"
800-1169/1200?
New subheading:Upon a reminder from Fergananim on this question, as raised by him and enthusiastically supported by Scolaire, I said I'd elaborate a bit here. Looking though the discussion again I see I have already (tried to) say something about it.... Anyway, I think we should follow the now established historiographical division of of 800-1169. To amend problems the limitations from such a division I'm thinking the we should to the following
Add a couple of sentences, either in the lead or in the historiography section, explaining why this division is somewhat problematic. (Mind, any division that gets established is problematic, for the same reasons)
Have a solid background-section to draw the lines from before 800 into our period. I've slready started that, but it might be expanded.
Have a solid ""whatever-the-opposite-of-background-is-called-in-English""-section drawing lines from our period into the future, so to speak.
Don't treat 1169 as limit written in stone, despite being in the title. The second synod of Cashel should be discussed here (despite being in 1172), the career of Rory O'Connor after the invasion should be included, etc etc.
It's not like I'm married to 1169 though, but maybe we could wait drawing a conclusion on this until I've gotten around to write something (except church history) about Ireland after 1050... Might be easier for you to understand my thinking (and argue against it ;) if it's in the article and not just in my head. Best regards,   "