Talk:Rheged

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I have altered the date for the end of Rheged to before 730 because Bede says Whithorn was in his day "deep in English territory". I think 633 is right, but I have not fully checked sources on this so I have put it in as only a POV for now.

On the OS map of Roman Britain, <Rigodunum> (Rheged-fort) appears near Oldham with a "?" Does anyone know HOW certain/questionable this identification is?

I have taken out the claim of English presence in Rheged while it was independent because I believe the evidence (e.g. Taliesin) contradicts this assertion.

[User: Pachiaammos] 01-05-04

Is there any independant verification of this statement: "Meric's grandson the A.D. 130f King Llew alias Lucius -- the first British King to proclaim Christianity as the state religion of his own territory -- in about 156 A.D." - The Historical Importance of Ancient Celtic Christian Cumbria - 'by Australian Rev. Professor-Emeritus Dr. Francis Nigel Lee ' If it is true then it certainly should be included. At present all that is stated is that Rheged was nominally christian in the late Roman period. --Ammi 14:57, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

It doesn't seem likely. The start of the piece - "The Cumbrian or Old-Cymric Gomer-ian culture (Genesis 10:1-5)..." - does not suggest that it's going to be a reliable source, and, sure enough, it continues in the same eccentric manner. Angus McLellan (Talk) 15:58, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

it does however refer to the two main authorities on the subject: C. Thomas: Christianity in Roman Britain to AD 500 and H. Williams: Christianity in Early Britain, extensively in the text and in its bibliography. As I have no copy of either book I cannot verify if this is the source for his information aside from his comment that "Professor of Church History Rev. Dr. Hugh Williams remarked in his famous book Christianity in Early Britain,87 that Britain's first Christian king -- the great-grandson of Arviragus -- was no other than Lucius". What is needed is external confirmation of the date of Lucius' reign and a quote from Hugh William's original book on the subject to demonstrate where he got the information from. --Ammi

The author cites Charles Thomas on St Patrick, so that has no bearing on the question. He does not quote Williams directly, but the paragraph following the one you quote might give an idea as to what Williams wrote: "Williams added that this story of Lucius became amazingly popular and widespread during the Middle Ages. The story was accepted by many as authentic history." That's not quite the same thing as the author is claiming. Short of reading Williams' book, I think that's as far as one can go. Angus McLellan (Talk) 17:48, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

So at the very least we are talking about hearsay, which is not suitable for a Wikipedia article. Until we can get some independant verification it should not be cited with any authority. However, would it be worth mentioning that in the Middle Ages the story of Rheged's Christian king Lucius was popular? That would seem relevent, and certainly it is as verifiable at present as much information used on Wikipedia in other articles. --Ammi

Absolutely, that would be the right thing to do. Not only is it informative, which is good, but by explaining that it's a medieval popular belief which was accepted as history at various times (and you could use the article you found to say things like "Holinshead wrote X" or whatever) that would stop people wondering "Well, what about that site/article/book I saw that mentioned Lucius and Rheged ?" Angus McLellan (Talk) 19:32, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

This is Lucius of Britain. He is straight out of Geoffrey of Monmouth and nothing to do with Rheged. King Lucius of Britain is a character invented through confusion, because the Catalogus Felicianus mentions a letter from 'Lucio Britannio rege' to Pope Eleutherius. This letter was in reality from the historical Lucius Aelius Septimius Megas Abgarus IX, King of Britium in Edessa. Bede seems to have been the first to have attached him to Britain. Walgamanus 23:32, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Cleanup Tag

Almost nothing is known about "Rheged" other than that it is a place (among others) owned by Urbgen in some Welsh poetry. Article contains too much unverified and spurious information to be up to wiki quality. Who, for instance, invented the terms North Rheged and South Rheged? Was it a wiki editor, a website author, or an actual dark age historian? The article contains some good information, it just needs to avoid presenting a blanket unproblematic narrative of a Kingdom which may not even have actually been a kingdom at all. - Calgacus (ΚΑΛΓΑΚΟΣ) 20:36, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

Amongst dark age historians the terms "south rheged" and "north rheged" are widely used and are found in ALL sources I have ever read concerning Rheged. I recommend you look at the references cited at the bottom of this article, and in particular;

http://www.historyfiles.co.uk/KingListsBritain/BritainRheged.htm

http://www.earlybritishkingdoms.com/bios/urienrd.html

http://www.britannia.com/bios/ebk/urienrd.html

With all places like this historians take the evidence, both in written history (usually buried in obscure and ancient Welsh manuscripts recording someone's ancestry) and also through archaeology. After a period of analysis where the evidence is compared they come to an opinion of what is most likely to have been the case. Where it is conjecture the author of this wiki has used terms such as "suggest", "may", "could", "thought" etc. However, it is universally accepted amongst dark age historians that a) rheged existed, b) it existed in the area around Carlisle, c) that it's people were romano-british and not anglo-saxon, d) that it became divided before it was consumed by Northumbria and for conveniences sake these divisions are known as "north" and "south" Rheged. 212.85.13.68

The relevant volume in the Regional History of England — Higham's The Northern Counties to AD 1000 — offers this opinion: "it is rash to see Rheged extending south of Tebay or, at furthest, Kirkby Lonsdale, and the kingdom may be broadly conterminous with the earlier civitas Carvetiorum" (p. 253). That's only one source, but Higham's book is a reliable source while Kessler and Nash-Ford's websites aren't. Higham has written other stuff on the British kingdoms of the North, Northern History should have relevant articles in recent issues, and although Phythian-Adams's Land of the Cumbrians got a mixed review it would be the obvious place to start. The RHS bibliography, if fed appropriate search terms, will cough up no end of books and articles which might be useful. My first attempt found McCarthy, "Rheged: an early historic kingdom near the Solway" and McCarthy and Weston, Carlisle and Cumbria: Roman and medieval architecture, art and archaeology which might be handy. Angus McLellan (Talk) 16:28, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

I forgot to log in when I did it, but I have had a go at clarifying some of the information on this page, as per the discussion above. As Angus says, very little is actually known about Rheged, despite the impression to the contrary. With Kessler and Nash Ford, you just have to understand their sources. 212.85.13.68 is correct in their points A-C. D, although it fits the known facts, is not proven. This new version is largely a revamp of what was already there with extra info regarding what is supposition and what are the known facts. I hope the balance is right. Walgamanus 23:32, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

Just a comment on Dunragit; the place-name is interesting, but the location is bare of archaeological evidence. Its connection with Rheged is based on conjecture, conjecture going back (as it always does with Scottish place-names) to Watson. Hence, the idea is rather flimsy. The kingdom of "Rheged" is just the product of later writers seizing on that name as the name of Urien's kingdom, and if you check the sources, it's actually one of many names. There is a good way of reconstructing Urien's powerbase (which is not the same a Rheged, which could be his birth village for all we know), and this is to plot the locations he and his successor attacked. If you do that, his over-kingdom looks like the Northumbria of Oswiu's period - Britannia Inferior, the Brigantes? - Calgacus (ΚΑΛΓΑΚΟΣ) 00:14, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

Fair comment about Dunragit and stronghold V kingdom. Although Dunragit seems a popular derivation, place-name evidence is very problematic. This probably needs clarifying on its own page. Morris-Jones is an older ref than Watson. Kingdom epithets like that used by Maelgwn Gwynedd are quite common. I have altered the article accordingly. Walgamanus 08:04, 29 April 2006 (UTC)