Viking defeats at The Battles of Tara and Clontarf

dubhthach

I'd caution about 'Cogadh Gaedhel re Gaillibh' it's a piece of Dál gCais propaganda that main aim is strengthen Dál gCais claim on the high-kingship (in the form of the Uí Bhriain), it was written during the time of Muirchertach Ua Briain the great-grandson of Brian. Obviously he was "High-King with opposition" at the time so it was in many ways part of the process of legitimising his reign.

MarchDub

RTE did a series a few years ago In Search of Ancient Ireland in which they interviewed a number of people to give a description of the Battle of Clontarf. Much of the discussion centred around the annals and contemporary reports of the battle. Interviewees included Professor Donnchadh O Corrain, Dr. Patrick Wallace [Director of the National Museum and one of the best Viking experts in Ireland] and a modern day Irish army Commandant Eamon Kiely.

Here is an extract from the book In Search of Ancient Ireland that went with the TV series. It's a good summing up of the battle details derived from many sources.

Commandant Kiely explained how the battle was probably fought. Although technology has changed dramatically since that time, he said some things in battle remain the same. He remarked on how important troop positioning is in a battle. Brian Boru's army took the high ground close to the sea, just outside Dublin on the north beach near Dollymount. The Dublin Vikings with the Leinster king came out of Dublin and marched about a mile north of the city towards the coast of Dublin Bay. But as the commandant explained, 'The person who took the key terrain as Brian Boru did would have made a major move - and a winning move usually in a battle. For if you end up in a hole or in low ground your enemy has the commanding ground and you are at a great disadvantage."

THE VIKINGS LAND

The overseas Viking fleet under the command of Brodar of the Isle of Man, came into Dublin Bay and arrived at Sutton, which lies just north of Clontarf. They then sailed slowly southward down the coast about a mile or so to meet up with their allies. Another Viking fleet, under the command of the earl of Orkney, sailed in more directly to the beach and formed the middle ground of the attack.

The Irish king of Leinster commanded the forces to the earl's left. The centre of the battle was fought at Clontarf.
The Vikings were well equipped and had superior armour and weaponry. They are described as coming ashore carrying shields and their weapons were a mixture of axes, swords, spears, and bows. They were renowned swordsmen and were known for their straight broad-bladed ornamented swords. Brian's army had swords and spears and carried shields with metal studs. The Irish apparently wore no armour: according to the descriptions they wore only cloth. The main Irish weapon at this time for close combat was a casting spear or dart that had a long silken string attached to it. The purpose of the string was to retrieve the spear after it had done its job and presumably use it over and over again. Both the Viking and Irish records mention the many banners that were carried into battle. Brian is said to have had seventy banners of many different colours.


According to the annals, Brian Boru's men fought with valour and kept pushing the enemy back, allowing no advance. They fought from high tide to high tide, all day long and far into the evening. By all accounts it was an exhausting fight. The problem for the invading Viking fleet and their Dublin allies was that they had their backs to the sea and to the River Tolka. It seems that a main problem for the invaders was their failure to get enough beachhead and thereby gain a commanding position. The scribes described their confusion in retreat as Brian Boru's forces marched forwards on them. They were pushed back into the sea and into the River Tolka which was in full tide. Donnchadh O Corrain mused, "Many of them [the invading Vikings] were drowned in the sea and in the Tolka."

CDfm

Thanks MD, that is an excellent piece and it was an excellent series.

The Irish Army still use Clontarf in training as an example on the importance of posting sentries.

@Dubhthach Muirchertach Ua Briain had no need to legitimize his claim as the High Kingship was not Hereditary and he had already asserted his authority over his own people in Munster and it was from that he gained his authority.

Ireland was not a unified/feudal state and the other provincial kings were not his vassal kings.By definition the High kingship was contested. It was not dynastical or a state in the way England was.

He probably should be known as someone who could not keep his nose out of English and Welsh affairs more than he is and I imagine the subsequent Norse invasion may have been influenced in some way by his (and others) interference.

Edit - Here is a very well referenced paper on the High Kingship post Clontarf

http://evergreen.27names.org/academia/MmL.pdf

slowburner

An Avocian travelled through Clontarf today - pretty hard to picture the lie of the land or imagine the battle there now.
What do we know of the topography at the time?

dubhthach

CDfm wrote: »

@Dubhthach Muirchertach Ua Briain had no need to legitimize his claim as the High Kingship was not Hereditary and he had already asserted his authority over his own people in Munster and it was from that he gained his authority.

Ireland was not a unified/feudal state and the other provincial kings were not his vassal kings.By definition the High kingship was contested. It was not dynastical or a state in the way England was.

He probably should be known as someone who could not keep his nose out of English and Welsh affairs more than he is and I imagine the subsequent Norse invasion may have been influenced in some way by his (and others) interference.

Edit - Here is a very well referenced paper on the High Kingship post Clontarf

http://evergreen.27names.org/academia/MmL.pdf

From the link:

Cogadh Gaedhel re Gallaibh, which dates from the early twelfth century,is another tract which praises its chosen dynasty and supports that dynasty’s claim to the high-kingship. The tract, the subject of which has survived admirably, and with great popularity, to this day, is about the war against the Vikings and the struggles of the Dál gCais to defend Ireland. The tract characterizes them as “brutal and ferocious tyrants, plunderers of the church and enslavers of the Irish” It has been persuasively argued that the Vikings at that point were nothing of the kind, and that many of those
pseudohistorians who wrote such things were either creating or adding to
propaganda.

Ancestral dominance is a theme that was almost a given part of pre-
Norman Irish literature, especially as it related to the kingships of the various
provinces and, specifically, which line was

Ireland at it's very core was a lineage society until the destruction of the Gaelic Order at the beginning of the 17th century. For example:

Conall Mageoghegan, writing in 1627, refers contemptuously to persons of this sort, as "mere churls and labouring men, [not] one of whom knows his own great-grandfather

(Gaelic and Gaelicized Ireland -- K.W. Nichols)

The inhertance of kingship (in a Tuatha, sub-kingdom, Provincial kingdom etc.) was via the Deirbhfhine (Derḃḟine) and gelfhine (gelḟine) systems. The first having inheritance over 4 generations the second over 3. The Gelḟine been the default by time Conall was writing in 1627 (thence importance on knowing one's grandfather).

What's interesting in your link obviously is the discussion regarding the ancestor line of Domhnall Mac Lochlainn (Doṁnall Mac Loċlainn). The lineage in Corpus Genealogiarum Hiberniae puts Doṁnall in the "Deiḃḟine" of Doṁnall Ua Néill (the first Ó Néill -- O'Neill surname)

“Domnall m. Ardgair m. Lochlaind m. Muiredaich m. Domnaill (Ua Néill -- High King) m. Muirchertaich m. Néill Glúnduib (High King) m. Áeda Findléith. (high king)”

And thus legally credible as a successor thence all the legal fictions/propaganda.

However if the Book of Leinster is correct then Mac Lochlainn's were outside of any valid Derḃḟine to claim the kingship of the Cenél nEoghain (and thus Aileach)

“Domnall m. Ardgair m. Lochlaind m. Máel-Shechnaill m. Máelruanaid
m. Fhlaind m. Domnall m. Áeda Findléith (High-King).”

At about this time of course the Ua/Ó Néill family were disposessed of the kingship of Aileach/Cenél nEoghain after the death of Flaithbertach Ua Néill (1036). The descendants of Máel Shechnaill would control it for most of next century until the arrival back of the Ua Néill as a powerblock under Aodh an Macaoimh Tóinleasg. Who started the process that saw the near annihilation of the Mac Lochlainns at Cameirge in 1241.

What's intersting about this power struggle between the Mac Lochlainn and Ua Néill (within the wider Uí Néill) is there appears that a genetic break occurred. Surnames connected to the Uí Néill are generally M222+ (likewise for Connachta relatives, the Uí Briúin, Uí Fiachrach, Uí Maine), however the mainline of the Ua Néill (O'Neill) family appears to have underwent a NPE (non-parental event) sometime during this period. given that the Ua Néill was out in the cold during most of the second half of 11th century and bulk of 12th century it wouldn't be surprising if this occurred during this period. Here's a paper that discusses it.

Insights Into the O’Neills of Ireland from DNA Testing (Journal of Genetic Genealogy 2:18-26, 2006)

http://www.jogg.info/22/ONeill.pdf

The O'Neills of Ireland are one of the best known and important families in Irish history, descended from a long
dynastic line that for centuries were Kings of Ulster and High Kings of Ireland. By traditional pedigree they are
patrilineal descendants of Niall "of the Nine Hostages" who was the semi-historical High King of Ireland who died in
405 and who was the founder of the famous Ui Neill dynasty. But an examination of DNA data on males with the
O’Neill, McLaughlin, O Cathain, McShane and other related surnames has led to a theory that the Royal Tyrone
O’Neills of Ireland, from some point forward, were not, as history records, patrilineal descendents from the line of
the Ui Neill. An analysis of available Y-DNA data on 102 males with the O’Neill surname reveals the existence of
two different O’Neill Y-STR clusters, both primarily located in the region of Ireland associated with the Ui Neill line
and the Royal O’Neills. Results of testing the Y-SNP M222 indicate that the two groups of O’Neills are distinctly
separate. Documented Irish history, coupled with Y-DNA data on surnames linked to the Ui Neill line at different
time periods (McLaughlin, O Cathain and McShane) suggest the approximate time frame of a non-paternal event
(NPE) in the Royal O’Neill line occurred between the 900s and 1500s.

--Edit--

The original Trinity College paper on the "North West Irish Modal" (Uí Néill -- M222+)
A Y-Chromosome Signature of Hegemony in Gaelic Ireland
http://vetinari.sitesled.com/gael.pdf

Seventeen-marker simple tandem repeat genetic analysis of Irish Y chromosomes reveals a previously unnoted modal
haplotype that peaks in frequency in the northwestern part of the island. It shows a significant association with
surnames purported to have descended from the most important and enduring dynasty of early medieval Ireland,
the Uí Néill. This suggests that such phylogenetic predominance is a biological record of past hegemony and supports
the veracity of semimythological early genealogies. The fact that about one in five males sampled in northwestern
Ireland is likely a patrilineal descendent of a single early medieval ancestor is a powerful illustration of the potential
link between prolificacy and power and of how Y-chromosome phylogeography can be influenced by social selection.

CDfm

That is hardly relevant here to the outcome of the battles on the thread & Muirchertach Ua Briain had satisfied his own people.

Anyway, why wouldn't 'Cogadh Gaedhel re Gaillibh' be biased against the vikings as it is an Irish account and is essentially based on the bardic tradition.

Even the Roman's dissed the Visigoths and gothic has its origins in roman literature and originally meant vulgar or crude when it was applied to architecture by Italians in the Middle Ages.

I digress, nonetheless scholars consider the account hyperbolic and it is still considered to be a good source for other information - information on battle details and tides for example.

MarchDub

slowburner wrote: »

An Avocian travelled through Clontarf today - pretty hard to picture the lie of the land or imagine the battle there now.
What do we know of the topography at the time?

Bull Island wasn't there. It didn't exist at the time of the Battle of Clontarf. It only emerged as a land mass much later.

Norwayviking

Viking defeat.
I thought it was Vikings fighting Vikings,and the Irish throwing darts at them,lol

http://youtu.be/JMG8W7U0wTk

PhotogTom

While I'm aware that kingship was not hereditary, I'd be interested in any feedback on a "what if" scenario. What if Brian Boru had not been killed, along with his son Murchad, at Contarf?
Would a strong, central, consistent, kingship at this pivotal time had made a difference in Irish and/or world history? Or, was the idea of Ireland as a nation not a realistic one at this time? Why?
Taking the idea further, what if a strong, unified Ireland had pre dated the Norman invasion of England? Could Ireland have emerged as the dominant, sea faring country off the coast of Europe instead of England?
Apologies if this is the wrong forum, but what if scenarios are a favorite of mine and this is one I've been exploring for a while.

Paparazzo

MarchDub wrote: »

Bull Island wasn't there. It didn't exist at the time of the Battle of Clontarf. It only emerged as a land mass much later.

Was reading a book about the history of Dublin the other day, it mentioned that the Battle of Clontarf happened roughly where Croke Park is now

pedroeibar1

MarchDub wrote: »

Bull Island wasn't there. It didn't exist at the time of the Battle of Clontarf. It only emerged as a land mass much later.

Agreed that Bull Island was not there as we know it today, but North and South Bulls were there in 1014, most likely made of raised mud and sand, much of which would have been semi-tidal. The waves breaking on them supposedly made the sound of a bull roaring, hence some, including PW Joyce, state Cluan Tarbh is derived from that Bull rather than a four-legged one.
Halliday’s book, the ‘Scandinavian Kingdom of Dublin’ is rather quiet on the battle itself, but has good detail in its appendix (pgs234-7) on the channel to Dublin.
On the 26th January 1706/7s ‘three Aldermen and six of the Commons form a quorum (Committee of Directors of the Ballast Office) to give directions to the Ballast Master that two iron tormentors be made ...........’ This was to investigate the depth of sand or gravel along the Channel: various meetings later they decided in 1715 the best idea was ‘Laying kishes filled with stones and backing them with sand and gravel.’ Piling started soon after using an ‘engine’ brought in from Holland.
A local history ‘Clontarf Past and Present’ by Muriel McIvor, no publication date, possibly early 1970’s states that on Thursday evening the Danes camped facing the Irish, the Danes on the sloping ground bounded by the Tolka and the sea, and Brian’s army in front of Tomar’s Wood, near Phibsborough. She says ‘The best authorities assert that the thickest of the battle must have raged about the mouth of the Tolka, many perishing in the sea, many in crossing the Tolka, but most of all between the Tolka and the Liffey. In some of the old sagas the battle is called ‘The Battle of the Fishing Weir of Clontarf’.
Several local names are associated from the battle – Conquer Hill; Turlough Terrace near Annesley Bridge (from Brian’s grandson who was killed there); Danesfield, where a Danish sword was dug up in 1830; Kincora called after Brian’s headquarters.

Rs
P.

CDfm

Have there been any "Time Team" events or archaeology found.

BB himself is buried in Armagh and has anything been done there ?

dubhthach

CDfm wrote: »

Have there been any "Time Team" events or archaeology found.

BB himself is buried in Armagh and has anything been done there ?

Well there was excavation done on "Cathedral Hill" and in and around Armagh. Though other then Christian remains they found signs of the pre-christian settlement. For example the found the following carved Bears which are pre-christian in origin.



I believe the carbon-dating on the "fosse" gave a date in early 2nd and late 3rd centuries AD. (see: http://www.google.ie/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=cathedral%20hill%20armagh%20radiocarbon%20dating&source=web&cd=4&ved=0CD8QFjAD&url=https%3A%2F%2Fjournals.uair.arizona.edu%2Findex.php%2Fradiocarbon%2Farticle%2Fdownload%2F279%2F284&ei=w7oET4T7JZC7hAe--LXIAQ&usg=AFQjCNHdQItiTBueebXT05bGI4XjYiVzrw&sig2=QL02qIH7W4QnSmXqdw8MjQ&cad=rja ) Which points at "Cathedral Hill" been successor of Eamhain Mhacha ( km's to west), which is turn was successor to Bronze Age "Haughey's Fort"

Not hugely relevant to Brian Boru though.

CDfm

dubhthach wrote: »

Not hugely relevant to Brian Boru though.

I meant a bit more like this

Burial Place Of Brian Boru

Armagh City Armagh - Northern Ireland The bones of Brian Boru the King of Ireland who defeated the Vikings in 1014 are said to be buried in the North Wall of Saint Patricks Church Of Ireland Cathedral, Armagh which dates back to medieval times.
In the west wall of the North Transept is a granite slab, placed there in 1914, commemorating the burial on the north side of the Cathedral of Brian Boroimhe, Boru High King of Ireland, in 1014. Brian, by his victory at Clontarf on Good Friday, 1014, delivered a final blow to Danish power in Ireland.He lost his life in the battle and his body was brought to Armagh, where it lay in state in the Cathedral for twelve days before burial.


http://www.discoverireland.com/us/ireland-things-to-see-and-do/listings/product/?fid=NITB_3095

Has there been investigation of reputed sites ?

dubhthach

CDfm wrote: »

I meant a bit more like this


Has there been investigation of reputed sites ?

According to this list there hasn't been any excavation done in and around the cathedral structure in the 20th century.
http://www.scribd.com/doc/59178080/5/Fig-39-Significant-early-medieval-excavations-in-Co-Armagh (extract from "Early Medieval Dwellings and Settlements in Ireland, AD 400-1100, Volume 2").

According to wiki article on the Cathedral (Church of Ireland):
"The Church itself has been destroyed and rebuilt 17 times. It was substantially restored between 1834 and 1840 by Archbishop Lord John George Beresford and the architect Lewis Nockalls Cottingham."

I can imagine that the structure in place in the early 11th century was considerably different in size/scope. As a result without digging up the inside I don't imagine there's any way to place the location of the grave.

Of course if they did find it and there was viable aDNA (ancient DNA) it would be quite easy to verify it was Brian. As Dál gCais descendants carry a specific genetic marker (SNP) on their y-chromosome called L226.

slowburner

CDfm wrote: »

Have there been any "Time Team" events or archaeology found.

BB himself is buried in Armagh and has anything been done there ?

Searched the excavations.ie site - no excavations in Clontarf since 1970 anyway.