Talk:Battle of Cynwit

Somerset Mid‑importance

	Somerset portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Somerset, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Somerset on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SomersetWikipedia:WikiProject SomersetTemplate:WikiProject SomersetSomerset articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Anglo-Saxon Kingdoms Low‑importance

	Anglo-Saxon England portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Anglo-Saxon Kingdoms, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Anglo-Saxon Kingdoms on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Anglo-Saxon KingdomsWikipedia:WikiProject Anglo-Saxon KingdomsTemplate:WikiProject Anglo-Saxon KingdomsAnglo-Saxon Kingdoms articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Denmark Low‑importance

	Denmark portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Denmark, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Denmark on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.DenmarkWikipedia:WikiProject DenmarkTemplate:WikiProject DenmarkDenmark articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Military history: British / European / Nordic / Medieval

This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history articles

This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-class status:
Referencing and citation: criterion not met Coverage and accuracy: criterion not met Structure: criterion not met Grammar and style: criterion not met Supporting materials: criterion met

Associated task forces:
/
	British military history task force
	European military history task force
	Nordic military history task force
	Medieval warfare task force (c. 500 – c. 1500)

Norse history and culture Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Norse history and culture, a WikiProject related to all activities of the North Germanic peoples, both in Scandinavia and abroad, prior to the formation of the Kalmar Union in 1397. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.Norse history and cultureWikipedia:WikiProject Norse history and cultureTemplate:WikiProject Norse history and cultureNorse history and culture articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Cannington or Countisbury?

The historians I've read identify Cynuit as Countisbury in Devon. Now I don't know much about local geography, but it seems to me that as long as the exact location of Cynuit is uncertain, the battle (and hence the article) ought to be called "Battle of Cynuit".

In general I agree a more neutral approach would be to have a main article "Battle of Cynw(u)it", with text stating it is likely to be Cannington. The evidence for a (the?) battle at Cannington is:

archaeological: human remains from the period in a field east of the hill fort
circumstantial: pattern of raids along the Bristol Channel, such as Watchet
strategic: Cannington gateway to the Parrett, fording point at Combwich, access to Aethelney, tidal to Langport (e.g. previous raids to Somerton), north bank at Down End and access to the Polden ridge to Glastonbury
name: nearby Combwich is certainly close to Cynwit

My 100-year old sources are W.H.P.Greswell (amateur, not very reliable by modern standards) and the Victoria History of Somerset (see picture credit for the map). I will try to find better archaeological references. It might also make sense to split Cannington Hill as a separate article about the Iron Age hill fort. --Mikhailfranco 15:04, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that the article should be split, with the titles "Battle of Cynwit" and "Cannington Hill". Adresia 10:07, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I completely agree, Cannington is speculation. Asser's spelling is Cynwit, and I think I have found a slight majority of Cynwits over Cynuits in the later histories, so I've moved this to Battle of Cynwit and will make a redirect from Battle of Cynuit. Dzw49 (talk) 21:28, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The original text by Asser was in Latin, there is no W in Latin and thus the spelling was Cynuit. The letter W did not appear till later than the 12th century with early Old English texts using uu instead. The spelling Cynwit was probably used by later Anglo-Norman historians after the letter W had been adopted. Therefore the article should be the Battle of Cynuit with redirects from later alternative spellings ie: Cynwit, Cynwyt, Cynwith. See here for a discussion.] Wilfridselsey (talk) 07:53, 11 June 2014 (UTC).[reply]

I've been working on Ubba recently and it seems to me that the references I've gone over so far tend to call it Cynuit like you say. So I support moving the article.--Brianann MacAmhlaidh (talk) 21:29, 11 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Reading the Chronicle and Asser, the only two contemporary English sources, both say that the landing and battle both happened in Devon. Why is etymologicial evidence being given priority over original textual material? Heliotic (talk) 22:39, 31 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There was a lot of interest in Anglo-Saxon history during the 19th century, so a lot of antiquarians came up with list of alternatives for the location of Cynuit largely on placename evidence. There is quite a useful discussion here although a bit dated, I think still relevant. Checking more recent analysis the current favourite seems to be Countisbury, Devon although Stevenson was somewhat sceptical from an etymologicial perspective. Wilfridselsey (talk) 11:04, 12 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Prelude

The article states that the landing was at Combwich (which is near Cannington). Is there any evidence at all for this claim? IF the landing was at Combwich, Cannington would be indicated as Asser's arx Cynuit. But IF arx Cynuit was Wind Hill, Countisbury, the landing is unlikely to have been at Combwich. Asser says 'ad Damnoniam', the Chronicle says 'Defenascire'. I don't think Asser would have called Combwich 'Devonshire'. Also there is a discrepancy between whether there were 1,200 men (Asser) or 800 men (Chronicle). Ioan_Dyfrig (talk) 17:39, 18 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

In the 19th century the president of the Somerset Archaeological Society placed Cynuit at Cannington Camp based on place-name evidence. This suggestion was largely discounted then and also now. If you have access to BBC Iplayer then check this out. Wilfridselsey (talk) 08:16, 19 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ah interesting. Thanks for posting that BBC link Wilfridselsey.--Brianann MacAmhlaidh (talk) 22:54, 20 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Juvenile historical novel?

The term "juvenile historical novel" is used in this article - is this well known term used to describe something specific like an incomplete texts?.

If it one persons criticism of the text (thus subjective), I think the term should be removed.

If it is a review of the text (by person or a body) then it should be referenced as such, with the reference given, and not reported as mere fact as is the case at present. In any case, a review of a text is still subject (no matter the source of the review) and thus should not be part of this article.

Unless strong consensus is reached contrary to my statement above, I propose removing the word "juvenile" on the basis it is subjective and contributes nothing to this article. The offending statement may have more merit for inclusion in an article about The Marsh King per se.

Wikipedi is an encyclopaedia of fact, not forum of subjective opinion. -- Quantockgoblin 14:57, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A "juvenile historical novel" is a historical novel written with a juvenile readership in view. As with all children's literature, it "is a literary genre whose primary audience is children, although many books within the genre are also enjoyed by adults." Hardly a pejorative term. Angus McLellan (Talk) 15:03, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I withdraw my objection! -- Quantockgoblin 15:05, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WikiProject class rating

This article was automatically assessed because at least one WikiProject had rated the article as start, and the rating on other projects was brought up to start class. BetacommandBot 08:57, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Battle of Cynwit (though not identified by name) features prominantly in the historical novel The Price of Blood, Doris Sutcliffe Adams; Charles Scribner's Sons, NY; 1962.Msdeberry (talk) 14:41, 11 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Siege and battle & citation needed

The sub section on the Siege and battle is uncited and has a citation needed tag - can anyone provide a source otherwise it will probably need to be removed.— Rod ^talk 09:11, 21 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The battle in fiction

Is it worth mentioning when discussing The Last Kingdom that, as Bernard Cornwell himself notes in the historical notes section of the novel, its fictionalised version of Cynwit in the story takes place 2 years earlier than in reality? Dunarc (talk) 22:51, 3 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]