Talk:Battle of Largs

Good Article

I think this article is really quite good compared to other articles on the subject in Wiki. However, there are 4 or 5 points that I can refine a little more.

According to the History of the Earls of Orkney, Magnus the Barefoot gained jurisdiction over the Hebrides and Kintyre in 1098. I know that is 'about 1100' but it is a bit more accurate. The legend of this acquisition explains one of the reasons why the Scots were so frustrated with the entire affair.

It may be a good idea to mention the Wiki article on the Orkney Sagas and place an internal link to it since that article gives a little more detail on the Battle background.

Another point is that the Bishop of St. Andrews mediated the negotiations prior to the Battle. The Scots knew that the Christian Norwegians would respect the judgement of the Bishop. This stall tactic, which included the necessity to retreive the Bishop from St Andrews, was devised by the Sheriff of Ayrshire. That explains why Haakon, when he discovered the stall tactic, withdrew from the negotiations so quickly.

It was, in fact, the Sheriff of Ayrshire who led the Scottish 'army.' In today's terms I'm sure it would be more like a militia. And it was the Sheriff of Ayrshire, the Laird of Loudon Castle at the time, who was granted the extensive properties of Crosbie, a location near West Kilbride, shortly thereafter. Over hundreds of years his descendants divided the large grant into much more manageable estates that were eventually entirely sold by descendants by the 1800's. There may already be a Wiki article on that particular Sheriff of Ayrshire.

And finally, I believe that it would be more accurate to say,

"While the Battle (or Skirmish as appropriate) of Largs was a tactical military draw, it was also an immediate strategic military victory and three years later a political victory for the Scots. The death of Haakon in Dec 1263 made the question of whether the Norwegians could mount another 'enforcement mission' a moot point. For whatever reason(s) the Norwegians no longer had the will to enforce their jurisdiction. Without the immediate ability of the Norwegians to subordinate or defend the Hebrides and Kintyre, the Lord of the Isles subsequently subordinated himself to the Scottish King. The Treaty of Perth three years later simply formalized the political victory that resulted from the Battle of Largs, and made that victory permanent." —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Dr fission (talk • contribs) 00:33, 22 April 2007 (UTC).

Thank you for comments, and for calling the article (which I have written the most of) quite good! As for your comments: I would be interested to hear your source for who commanded the Scottish troops. I haven't been able to find any really detailed sources from the Scottish side. As for your suggested change, I slightly disagree with your suggested change, but this is of course debatable. However, your use of the term "Lord of the Isles" is a total anachronism at this time. There were several people who held the title of King in the Hebrides at this time. The Lord of the Isles is a term of later centuries.--Barend 17:24, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Battle of Largs Map

This is a good article. The map would be better if it indicated Largs, Skye and the Lochs referred to in the discussion.RogueDuncan 21:45, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

location of battle

Is it known where the exact battle took place? Is it indeed where the 'pencil' is? Or has the location been lost to history? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.214.2.198 (talk) 07:42, August 27, 2007 (UTC)

I don't think anyone will ever know the exact location, but the 'mound' described in the saga appears to have been identified and located. The 'Pencil' isn't anywhere near the likely battle-site. I wish I could find a free picture of the 'mound' for the article.--Brianann MacAmhlaidh (talk) 09:34, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

Kyleakin

The village Kyleakin on Skye is always said to derive its name from Haakon - "Haakon's kyle" - following an assembly of his ships there prior to the battle. Does anyone know if there is any reliable confirmation of this etymology and, if so, is it worth mentioning?45ossington (talk) 06:49, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

I've tried to focus this article on the actual battle. I don't think this location has much to do with it, quite a bit took place from Hakon's arrival on Skye and the battle. I think the factoid is something that should appear in Scottish–Norwegian War, like as a footnote or something. I've seen G. W. S. Barrow note the placename and Hakon in one of his books.--Brianann MacAmhlaidh (talk) 09:26, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

750th anniversay

Whoa. The October after this one will be the battle's 750th anniversary. It'd be cool to get this article to Featured article status and on the mainpage for 2 October 2013 to commemorate it.--Brianann MacAmhlaidh (talk) 08:25, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

Good point. Surely this article is not far from good article status and perhaps we should check through for that in the next few weeks and then go for that status, with a view to moving on the FA review at a later date. It is well sourced and comprehensive, so this should be fairly easy. A pretty quick read through prompts a few issues that might come up:

• Sources: other sources, like the Chronicle of Melrose, need to be mentioned in this section. Later on it sort of seems as if the article is more about the saga than the event, so that might need rewording. Perhaps some of this could come up from the Historiography section?
• Background: worth mentioning the existence of Scandinavian Scotland briefly? Reader's from far away places like say London, might not even know about the phase. There are also a few places where the casual reader might not understand the significance of some events or places.
• Historiography: not sure the line between historiography and contemporary views is clear here. Might be worth considering changing this to something on the significance of the battle. I should also add that, from memory, the idea of the battle as a turning point still appears in some recent general histories and perhaps we should outline that. That said it is surely right to be neutral and sceptical here, so the overall tone seems right to me.
• Images: I think (I am currently on a very narrow display so hard to be sure) that the article might carry a few more pictures (Alexander and Haakon' seals for example?) Also these should be formatted and moved a bit to comply with the MOS (although GA and FA reviews regularly ignore the guidelines) - I can do that pretty easily before things go to a review.
• Style: I have spotted a few errors and a few things might need to be expressed differently for a general audience, so it might be a good idea to go for a copy edit.

That turned out to be a longer list than I anticipated and was all meant to be helpful. I think this is all pretty minor stuff and agree we should go to review as soon as we are confident.--SabreBD (talk) 09:07, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

Treaty of Perth

I'm not sure if this information correlates with the Treaty of Perth, anyone have more information on this?

Twillisjr (talk) 20:05, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

Assessment comment

The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:Battle of Largs/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.

Two different pictures of the Largs "pencil", from more or less the same angle, appear in the article. One could go... --MacRusgail 15:51, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Last edited at 15:51, 22 October 2007 (UTC). Substituted at 09:11, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Battle of Largs. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130412173927/http://www.vsnrweb-publications.org.uk/Saga-Book%20XXIX.pdf to http://www.vsnrweb-publications.org.uk/Saga-Book%20XXIX.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 18:15, 28 October 2016 (UTC)

Battle's link to thistle in Scottish culture

According to the page for Nemo me impune lacessit, it is suggested that a Norwegian raiding party prior to the battle had given themselves away when they trod on thistles, with the "guardian thistle" becoming part of Scottish culture because of this. If this holds up to anyone's scrutiny, it may be worth including this in the article. — Sasuke Sarutobi (talk) 14:41, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

References

For 188.29.165.142

@188.29.165.142: What is the particular issue with this article? It's not like its unsourced (the lead is left unsourced as a convention), so the content here is supported by what seem to be reliable sources. ^{My name is}not^dave (talk/contribs) 07:30, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

Decisive or indecisive?

Hi there. The Scottish–Norwegian War article says that this battle way is indecisive (see the end of the lead section), whereas this article says that it was decisive. Thoughts? Willbb234^Talk (please {{ping}} me in replies) 11:05, 31 December 2019 (UTC)

It was a decisive Scottish victory, but there is a politically motivated campaign, sponsored by the Westminster Government, among English Academics to disempower Scottish culture and history ahead of a future Scottish Independence referendum. It is sad to see wikipedia falling for such blatant propaganda. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 51.6.10.150 (talk) 15:16, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

hard to read

there's an 83 word sentence with out helpful punctuation. makes it very hard to understand without rereading. 213.205.198.3 (talk) 09:14, 14 August 2021 (UTC)

Also, the sentence about the three-tiered strategy in the lead section makes it seem as if the storm was a strategic effort on the part of "the young Scottish King". It then makes no mention of a third tier, making the whole section feel disjointed.94.210.143.229 (talk) 09:27, 16 February 2022 (UTC)

Lead

It's an interesting article but the lead is too long. John (talk) 13:50, 2 October 2022 (UTC)