropriate for every individual article on early kings. Instead, what I've tried to do is give the plausible historical narratives, but show how they depend on the sources and how they might be wrong or could be otherwise interpreted. Mike Christie (talk) 01:39, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

RE powerfulness. We could argue about if Offa was more powerful than Oswiu until the cows come home; the very fact that we could do that shows such assertions should not be in the article as facts ... they aren't facts ... there' s no standard objective way to verify such assertions. Claims, fair enough ... but then you introduce suspicion of POV and bad balancing. Such claims do absolutely nothing for the content. The reader can think for his or herself about such matters ... they don't need editors to push such views in their faces. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 04:37, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

I've responded to this below. Mike Christie (talk) 01:39, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

The dyke has not been dated by archaeological methods, but it is generally thought that Asser's attribution is correct

Really? This may be generally true, I dunno. Collins expresses silent scepticism on the matter ... that's the kind of thing you'd expect. What about disagreement, though? As there's not one single iota of contemporary evidence for Offa building it, and Asser's work is the only authority, there surely must be some, no? I'm not very knowledgeable on this, but looking at the note in Collins, Alfred Smyth's work King Alfred the Great strongly challenged Asser's authority . That kind of thing might at least be mentioned in a note. Surely a short note in 1999 in an encyclopedia (though not a tertiary one by any means) isn't enough to end the discussion, esp. when so much is said about the dyke.

I believe it's true that Offa is generally credited with building the dyke. I can cite half a dozen sources either uncritically accepting that it was built by Offa, or reviewing the evidence and saying that there is no reason to doubt the assertion that Offa built it. I don't think I can find a source that says "most scholars believe Offa built the dyke". What if I weaken the statement to "…, but no plausible reason to doubt Asser's attribution has been put forward"?

I knew about Smyth but omitted his views based on commentary about his book by Richard Abels, in Alfred the Great. Abels says (p. 323): "Perhaps it is not surprising that the academic "establishment" has not found Smyth's arguments persuasive. The reviews in academic journals have not been kind. The leading authorities on the Latinity of Byrhtferth and other Anglo-Latin authors have dismissed Smyth's lexical analysis as naive, amateurish and fatally flawed." Abels goes on to list a paragraph of other criticisms leveled at Smyth by historians, archaeologists, and other specialists. I think this is enough to drop Smyth as a source. Mike Christie (talk) 00:09, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

I simply don't know how many doubt the attribution to Offa. Such comments about Smyth, and I make no judgment on it, are often as much to do with how well the academic in question is accepted socially in the circle of the criticising academic. Smyth is certainly a distinctive scholar, but he isn't amateurish by any means; he just likes to shake things up, which is not something that goes down well with everyone. If they actually believed that about him, they'd simply ignore him (which is what normally happens to truly loopy stuff). That aside, if you can't find (m)any contrary positions on Asser's attribution, then you can't find them. no case against Asser's attribution has gained much acceptance (or something along those lines) is fine. Collins does it well "It is only on the basis of a statement in the later ninth century Welsh Bishop Asser's Life of St Alfred that the association rests, though few would now deny it" (Early Medieval Europe, p. 192) [that comment is preceded by a more derisory statement, and that quote appears sarcastic in its context; as Collins is a mainstream scholar - specialising in the Germanic barbarian kingdoms - that kinda gave me a smell that there's a lot of silent scepticism going about]. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 02:00, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Offa was the most powerful Anglo-Saxon king prior to the reign of Alfred the Great.

Offa was the most powerful Anglo-Saxon ruler until the time of Alfred the Great, a century later

Offa's achievements are generally regarded as second only to Alfred the Great among the Anglo-Saxon kings.[104] However, recent historians have pointed out that Offa's reign cannot be regarded as just another step towards the formation of England. In the words of Simon Keynes, "Offa was driven by a lust for power, not a vision of English unity; and what he left was a reputation, not a legacy.

Why do Hunter Blair and Who's Who in Roman Britain and Anglo-Saxon England justify the insertion of such assertions? Even if a historian claims this, it is subjective. And honestly, from my own perspective, Oswiu was more powerful than Offa. But that's neither here nor there. Such assertions should not be in the text presented as facts, they should only if presented at all be presented in the texts as claims.

I think you're right, these need to be weakened somewhat. I think I could find a lot of citations for historians expressing this opinion, but it is an opinion. How about if these are changed to something like "Offa is generally regarded as"? I also see qp10qp's comments about alternative formulations -- something like that approach would be good in the "stature" section, which is really there because I think the articl does have to mention historians' opinions of Offa's stature. I think we only have room for a single sentence in the lead, though, so I'd go for a "regarded as" weakening there. I'll try something like that and report back. Mike Christie (talk) 00:25, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Generally is word with some unfortunate implications, and isn't as verifiable as "Some" or "Many historians regard". Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 00:31, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

I changed the lead to "many" as you suggest; I think you're right that it's a better choice. I also did this in the "Stature" section. I am quite fond of the Keynes quote, which in addition to being concise sums up the traditional historiography by opposition. You mentioned it above as something that needed to be supported: do you still think so given the slight weakening of these other statements? Is this point now addressed? Mike Christie (talk) 01:07, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Note 104 does not cite any text after a quote. Hunter Blair's Roman Britain is in the notes, but not in the references (and lacks full bibliographic detail anywhere). Patrick Wormald, "The Age of Offa and Alcuin", in Campbell et al., The Anglo-Saxons, is not in the references. Though I suppose the edited book is so it doesn't matter too much, but Featherstone, Peter, "The Tribal Hidage and the Ealdormen of Mercia" is individually listed (and Brown & Farrs (eds.) isn't) ... so there's no consistency. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 05:23, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the comments. I've fixed the problem with Wormald's ref -- I prefer to include both the article and the edited book, which I think is the standard approach; I've done that in this case (and also for Brown and Farr; everything should be consistent now). I'm pretty sure the Blair quote (104) is in his "Introduction to Anglo-Saxon England", but I don't have that with me so I'll check it tomorrow. I'll work on the other points and will post here when I have an update. Mike Christie (talk) 00:43, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

• Support Not a big fan of the way the article is structured and the way the narrative is based around Offa's "power" rather plain presentation of and by the sources, but I guess idiosyncrasies are inevitable in long articles with few authors, and it is a good, well researched and (source discussion aside) comprehensive article deserving to join the growing list of early English rulers with FA status. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 02:18, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the support. With regard to sources, and your comment that we should have topic-specific FA criteria: I'd be interested to see what a group of medieval history editors could come up with by way of standards for these articles, but there aren't many of us working on them and I don't think we have critical mass. It's a good goal, though. I don't think this FAC is the right place to hash out the historiographical approach we should take, but maybe somewhere under WP:HISTORY there's an appropriate discussion page. Mike Christie (talk) 02:57, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

• Comment: Impressive work by Mike Christie. I have quite a few comments, but most are probably not that tricky. Offa's one of the big boys, so we might as well fuss over him a bit. I'm sure I'll be able to support very soon.

• Coins from Offa's reign reveal that he reformed the coinage twice, probably basing the reforms on Carolingian models, as it is known that the Mercians traded and corresponded with the continent. This may be so (I don't know), but the fact that they were trading seems a poor reason for assuming the coinage was based on Carolingian models. Stenton merely says that the development of the coinages was parallel, which makes sense to me. Does your source give any stronger reason for making this deduction? (Gannon, The Iconography of Early Anglo-Saxon Coinage, says on page 13 that "on the Anglo-Saxon coins the choice of designs remained freer and more artistic than on their Carolingian counterparts, and in addition to the king, they named the moneyers, but not the mint". Gannon has abundant and fascinating theories about the iconography of the coins, but they are probably beyond the remit of this article.)

I've cut this from the lead. I'm a bit annoyed with myself, because I do recall having a source for this, and when I added it to the lead I should have added it to the corresponding sentence in the coinage section, but I didn't, and now I can't find the source. I checked Kirby, who cites Blackburn & Grierson's Medieval European Coinage and Blunt's "The Coinage of Offa" for his comments about the Carolingian model for Offa's reforms; B&G do not mention trade and I don't have Blunt (and it's not visible on Google Books). I don't think the sentence is a big loss for the reasons you give, so it's not a big deal. Anyway, it's cut. Mike Christie (talk) 01:53, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Fine. Just to explain: I don't believe Anglo-Saxon civilisation was on the coat-tails of France's at this point in any way, particularly as the Carolingian Renaissance owed so much to the learned Anglo-Saxons on the continent. In terms of art (and these coins are works of art and a great insight into Anglo-Saxon visual culture), the Anglo-Saxon coins of this period are idiosyncratic and arguably superior, in my opinion, to Carolingian ones. And since coinage was used internationally, it stands to reason that the two coinages developed in parallel, through trade. qp10qp (talk) 17:08, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

• On the coinage, I understand that you can't illustrate it (I must have a look in some old books), but I think the opportunity should be taken to describe Offa's appearance. In particular, the curly, bunched hairstyle on the one hand, and the plaited Roman style on the other. The similarity between depictions of his face, added to their idiosyncrasy, suggests that these were based on Offa's real appearance rather than a standard type. Stenton, not in his main book but in his published lectures and notes, put forward the possibility that Offa may have been asserting his lineage, going back, like that of the long-haired Merovingians, to the gods. I'm not saying that theory should be included, but I do think a description of Offa's appearance might be added (there are books that do this). These coins are remarkable things.

Illustrations would be great if you can find them; I've been unable to. I can't even find a reference to Offa in images of old ms. pages, in order to use an image of his name. I like the idea of describing the coins, but am wary of putting in my own words for the description -- people see images in such different ways. If you have a book that does this, could you let me have a quote I can use? Mike Christie (talk) 15:19, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

I don't know if you could find something to use in the following: "The majority of portraits of Offa show him bareheaded, even when the head is framed by a halo. The elegant quality of the execution and the introduction of name and royal title suggest a conscious imitation of classical models, old and new, often drawn via Anglo-Saxon artistic tradition, which, as Keary pointed out, was 'fully capable...of furnishing Offa with designs for his coins'. ¶ Arguably his most striking and elegant portrait is that showing him with hair dressed in voluminous curls...such an exaggerated hairstyle would not pass unnoticed, nor would the refined dignity of his many portraits. Certain eye-catching coins of the moneyer Alhmund represent Offa with a hairstyle with fringe and tightly escheloned curls. Around his neck some dies show a necklace with a pendant. Other bareheaded representations of Offa show him with a variery of coiffures and often mystically heaven-gazing...All these different portrait coins clearly show the wealth and breadth of the sources available to Offa's die-cutters, as well as his interest in experimenting with new models...Although much of the contemporary Mercian art is lost, what remains makes us wonder about the wide-ranging, educated, and cosmopolitan tastes of Offa's court." Anna Gannon, The Iconography of Early Anglo-Saxon Coinage: Sixth to Eighth Centuries. Oxford University Press, 31–32, 2003, ISBN 0199254656.

Very useful. I've put some of this in in the coinage section; see what you think. Mike Christie (talk) 22:11, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Update: I've finally found a Google Books book that is out of copyright and has colour images (quite amazing, really). I've added an image to the article. Mike Christie (talk) 16:32, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Wow. You can see the coiner Eoba's name clearly next to her head. I don't think I have seen such a sophisticatedly drawn English portrait before the late fourteenth century! Well found.qp10qp (talk) 19:47, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

• "Coinage, trade and government" seems to me a slightly clumsy heading, especially as the section is largely about coinage with a tiny bit on the end about government. For me the logical order would be to move from government, through trade, to coinage, rather than the other way round. What about a section called "trade and coinage" (in that order), and a separate one for "government", which could address laws, charters, and the notion that Offa had an administrative bureaucracy at his disposal?

I've left this point and the one about kingship below to the end as I have been thinking about reorganization and wanted to deal with all your other points first. I'll start by saying that you're quite right about this section: it was originally a coinage section, but then I found other material that wouldn't fit anywhere else so I stuck it in here and changed the title.

How about this: I'll cut this to just coinage (not trade, since I don't have much on trade). Then create a new section just called government. Start that with the kingship paragraph (perhaps somewhat reworded for context since it won't be living in a "Background" section any more) and follow it with the paragraph on the burhs and the one on laws. I'd put the government section just above the one on coinage. The kingship paragraph also needs to be edited to address your other point below. Any comments before I try that? Mike Christie (talk) 22:22, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm sure it might crisp things up. qp10qp (talk) 01:00, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

OK, I've made this change. I think that settles the organization issue. Some more rewriting may be necessary to address your other points, but I'll comment on that below under your comment about kingship. Mike Christie (talk) 14:11, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

• The term "mancus" is introduced without explanation, but I feel that one would not go amiss, probably best placed with the information on the dinars. That Offa was talking in mancuses is a sign of the reach of English trade.

I have references that define it as thirty pence, but per the Wikipedia article on mancus I think you're asking for something more -- perhaps about the difficulty of defining it? Blair just says "(thirty pence)" without further comment; I've found other sources that do the same. The WP article refers to pp. 326-331 of Blackburn & Grierson, but I just maxed out my Google Book views and can't refer to that any more. Now I'll have to buy the darn thing. So is "thirty pence" in parentheses enough here? Mike Christie (talk) 02:08, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Well, to go by Stenton, 223, the mancus was derived from gold coins of the Kaliphate, and Offa's adoption of it shows that he wanted to facilitate commerce with Arab traders. Stenton says that copies of them were made in England in Offa's reign. The article tells us that Offa agreed to send 365 mancuses a year to Rome, but without telling us about them, and they are interesting (when I came to the first mention of the word "mancus", I had to look it up; not everyone will want to). I also wondered what the relation between a mancus and a dinar was, but I haven't found out: Stenton is vague about it, and the Wikipedia article on mancuses suggests that they are somewhat the same (in which case, why the different name?). Infuriating. qp10qp (talk) 01:52, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

I've now added an explanatory phrased based on Stenton. I had to be no less vague than Stenton ("derived") so I hope that's OK. Mike Christie (talk) 13:59, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

• It was not until the reign of Egbert of Wessex in the ninth-century that Mercian power was decisively eclipsed. For me, this is awkward: firstly, it was a long reign, and Coenwulf was strong. It's true that Egbert conquered Mercia towards the end of his reign, but probably not for long: and it seems that Wiglaf kicked back. Stenton points out that "London remained a Mercian town until the Danes conquered it, a generation after Wiglaf's time. It is more remarkable that he and his successor Beorhtwulf continued to possess much of the debatable land along the middle Thames". He says that Mercia and Wessex "stood to each other on terms of virtual equality" after Egbert. I've always been struck by the importance of the surviving part of Mercia to Alfred, and so I don't believe the word "eclipsed" is the only view (I can't find that exact point in your source for it, the Anglo-Saxon Encyclopaedia, but I may not have looked properly).

I think the Mercia article was intended to ref a mention of the "Mercian supremacy", which I later cut; though it does place Coenwulf with Ceolwulf and Beornwulf in a "third phase", when the supremacy "began to fall apart at the seams". The article on Egbert in the Blackwell Encyclopaedia does say that he was "the man who established Wessex as the dominant power in southern England". However, in the light of Stenton's comments it seems sensible to weaken the statement, which I've done. I think the current version should be OK. Mike Christie (talk) 04:40, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Better, I think. qp10qp (talk) 02:18, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

• The sections describing Mercian kingship and charters strike me as too general, especially coming one after another. The material is useful, but perhaps each of these topics could lead into a consideration of how they apply to Offa. In my opinion, this is particularly important in relation to the kingship section, because it is framed as if nothing was changing. Certainly it represents the nature of kingship to that point, but Offa clearly sought to change the model by having his son consecrated king and by trying to identify his dynastic status, as rex Merciorum, with ancient and sacred Mercian origins.

I've moved the paragraph on kingship down into the new government section, which I think is the right place for it. Your point that Offa tried to change this model is proving more difficult to source, though. Keynes (in Brown & Farr) seems to disagree: he says for example that "it is questionable how much progress was made, under Æthelbald and Offa, in the transformation of this vast region into anything approximating a unified territorial realm", and "For all we know, the kingdom of the Mercians remained in the early ninth century much the same as it had been in the middle of the seventh century: a loose confederation of the Anglian peoples of the Midlands, between the Thames and the Humber, united in their recognition of a single ruler drawn from among their own number, traditionally the ruler of the Mercian peoples of the uppper Trent valley, but by no means necessarily conscious of themselves as a single people with a distinctive political tradition." Keynes spends much of the article talking about post-Offa politics and the description of kingship that's in the paragraph clearly continues past Offa in his mind. However, your point is really that Offa attempted to change this, and failed. I think I've seen it argued that Offa is likely to have killed off members of his own kin-group to protect Ecgfrith, so that would actually increase the likelihood of the fractured dynastic situation that shows up in the ninth-century and which Keynes analyzes. However, I don't think I have a source making that connection. I also don't quite see what I can say to address your point, given that Keynes stays away from commenting on Offa's motives. Is Alcuin's letter commenting on the blood shed for Ecgfrith enough to base a comment on in the article? Mike Christie (talk) 14:23, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Well, Keynes is probably right in terms of the looseness of the confederation, but on the nature of kingship, Offa clearly changed things, whether that lasted or not. Keynes surely doesn't believe that the nature of Anglo-Saxon kingship remained static. In Yorke's The Anglo-Saxons, Sutton, 1999, ISBN 0750922206 (I only have this pocket book of hers, but general books are good for this sort of thing), Offa's approach is put as follows (pp 43–44): Offa seems to have appreciated the weaknesses of the traditional overlordship system and aimed to create something more long-lasting. He preferred to call himself "rex Merciorum", "king of the Mercians", and to concentrate on extending the borders of Mercia by incorporating previously independent kingdoms. ¶ In some ways Offa's policy was an accelerated expansion of what Mercia had been doing very successfully since the seventh century...Offa extended the process on a greater scale by redefining the status of subject kings in relationship to himself. The stages can be traced on charters by which the rulers of the Hwicce and the South Saxons, whose province Offa invaded in 771, were redesignated first as subkings and then as ealdormen—officials who governed a province on behalf of a king, but were not of regal status themselves (even though some might be of royal descent). The final stage was the disappearance of the native dynasties altogether and their replacement by other ealdormen who were presumably Offa's own nominees. The same fate seems to have overtaken the royal house of the Magonsaetan.

Certainly one can see that the sytem of competing Mercian lines continued after Ecgfrith's death, since Coenwulf seems to come from a line linked to Penda (and perhaps Wiglaf did), but one remote from Offa, which may indicate that Alcuin was not far wrong in implying that Offa sought to kill off those who might have competed with his son (if you need a ref for that theory, Yorke, in the above book, p 51, says, "Ecgfrith's untimely death was interpreted by one contemporary as divine judgement for the number of rivals Offa had killed to try to ensure the continuation of his own royal line; the next king, Coenwulf, was at best an extremely distant relative"). Coenwulf's treatment of Eadbehrt Praen was a continuation of Offa's policy of wiping out local dynasties: he appears to have believed his authority in Kent was automatic rather than an overlordship to reassert; he makes his brother king of Kent, and he passes his throne to his brother; when Beornwulf usurps, it is from outside the leading nobility, a new phenomenon. One could see the decline of Mercia in the ninth century as a result of internal kinship competition for the crown, but one might as easily attribute it to Offa's success in measuring his dominion in greater, less divisible units, because that made it necessary for ever larger monarchies to vie with each other on a winner-takes-all basis—for Mercia, read Wessex, then England. As Stenton says, "After 825 Kent, Surrey, and Sussex were never separated from the West Saxon monarchy", and that has not a little to do with Offa's crushing of local kingship traditions in those places. In short, I am not saying that what is in the article is wrong (not at all), but that it could be extended by commentary on Offa's style of monarchy.qp10qp (talk) 17:20, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

The Yorke is good enough, I think, for an additional note. I added this: "Offa seems to have attempted to increase the stability of Mercian kingship, both by the elimination of dynastic rivals to his son Ecgfrith, and the reduction in status of his subject kings, sometimes to the rank of ealdorman. He was ultimately unsuccessful, however; Ecgfrith only survived in power for a few months, and ninth-century Mercia continued to draw its kings from multiple dynastic lines." reffed to Yorke and Keynes. What do you think? Mike Christie (talk) 18:27, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

• Despite all the mentions of Alcuin, the reader is never told who he is (where he came from, what his role was, what his reputation is as a scholar, etc.). The closest we get is hearing that Alcuin intended to broker peace betwen Charlemagne and Offa.

I've added a couple of comments at the first mention of Alcuin. I didn't mention his reputation; in the context of this article, it seemed more important to mention why he constitutes a link between the Anglo-Saxons and Europe. Mike Christie (talk) 02:32, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Fine. qp10qp (talk) 19:47, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

• Might more be said about the Hwiccean abbess? John Blair, The Church in Anglo-Saxon Society, 130, suggests that her pluralism foreshadowed the decline of independent Anglo-Saxon monasticism. Were she Offa's daughter, that would be quite significant, because we know Cynethryth was pluralistic too (she also ran Bedford), and the 798 Cookham charter (S 1258) shows that the tying up of monastic land under royal control there was Offa's doing. The 798 scribe wrote that Offa had transferred "Cookham minster and many other small towns from Wessex to Mercia". This seems in keeping with his moving away from a mere overlordship to permanent royal land ownership, in the form of religious foundations, as a key to royal control beyond the dynastic heartland. In Domesday Book, Cookham is recorded as part of the royal demesne.

I'm afraid I'm not familiar with this meaning of "pluralism". If I understand it correctly, the argument is that in the eighth century monasteries began to be treated like other estates by kings -- subject to lay control, and desirable gifts for family or retainers. This was already happening before Offa's reign; I recall Bede complaining about it. Then we have Offa using this as a method of establishing royal control, as you say. Aethelburh (and Cynethryth) are evidence for this change. Is that more or less it? If so, I agree this would be interesting to add; can I take a version of what you wrote and cite it all to John Blair, or will I need to find supporting material elsewhere? Mike Christie (talk) 17:49, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

"Pluralism" in this usage is worth knowing, because it's part of medieval historians' vocabulary for the holding of multiple religious dignities (see the fourth definition here [1]).

Yes, your summary is more or less correct: no need for other material (Blair is in any case first in the field of Anglo-Saxon religious history at the moment). I do think it's important, especially because of the clear evidence of the Cookham incident, with its blunt account of what Offa did there. There is certainly a change from the days of Bede, and this change is specifically associated with Offa's time. On page 129, Blair says: By the 770s kings were issuing charters straightforwardly to laymen, cutting the link between bookland and monastic patronage and making obsolete the category of thegn-abbot. Charters up to the 780s, mainly from Sussex, show land still being given to found and endow small minsters, but they are the last trickle of the early eighth-century flood: it is likely that only a tiny number of prestige communities (most obviously Winchcombe) were actually increasing their endowment. Otherwise, the impression is of a downward trend. In 767, the abbot of an unknown minster and King Offa exchanged thirty-hide estates in Middlesex, but three decades later, the abbot's portion had passed to a royal thegn. On page 130, Blair notes ...the rise of the monastic pluralists, such as the Abbess Aethelburh who held life-leases of the formerly independent Hwiccian minsters of Withington, Twyning, and Fladbury in the 770s. While there was nothing new about groups of minsters under one ruler, these transactions look more like a speculator assembling a portfolio: the financial control of Aethelburh's minsters was no longer in their own communities' hands, or guided primarily by their needs. ¶ Aethelburh anticipated the behaviour of two much more powerful ladies, King Offa's widow Cynethryth and King Coenwulf's daughter Cwoenthryth, whose control of important groups of minsters in Mercia and Kent contributed significantly to the political tensions of the early ninth century. The new tone comes through in, for instance, a settlement of 798 over the middle Thames minster of Cookham, which the see of Canterbury had just regained from Mercian royal hands. [There follows a long quote from S1258, which I expect you have, including: These lands King Offa caused to be inscribed to himself while he lived and to his heirs after him.] Blair sheds no light on whether this Aethelburh is Offa's daughter, but she sounds like that family to me (the point about what she was up to is valid, anyway; even if she wasn't related to Offa, she would have needed his approval). qp10qp (talk) 20:45, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks -- that's tremendously helpful. I've added a few sentences to the Church section; I chose the paragraph that already mentioned Cynethryth's acquisition of property as the appropriate place. Let me know if you think that's enough. Mike Christie (talk) 21:50, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Fine. qp10qp (talk) 02:18, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

• The part of the article about Kent strikes me as the most difficult to read, no doubt because the situation and the issues are so complex. I had to read it more than once to get the hang of it. You leave out the Chronicle's assertion for 784 that Ealhmund was the father of Egbert of Wessex: is that because it is too doubtful (I don't know the scholarship)? I wouldn't rule it out myself because if there was a dynastic mess in Kent, then Offa might not have been the only neighbour who wanted a piece of the pie. And the chroniclers did know their Wessex lineages.

I'd meant to put this in and didn't realize it didn't make it; you're quite right this is a key piece of information. As far as I know it is thought very probable but not certain that Ealhmund is Egbert's father; I've seen it asserted unconditionally, and also stated as probable. The way I've added it is to put in a separate paragraph summarizing Kirby's suggestion that it's related to the sentence in the Chronicle about Kent having been forced away from Egbert's relatives; this is only a theory but it is quite hard to see how the Chronicle could be referring to anyone but Offa. Take a look and see what you think. Mike Christie (talk) 15:47, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

I think the whole section is clear and cogent now that all the dots are joined up. I don't entirely agree with you that Offa is the only suspect, given that he had been dead over a quarter of a century and that Kent saw conflict on a regular basis. And we don't know if Egbert had brothers, uncles, etc. But I tend to be overcautious, and speculation is unobjectionable, indeed essential, when referenced.qp10qp (talk) 02:58, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

• The limited evidence for Offa's direct involvement in the kingdom after 765 includes two charters of 774 in which he grants land in Kent; but there are doubts about their authenticity, so Offa's intervention in Kent may have been limited to the years 764–765......but......a sequence of charters by Offa from the years 785–789 makes his authority clear. These two statements seems inconsistent to me: it's as if each stage in Kent is treated as self-contained, with no reference to other stages.

I think I've fixed this. However, I had to do it by mentioning the year 776 in a couple of places, and I now am worried that the date itself is jarring through over-repetition, particularly as it's mentioned again at the start of the next paragraph. On the other hand, perhaps I've just read that section too many times. Let me know if the fix works, and if you think some rephrasing is needed; if so, one option is to move the mention of the battle of Otford up into the prior paragraph, which will give me leeway to say "the battle of Otford" instead of "776" in a couple of places. Mike Christie (talk) 03:45, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

The dates don't jar with me. The narrative holds together well now. qp10qp (talk) 02:58, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

• Mercian control lasted until 796, the year of Offa's death, when a rebellion under Eadberht Praen was temporarily successful in regaining Kentish independence. Perhaps this leaves it unnecessarily vague when Praen took the throne. The Chronicle simply reports that he succeeded on the death of Ecgfrith, and perhaps that should be noted. I wonder if it is somewhat hard on Praen to call him a rebel, since in taking the throne during a power vacuum he merely did what so many Anglo-Saxon kings had done before. That he was a rebel is surely a rationalisation from his treatment by Coenwulf. Once again, I may be missing something, but it seems to me that he probably had a better claim to the throne of Kent than did Coenwulf. But the affair confirms that Mercia was acting as a new type of state, in which overlordship was attached to the crown rather than to the individual.

Stenton (225) says "a revolt in Kent, which had broken out shortly before Offa's death". The Chronicle is ambiguous, I think: it lists Eadberht's succession after Ecgfrith's death, but it gives Ecgfrith's succession and death in a single sentence, so it could just as well be that Eadberht succeeded on Offa's death. I don't know where Stenton gets his version from. I've put the details in a footnote; does that suffice? Re "rebel"; well, neither Kirby, Yorke, nor Stenton uses the term -- the closest is Stenton's "revolt" -- so I've cut it. Mike Christie (talk) 03:28, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Fine. I think Stenton probably gets his version from Frankish sources that talk of an "Odberht", sometimes assumed to be Eadberht Praen. I see what you mean about the ambiguity, now I come to look at it again—though I read the ASC, cryptic though it often is, as tending to place events in sequence. I am surprised if Praen rebelled before Offa's death, but it could have been that he'd heard Offa was dying and wanted to get in first. Which, technically, would make it a revolt rather than a succession contest, I suppose.qp10qp (talk) 02:58, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

• Sussex, like Kent, had a tradition of joint kingship, and it has been argued that Offa's authority was recognized early in his reign by the local kings of western Sussex, but that eastern Sussex (the area around Hastings) submitted to him less readily. To say that Sussex had a tradition of joint-kingship almost makes it seem as if it was one polity, with co-kings; but really, it was just a geographical area, or a group of tribes, and I don't expect the the kingships were joint in any real sense. Stenton says that Sussex "had never formed a single kingdom" and points out that the area round Hastings had more in common with Kent (as it does today, in my opinion). I haven't access to the charters, but is it true, as I've read in a couple of places, that the South Saxon kings were listed at first as sub-kings and later as ealdormen? This would fit the pattern of Offa subverting traditional patterns of overlordship to ensure permanent dominance for his dynasty.

The Blackwell article on "Sussex, Kingdom of" certainly says that it was during Offa's reign that the kings of Sussex began to appear with the titles of "dux" or "ealdorman". I can't cite you the charters on this, though. I reread Stenton on this (he goes into more detail than anyone else) and have tried a rephrase accordingly. I thought about adding a note about how there are even fewer sources for Sussex history than there are for the other kingdoms, but decided to leave it as it was. Mike Christie (talk) 19:45, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

The changes help a lot, in my opinion. qp10qp (talk) 02:58, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

• doubts have been expressed about the authenticity of the charters. I instinctively wanted to know who by and why?

I tried to slide past this with the footnote at the end of the paragraph, which points at Kirby for an explanation of the charter issues. I think you have Kirby (I can type the relevant bits in if you don't); take a look at pp. 167-8, and particularly at footnote 34, which refers to Stenton's opinions and gives more detail. Does more of this need to be in the article (or the footnote)? Mike Christie (talk) 04:45, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

No. I think that the improved clarity makes the information depend less on this issue. qp10qp (talk) 03:22, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

• Accounts of the event have survived in which Aethelbert is killed through the machinations of Offa's wife Cynethryth, but the earliest manuscripts in which these possibly legendary accounts are found date from the twelfth century, and recent historians do not regard them with confidence. But they do find interesting the eleventh-century tradition that Aethelberht was killed at Hereford, where his cult sprang up. I think that's worth mentioning for three reasons: 1. It is interesting that the murder might have taken place so far from Aethelberht's home turf, implying Offa's dominance (or trickery); 2. Herefordshire, along with Worcestershire and Gloucestershire, is the area where Anglo-Saxon religious institutions survived the longest, beyond the Danish period. John of Worcester, for example, clearly had access to chronicles that differ in places from others that survive; 3. I see no logical reason why Aethelberht's cult should spring up in Hereford, on the other side of the country from his kingdom. OK, this tradition is an iffy source, but it's not one I would leave out of the mix, particularly as a more extreme element of it is already mentioned.

The only place I can find a reference for this is Stenton, who simply says (p. 210) that Æthelberht's cult was based there. Do you have a source in mind that discusses this in more detail? I agree it would be good to include but I'm not sure that what Stenton says is sufficient. Mike Christie (talk) 16:11, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

I don't think it requires more than a line, but the following seems to me at least as deserving, if not more, of a mention in the article as the story about Cynethryth (it may just provide a hint about where Aethelberht was murdered, given the location of the writer, the location of the cult, and the unbroken ecclesiastical tradition in the area): The early twelfth-century "Life of St Aethelberht" contains some intriguing glimpses of the region in Offa's time...The murder of Aethelberht in 794 is located at Offa's "palace" of Sutton St Michael...four miles north of Hereford. The martyr's body is carried to the place "once called Fernlage, now Hereford", where the minster is built over his grave. Blair, 288. qp10qp (talk) 23:47, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

I also came across a scholar, Richard North (The Origins of Beowulf: From Vergil to Wiglaf, Oxford University Press, 2007) who writes very well, in my opinion (in other words, not a pseudo-scholar), and makes the case for an element of authenticity buried in a largely legendary story. The twelfth-century Hereford "passio" is the oldest extended narrative of Aethelberht's death. M. R. James, followed by Wright, takes this story to descend either from a homily or a poem in the Old English vernacular, from the eleventh century either before or just after the Conquest. Paul Hayward shows that this story is preserved in two other contexts. (M.R.James's edition of Two Lives of Ethelbert, King and Martyr is the text referred to by Stenton (210n), and so perhaps we can take the tradition back a century in the article.) North goes on to suggest that the story's character Winberhtus—who had already known Aethelberht in East Anglia, welcomes him to Offa's palace while Offa is being bled, and executes him—has a real-life echo in a Wynbehrt who witnessed three Mercian charters, one in 794 and two in 796. I mention this just to show that even if scholars generally dismiss this material as fictional, there are those who think it deserves a place on the table of evidence, albeit on the outer edge. What made me prick my ears up from the start was merely the Hereford connection: there is no earthly reason for the cult of a King of East Anglia to grow up in Hereford. Why there? qp10qp (talk) 00:37, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

I've added some notes based on Blair, and made it "eleventh and twelfth centuries" for the mss, to cover all bases. I didn't explicitly point out the geographical oddity, since neither Blair nor North do so in the quotes you give. Can you see a way to do so without implying that scholars regard that as evidence for the truth of the legend? Mike Christie (talk) 15:44, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

• Is it worth mentioning that the papal mission was the first to England since Augustine?

I think so; added. Mike Christie (talk) 02:43, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Neat encyclopedic touch. qp10qp (talk) 20:45, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

• In 786, after the murder of Cynewulf, Offa may have intervened to place Beorhtric on the West Saxon throne, possibly in opposition to a rival claimant, Egbert, who had links to the Kentish dynasty that opposed Mercian rule. This is asking a lot of Egbert's age, as we know he died in 839, 53 years later, and boy kings were not feasible in the succession-contest system. The two closest ref tags to this in the article are for a coinage article and for Stenton, 209; but, though the latter's wording is ambiguous, I feel sure he means that Egbert opposed Beorhtric later, particular given his stance on the "three years". The Chronicle says that Beorhtric succeeded, and gives no hint of a succession struggle.

This was poorly cited; I've added in the correct citations. However, you're right that this goes beyond the sources -- I must have conflated what I read into this version without realizing that Kirby et al. carefully avoid saying this. Personally I think it's plausible -- in fact if "thirteen years" is right then it's even likely. But without a secondary source asserting it, out it comes. Mike Christie (talk) 02:59, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

• On a connected point, the article talks of Offa acting on behalf of Beorhtric; but the Chronicle makes it clear that Beorhtric acted on behalf of Offa, helping him because he was his son-in-law. It is not clear that Egbert was operating in Wessex; he could just as easily have been acting in Kent, given his father's previous rule there and the tradition of Kentish resistance to Offa.

Hmm. I don't see the Chronicle as unambiguous on that point: Swanton has "…Offa, King of Mercia, and Beorhtric, King of Wessex, put [Egbert] to flight…"; how do you read that as Beorhtric acting for Offa? Kirby views it the other way round; he says (p. 169) "It is interesting that Offa subsequently required the assistance of Beorhtric to effect the expulsion of Ecgberht from England". Either way, by using "combined" I was trying to avoid the question of who helped who, since I don't see that we really know. On Egbert's acting in Kent rather than Wessex; yes, I agree -- in fact it seems somewhat more likely to me. I was trying to avoid saying Kent or Wessex in the article. Perhaps the fact that the mention of Egbert's expulsion is in the section on Wessex (which is just because that's where the article talks about Beorhrtic) makes it necessary to point out both possibilities? Mike Christie (talk) 03:59, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

It's not that entry I am going on but the one for 839, which makes it clear that Beorhtric helped Offa because he was his son-in-law. I don't think we should smooth over this information, since it gives a clue about the relationship between Beorhtric and Offa and shows who was helping who. qp10qp (talk) 16:39, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

OK -- I'd never noticed that comment before; you're right that that has to be mentioned. I've done some rework on that paragraph; see what you think now. The date of the marriage seems to me to strengthen the case for "thirteen years", despite Stenton's reservations. Mike Christie (talk) 17:23, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

That's fine: all possibilities are covered now. I disagree with you on the last point, although it doesn't matter what we think. Swanton's argument seems to be that "iii" has been written by mistake for "xiii", but one usually makes mistakes at the end of Roman numerals, not the beginning. And Stenton says that since all copies say "three", this must have been in the archetype. It seems to me that the sole argument in favour of "thirteen" is that thirteen years passed between the marriage of Beorhtric and Eadburgh and the accession of Egbert as king of Wessex. I can't see a single other piece of evidence. Stenton and Whitelock (I have the latter's ASC) both go for "three", and when these two wise old hands vote together, I'd back them against all comers. To imagine that Egbert was a problem thirteen years before he ascended the throne seems to me unlikely, since that would make him very old when fighting at Hingston Down in 838. Although one could read it otherwise, it seems to me that the ASC, in Whitelock's version, is saying he was exiled in the three years before he became king ("before he became king, Offa, king of the Mercians, and Brihtric, king of the West Saxons, had driven him from England to France for three years"). My assumption is that he was too young to be a trouble to begin with, but once he reached a fighting age (say, late adolescence), like many such aethling figures before, he became a problem. Finally, I don't see why the date of the marriage has anything to do with it: would Offa hang about and only take action just after such a marriage? That doesn't sound like him. I suspect Egbert became a problem later, at which point Beorhtric was obliged by his loyalty and marriage ties to support Offa, whether Egbert was active in Wessex itself or not. However, this is all talk (but fun), and the article now gives a flexible account. qp10qp (talk) 19:37, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

• Offa's Kentish charters show him laying these same burdens on the recipients of his grants there, and this may be a sign that the obligations were being spread outside Mercia; this was perhaps also part of Offa's response to the Viking threat. There are two references at the end of this sentence, but it surprised me because I haven't come across this interpretation. By my reckoning, the first northmen came to Dorset in 789, only seven years before Offa's death; the late sequence of Kentish charters mentioned in the article is from 785–789 (if there are later ones, perhaps they should be noted in this context). The only other ravages by northmen during Offa's lifetime are in Northumbria in 793 and 794. Of course, there may have been others not mentioned in the Chronicle; but I suggest this point needs more justification. Would three opportunistic raids (two of them outside his realm) strike Offa as a serious threat to his security?

This prodded me to find better sources: Abels, in the Blackwell Encyclopedia, says unequivocally that Offa laid the burdens in Kentish charters "against pagan seamen", and I found an appropriate charter to cite too. I'm as surprised as you are -- this even predates Lindisfarne -- but perhaps news from the continent warned Offa. However, after some thought I took out the word "Vikings"; Abels doesn't gloss "pagan seamen" so I think I will avoid doing so too. Yorke does imply they were Vikings (p. 165) but it's not clear enough to cite definitively. Mike Christie (talk) 04:23, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

I expect raids from northern pirates on a small scale were not unknown. qp10qp (talk) 03:22, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

• Also, is "Vikings" the right word at this early stage? The first lot were thought to be traders (according to Aethelweard) and the Chronicle either calls them "Danes" or says they came from Hörthaland in Norway. qp10qp (talk) 01:49, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

I think it is, though I'd bow to more informed opinion. For example, in EHD, Whitelock introduces a letter of Alcuin with the comment that Alcuin is "warning them of the danger of viking attack in the midst of their internal dissensions". So it appears that the term can be used in descriptions of events as early as this date. Mike Christie (talk) 03:36, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

See above -- I've switched to "pagan seamen". Mike Christie (talk) 04:23, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Somewhat Pythonesque, but I like it. qp10qp (talk) 03:22, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

• Support. As my comments above show, I've reviewed this surrounded by books on Anglo-Saxon history, and the article is spot on. Hats off to Mike Christie for his thoroughness and diligence.qp10qp (talk) 03:37, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Leaning towards support - As always, a wonderful article from which I have learned so much. Here are my little suggestions and questions:

• For those of us not up on our medieval coins, I would suggest adding a sentence to the third paragraph of the lead, explaining why the coin facts mentioned in it are significant.

This sounds like a good idea, but I'm not sure quite what the most effective thing to say is. The two facts mentioned in the lead are the reforms of the coinage and the portrait of Offa's wife. The former is interesting because it provides evidence of the connections between English and continental economies; the latter because of the rarity of pictures of a woman, or anyone other than a monarch, on an early coin. For lead purposes, I was trying to concisely cover the latter by the word "unusually"; the former is hinted at by "probably basing the reforms on Carolingian models". What do you think would be useful to add to this? Mike Christie (talk) 19:06, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Coins from Offa's reign reveal that he reformed the coinage twice. One reformation unusually depicts a woman: Offa's wife, Cynethryth. The other reformation demonstrates that Offa had connections to Europe. This is also supported by a letter survives from Charlemagne to Offa, written in 796, which mentions trade, and also refers to exiles from Offa's court who had taken refuge in Francia. - or perhaps something more elegant - "usually" is difficult for the uninformed reader to understand, unless you tell them why it was unusual; also, I wasn't really sure what "probably basing the reforms on Carolingian models" meant. Sorry! My ignorance showing itself. Awadewit | talk 21:16, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

I've made some changes to the paragraph; I decided it was too hard to describe the reforms in the lead, so I settled for a note about the high artistic quality of the portraits on the coins. I hope this allows me to sidestep the issue! Mike Christie (talk) 23:33, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

That issue, maybe, but now the "topic sentence" of the paragraph is about coins and there is "left over" sentence about the Charlemagne letter at the end of the paragraph. Any way to integrate it more smoothly. (Sorry to be so picky - I'm just sure you can do it!) Awadewit | talk 06:22, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Picky is good; I'm glad you don't give up till the fix is complete. OK, I took out the letter sentence in favour of more information about the coins; the gold coin with Arabic text is quite interesting, I think, so it deserves a mention in the lead. How does that look? Mike Christie (talk) 14:00, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Yes, the paragraph is now much more coherent! Yeah! Thanks for putting up with me. Awadewit | talk 08:13, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

• According to the monk Bede, writing in 731, Æthelbald was the overlord of all the provinces south of the river Humber. - This is the second sentence of the "Background". Perhaps a phrase introducing Bede? Less informed readers might wonder why some old monk's writings are so very important. :)

I added a phrase describing him and reworked it a little. Mike Christie (talk) 19:06, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

This is better, but something should be included about why we quote Bede all of the time. Awadewit | talk 21:36, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

I think it would be distracting to put an aside in that sentence that's longer than the main thrust of the sentence itself, so I took out the mention of Bede completely and instead added a sentence to the next paragraph, describing him as a source and explaining his importance. Does that work? Mike Christie (talk) 23:33, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Wonderful! Awadewit | talk 06:22, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

• The nature of Mercian kingship is not clear from the limited surviving sources. There are two main theories regarding the ancestry of Mercian kings of this period. - I expected there to be an intervening sentence or two here - "However, based on x, y, and z..."

The difficulty here is that the argument isn't simple, so I didn't want to try to précis the points made in the sources. Instead I was hoping that the footnotes would suffice. How about if I put a summary of the argument into the footnotes that cover the two approaches? Mike Christie (talk) 19:06, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Good solution. Awadewit | talk 21:36, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

• No contemporary biography survives of Offa,[3] and the main literary source for the period, the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle, was a West Saxon production and may not convey the extent of Offa's power. - Why do we think it doesn't? Because of the charters? If that is the reason, it needs to be made clearer.

There's a school of thought that says the Chronicle was West Saxon propaganda, and as such would be biased against Mercia. I've tried to convey this by mentioning in the same sentence that Offa was a Mercian; does that do it? 19:06, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

He he. You give readers so much credit! I think you definitely have to explain that. Awadewit | talk 21:57, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Fair enough! I've added a short note. Mike Christie (talk) 23:33, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

• Charters were documents which granted land to followers or to churchmen and were witnessed by the kings who had the authority to grant the land.[8][9] A charter granting land in the territory of a subject king might record the names of the king as well as the overlord on the witness list appended to the grant - a bit repetitive

Now reworded. Mike Christie (talk) 19:06, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Better. Awadewit | talk 21:57, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

• The titles given to kings on these charters are often revealing: a king might be described as a "subregulus", or subking. - Was Offa given any of these interesting titles?

No -- it's the other way round, in fact; he often appears in the company of a subking, demonstrating that he is their overlord. Evidently this wasn't clear; I've reworded and I think it's clearer now. Mike Christie (talk) 19:06, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Yes, better. Awadewit | talk 21:57, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

• The last paragraph of "Background" seemed a little disparate to me - a little collection of sentences that didn't fit elsewhere? I wonder if this section could be organized a bit better?

It's certainly a miscellany -- it's the tail of a list of sources. I changed the title of the section to "Background and sources" and have moved the kingship paragraph elsewhere per a suggestion of qp10qp's. I've also added "Other surviving sources include" to that paragraph, in the hope that that makes it clearer that this is just a list. Is that good enough? Mike Christie (talk) 19:06, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

This all better prepares the reader, but the writer in me recoils against the listiness of the paragraph. Awadewit | talk 21:57, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

I know what you mean. A source listing is hard to get around. Mike Christie (talk) 23:33, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

• Perennial request: A family tree for the "Ancestry and family" section?

Done. I'd skipped this, thinking Offa's tree is pretty simple, but the marriages of his daughters are enough to make it worth while. Mike Christie (talk) 19:06, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

The reason I suggest it is because these names might be unfamiliar to some readers and hard to remember (at least for me, perhaps not for others). All of the Æthel-s lost me for a moment. :) Awadewit | talk 21:57, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

• According to a later continuation of Bede's Ecclesiastical History, the king was "treacherously murdered at night by his own bodyguards", though the reason why is unrecorded. - It is a little odd to mention "a later continuation" when the reader wasn't told Bede wrote an Ecclesisastical History before.

I think this is fixed as a byproduct of the other edits. Mike Christie (talk) 19:06, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

I still might mention the actual "title" earlier or leave out the "title" later. Awadewit | talk 21:57, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

I think this is now OK as a result of the other Bede edits. Mike Christie (talk) 23:33, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

• The continuation of Bede comments that Beornred "ruled for a little while, and unhappily" - I assume this means Bede wasn't still writing it? Can this be made clearer somehow?

I've had a go at this; see what you think. Mike Christie (talk) 19:06, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Very helpful. Awadewit | talk 21:57, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

• The Anglo-Saxon Chronicle records that "the Mercians and the inhabitants of Kent fought at Otford" in 776. - Probably best to tell the reader what the ASC is.

Expanded in the sources section -- is that good enough? I'm a bit sensitive to over-explaining at every location -- I think that's part of the value of the sources section: to allow simpler references to primary sources later in the article. Mike Christie (talk) 19:06, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

This is an excellent place to describe it. I understand the problem of over-explaining. I just want to make sure it is described somewhere, since the article references it quite a bit. Awadewit | talk 21:57, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

• But Stenton notes the lack of evidence for Offa's authority over Kent in the years immediately following the battle: a charter from 784 mentions only a Kentish king named Ealhmund, which may indicate that the Mercians were in fact defeated at Otford. - This is the first time the reader is presented with "Stenton" - let us know who s/he is and why we should trust him/her. :)

I removed it -- I don't think it's necessary. He's still there in the footnote. Mike Christie (talk) 19:06, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Fine. Awadewit | talk 21:57, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

• The cause of the conflict is also unknown: if Offa was ruling Kent before 776, it was probably a rebellion against Mercian control. - The "it" becomes confusing here.

Fixed, I hope. Mike Christie (talk) 19:06, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Yes. Awadewit | talk 21:57, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

• I assume it is not possible to get images of any of the coins mentioned in the article?

See the talk page. I did find a public domain image of two coins, but the coin in the infobox is probably going to have to go, sadly. Mike Christie (talk) 19:06, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Images of ancient coins are not the PD, but images of eighteenth-century paintings are? Weird. Awadewit | talk 22:08, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

• To the south, Cynewulf, the king of Wessex, came to the throne in 757 and recovered much of the border territory that Æthelbald had conquered from the West Saxons. - "to the south" of where exactly?

To the south of Mercia. I'd hoped this was clear from the map at the start, but that map's scrolled off screen by the time the reader is reading this. Would it be better just to cut "to the south"? Mike Christie (talk) 19:19, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Cut or just say "To the south of Mercia", particularly since the phrase is at the beginning of a paragraph. Awadewit | talk 21:57, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Done. Mike Christie (talk) 23:33, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

• Like all Mercian rulers of the period, Offa was often in conflict with the various Welsh kingdoms. - Why?

Well, the Mercians were about the only people the Welsh really could fight directly, since by Offa's time the Mercians controlled the entire border. I meant the comment to be a simple statement of fact, but perhaps it actually confuses. Maybe I should just cut that clause and leave the opening sentence as "Offa was often (etc.)". Would that work? Mike Christie (talk) 19:19, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

I think cutting it would be best - I started wondering if there was an ethnic conflict or something I should know about. A grudge, etc. Awadewit | talk 21:57, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Done. Mike Christie (talk) 23:33, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

• Offa ruled as a Christian king, but despite being praised by Alcuin for his piety and efforts to "instruct [his people] in the precepts of God",[57] he came into conflict with Jaenberht, the Archbishop of Canterbury. - You might want to remind the reader who Alcuin is here.

Done. Mike Christie (talk) 19:19, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. Awadewit | talk 21:57, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

• He also promised a yearly gift of 365 mancuses to Rome. - might just mention what "mancuses" are in a phrase

Done. Mike Christie (talk) 19:12, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. Awadewit | talk 21:57, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

• I think the "Coinage, trade and government" section could be improved by a little reorganization or perhaps subheadings. Right now the paragraphs seem a little choppy as the reader moves from one to the next, particularly towards the end of the section.

The last two paragraphs have been removed as part of a section reorg; qp10qp made similar comments. Let me know if that fixes it. Mike Christie (talk) 19:12, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

This is excellent. Awadewit | talk 22:08, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

• In Anglo-Saxon England, Stenton argued that Offa was perhaps the greatest king of the English kingdoms, arguing that "no other Anglo-Saxon king ever regarded the world at large with so secular a mind or so acute a political sense - This secular comment surprised me - is this in comparison to other kings? Is there a way to make that clearer, by giving examples of religious kings?

I have to say I'm not convinced I know what Stenton means there, so I took out that part of the phrase -- I think the "so acute a political sense" is the significant part of the quote anyway. Mike Christie (talk) 19:12, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Fine. Awadewit | talk 21:57, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

• However, recent historians have pointed out that Offa's reign cannot be regarded as just another step towards the formation of England. - This almost has the air of a strawman argument, as I didn't think anyone was arguing that. The assertion of "King of England" doesn't seem to come until the second paragraph in this section - perhaps a little reorganization will make the claims and counterclaims clearer to the uninformed reader?

Reorganized as you suggest; I hope this is now more logically sequenced. Mike Christie (talk) 19:12, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

This makes more sense to me now. Awadewit | talk 22:08, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

• Post-FAC suggestion: When you write "historians are divided" or "there is no agreement", it would be nice if the footnotes contained more explanation and additional citations.

• Post-FAC suggestion: I noticed that you had more of the double and triple citations to back up the article's claims this time around. I would encourage you to include even more (it really helps establish a "consensus" of scholarly opinion).

Per both the above, yes, good ideas both. I'll deal with the other points first but will bear these in mind both for edits on this article and in the future. Mike Christie (talk) 19:12, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

A thoroughly pleasurable read! The dyke, especially, was fun. Awadewit | talk 06:29, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

• All of my major concerns have been addressed. An excellent article - it is well-sourced, well-written, and interesting. Readers who know little about Offa, like myself, will come away with a good idea about his reign and its place in medieval history. Awadewit | talk 22:08, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the support, and for all the comments -- the article is much better as a result. Mike Christie (talk) 23:33, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

• Query is there no image of the king himself to put next to the lead, in the infobox? I would appreciate at least the crown, or his royal dress. What are other's opinions regarding this?--Kiyarrllston 03:29, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

I have just added a coin image that Warofdreams found. He also found a couple of manuscript images that I plan to work into the article shortly. Mike Christie (talk) 04:18, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

• Support—Nice work, although mine was a fairly hurried read through. "The right-hand penny" might be better as "The penny on the right" (or hyphenated as here). Ellipsis dots need to be spaced, unless there are four dots to indicate a full-stop. Tony (talk) 14:00, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Both fixed; thanks for the support. By the way, Tony, I think MOS currently says not to use sentence-ending punctuation for ellipses; I spotted that when I went there just now to brush up on the rules. You make so few mistakes on MOS I thought I'd let you know on this one! Personally I prefer the fourth dot; I think the eye really does read it as a full stop. Anyway, just an FYI. Mike Christie (talk) 18:56, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.