User:Andrew Lancaster/Anglo-Saxon drafting
![]() | This is a draft article. It is a work in progress open to editing by anyone. Please ensure core content policies are met before publishing it as a live Wikipedia article. Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL Last edited by Andrew Lancaster (talk | contribs) 2 months ago. (Update) |
Genetics section
[edit]Anglo-Saxon settlement of Britain (part) 2 march 2025 | Anglo Saxons (history part 2 March 2025) |
Historical context[edit]As the Roman occupation of Britain was coming to an end, Constantine III moved Roman forces based in Britain to the continent. This was at least partly in reaction to the Germanic invasion of Gaul with the Crossing of the Rhine in December 406.[1][2] The Romano-British leaders were faced with an increasing security problem from seaborne raids, particularly by Picts on the east coast of England.[3] The expedient adopted by the Romano-British leaders was to enlist the help of Anglo-Saxon mercenaries (known as foederati), to whom they ceded territory.[3][4] In about 442 the Anglo-Saxons mutinied, apparently because they had not been paid.[5] The Romano-British responded by appealing to the Roman commander of the Western empire, Magister militium Aetius, for help (a document known as the Groans of the Britons), even though Honorius, the Western Roman Emperor, had written to the British civitas in or about 410 telling them to look to their own defence.[6][7][8][9] There then followed several years of fighting between the British and the Anglo-Saxons.[10] The fighting continued until around 500, when, at the Battle of Mount Badon, the Britons inflicted a severe defeat on the Anglo-Saxons.[11] Migration and the formation of kingdoms (400–600)[edit]There are records of Germanic infiltration into Britain that date before the collapse of the Roman Empire.[12] It is believed that the earliest Germanic visitors were eight cohorts of Batavians attached to the 14th Legion in the original invasion force under Aulus Plautius in AD 43.[12][13][14] There is a recent hypothesis that some of the native tribes, identified as Britons by the Romans, may have been Germanic-language speakers, but most scholars disagree with this due to an insufficient record of local languages in Roman-period artefacts.[15][16][17] It was quite common for Rome to swell its legions with foederati recruited from the German homelands.[18] This practice also extended to the army serving in Britain, and graves of these mercenaries, along with their families, can be identified in the Roman cemeteries of the period.[19] The migration continued with the departure of the Roman army, when Anglo-Saxons were recruited to defend Britain; and also during the period of the Anglo-Saxon first rebellion of 442.[20] If the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle is to be believed, the various Anglo-Saxon kingdoms which eventually merged to become England were founded when small fleets of three or five ships of invaders arrived at various points around the coast of England to fight the sub-Roman British, and conquered their lands.[21] The language of the migrants, Old English, came over the next few centuries to predominate throughout what is now England, at the expense of British Celtic and British Latin. The arrival of the Anglo-Saxons into Britain can be seen in the context of a general movement of Germanic peoples around Europe between the years 300 and 700, known as the Migration period (also called the Barbarian Invasions or Völkerwanderung). In the same period there were migrations of Britons to the Armorican peninsula (Brittany and Normandy in modern-day France): initially around 383 during Roman rule, but also c. 460 and in the 540s and 550s; the 460s migration is thought to be a reaction to the fighting during the Anglo-Saxon mutiny between about 450 to 500, as was the migration to Britonia (modern-day Galicia, in northwest Spain) at about the same time.[22] The historian Peter Hunter-Blair expounded what is now regarded as the traditional view of the Anglo-Saxon arrival in Britain.[23] He suggested a mass immigration, with the incomers fighting and driving the sub-Roman Britons off their land and into the western extremities of the islands, and into the Breton and Iberian peninsulas.[24] This view is based on sources such as Bede, who mentions the Britons being slaughtered or going into "perpetual servitude".[25] According to Härke the more modern view is of co-existence between the British and the Anglo-Saxons.[26][27][28] He suggests that several modern archaeologists have now re-assessed the traditional model, and have developed a co-existence model largely based on the Laws of Ine. The laws include several clauses that provide six different wergild levels for the Britons, of which four are below that of freeman.[29] Although the Britons could be rich freemen in Anglo-Saxon society, generally it seems that they had a lower status than that of the Anglo-Saxons.[28][29] Discussions and analysis still continue on the size of the migration, and whether it was a small elite band of Anglo-Saxons who came in and took over the running of the country, or mass migration of peoples who overwhelmed the Britons.[30][31][32][33] An emerging view is that two scenarios could have co-occurred, with large-scale migration and demographic change in the core areas of the settlement and elite dominance in peripheral regions.[34][35][36][37][38][39][40][41] According to Gildas, initial vigorous British resistance was led by a man called Ambrosius Aurelianus.[42] From then on, victory fluctuated between the two peoples. Gildas records a "final" victory of the Britons at the Battle of Mount Badon in c. 500, and this might mark a point at which Anglo-Saxon migration was temporarily stemmed.[11] Gildas said that this battle was "forty-four years and one month" after the arrival of the Saxons, and was also the year of his birth.[11] He said that a time of great prosperity followed.[11] But, despite the lull, the Anglo-Saxons took control of Sussex, Kent, East Anglia and part of Yorkshire; while the West Saxons founded a kingdom in Hampshire under the leadership of Cerdic, around 520.[43] However, it was to be 50 years before the Anglo-Saxons began further major advances.[43] In the intervening years the Britons exhausted themselves with civil war, internal disputes, and general unrest, which was the inspiration behind Gildas's book De Excidio Britanniae (The Ruin of Britain).[44] The next major campaign against the Britons was in 577, led by Ceawlin, king of Wessex, whose campaigns succeeded in taking Cirencester, Gloucester and Bath (known as the Battle of Dyrham).[43][45][46] This expansion of Wessex ended abruptly when the Anglo-Saxons started fighting among themselves, resulting in Ceawlin retreating to his original territory. He was then replaced by Ceol (who was possibly his nephew). Ceawlin was killed the following year, but the annals do not specify by whom.[47][48] Cirencester subsequently became an Anglo-Saxon kingdom under the overlordship of the Mercians, rather than Wessex.[49] Heptarchy and Christianisation (7th and 8th centuries)[edit]![]() ![]() By 600, a new order was developing, of kingdoms and sub-kingdoms. The medieval historian Henry of Huntingdon conceived the idea of the Heptarchy, which consisted of the seven principal Anglo-Saxon kingdoms (Heptarchy is a literal translation from the Greek: hept – seven; archy – rule).[50] By convention, the Heptarchy period lasted from the end of Roman rule in Britain in the 5th century, until most of the Anglo-Saxon kingdoms came under the overlordship of Egbert of Wessex in 829. This approximately 400-year period of European history is often referred to as the Early Middle Ages or, more controversially, as the Dark Ages. Although heptarchy suggests the existence of seven kingdoms, the term is just used as a label of convenience and does not imply the existence of a clear-cut or stable group of seven kingdoms. The number of kingdoms and sub-kingdoms fluctuated rapidly during this period as competing kings contended for supremacy.[51] The four main kingdoms in Anglo-Saxon England were East Anglia, Mercia, Northumbria (originally two kingdoms, Bernicia and Deira), and Wessex. Minor kingdoms included Essex, Kent, and Sussex. Other minor kingdoms and territories are mentioned in sources such as the Tribal Hideage:
At the end of the 6th century the most powerful ruler in England was Æthelberht of Kent, whose lands extended north to the River Humber.[52] In the early years of the 7th century, Kent and East Anglia were the leading English kingdoms.[53] After the death of Æthelberht in 616, Rædwald of East Anglia became the most powerful leader south of the Humber.[53] ![]() Following the death of Æthelfrith of Northumbria, Rædwald provided military assistance to the Deiran Edwin in his struggle to take over the two dynasties of Deira and Bernicia in the unified kingdom of Northumbria.[53] Upon the death of Rædwald, Edwin was able to pursue a grand plan to expand Northumbrian power.[53] The growing strength of Edwin of Northumbria forced the Anglo-Saxon Mercians under Penda into an alliance with the Welsh king Cadwallon ap Cadfan of Gwynedd, and together they invaded Edwin's lands and defeated and killed him at the Battle of Hatfield Chase in 633.[54][55] Their success was short-lived, as Oswald (one of the sons of the late King of Northumbria, Æthelfrith) defeated and killed Cadwallon at Heavenfield near Hexham.[56] In less than a decade Penda again waged war against Northumbria, and killed Oswald in the Battle of Maserfield in 642.[57] Oswald's brother Oswiu was chased to the northern extremes of his kingdom.[57][58] However, Oswiu killed Penda soon afterwards, and Mercia spent the rest of the 7th and all of the 8th century fighting the Welsh kingdom of Powys.[57] The war reached its climax during the reign of Offa of Mercia,[57] who is remembered for the construction of a 150-mile-long dyke which formed the Wales/England border.[59] It is not clear whether this was a boundary line or a defensive position.[59] The ascendency of the Mercians came to an end in 825, when they were soundly beaten under Beornwulf at the Battle of Ellendun by Egbert of Wessex.[60] Early Christianity[edit]Christianity had been introduced into the British Isles during the Roman occupation.[61] The early Christian Berber author, Tertullian, writing in the 3rd century, said that "Christianity could even be found in Britain".[62] The Roman Emperor Constantine (306–337) granted official tolerance to Christianity with the Edict of Milan in 313.[63] Then, in the reign of Emperor Theodosius "the Great" (379–395), Christianity was made the official religion of the Roman Empire.[64] ![]() It is not entirely clear how many Britons would have been Christian when the pagan Anglo-Saxons arrived.[65][66] There had been attempts to evangelise the Irish by Pope Celestine I in 431.[67] However, it was Saint Patrick who is credited with converting the Irish en masse.[67] A Christian Ireland then set about evangelising the rest of the British Isles, and Columba founded a religious community in Iona, off the west coast of Scotland.[68] Then Aidan was sent from Iona to set up his see in Northumbria, at Lindisfarne, between 635 and 651.[69] Hence Northumbria was converted by the Celtic (Irish) church.[69] Bede is very uncomplimentary about the indigenous British clergy: in his Historia ecclesiastica he complains of their "unspeakable crimes", and that they did not preach the faith to the Angles or Saxons.[70] Pope Gregory I sent Augustine in 597 to convert the Anglo-Saxons, but Bede says the British clergy refused to help Augustine in his mission.[71][72] Despite Bede's complaints, it is now believed that the Britons played an important role in the conversion of the Anglo-Saxons.[73] On arrival in the south east of England in 597, Augustine was given land by King Æthelberht of Kent to build a church; so in 597 Augustine built the church and founded the See at Canterbury.[74] Æthelberht was baptised by 601, and he then continued with his mission to convert the English.[75] Most of the north and east of England had already been evangelised by the Irish church. However, Sussex and the Isle of Wight remained mainly pagan until the arrival of Saint Wilfrid, the exiled Archbishop of York, who converted Sussex around 681 and the Isle of Wight in 683.[76][77][78] ![]() It remains unclear what "conversion" actually meant. The ecclesiastical writers tended to declare a territory as "converted" merely because the local king had agreed to be baptised, regardless of whether, in reality, he actually adopted Christian practices; and regardless, too, of whether the general population of his kingdom did so.[79] When churches were built, they tended to include pagan as well as Christian symbols, evidencing an attempt to reach out to the pagan Anglo-Saxons, rather than demonstrating that they were already converted.[80][81] Even after Christianity had been set up in all of the Anglo-Saxon kingdoms, there was friction between the followers of the Roman rites and the Irish rites, particularly over the date on which Easter fell and the way monks cut their hair.[82] In 664, a conference was held at Whitby Abbey (known as the Whitby Synod) to decide the matter; Saint Wilfrid was an advocate for the Roman rites and Bishop Colmán for the Irish rites.[83] Wilfrid's argument won the day and Colmán and his party returned to Ireland in their bitter disappointment.[83] The Roman rites were adopted by the English church, although they were not universally accepted by the Irish church until Henry II of England invaded Ireland in the 12th century and imposed the Roman rites by force.[83][84]
Viking challenge and the rise of Wessex (9th century)[edit]![]() Between the 8th and 11th centuries, raiders and colonists from Scandinavia, mainly Danish and Norwegian, plundered western Europe, including the British Isles.[1] These raiders came to be known as the Vikings; the name is believed to derive from Scandinavia, where the Vikings originated.[2][3] The first raids in the British Isles were in the late 8th century, mainly on churches and monasteries (which were seen as centres of wealth).[2][4] The Anglo-Saxon Chronicle reports that the holy island of Lindisfarne was sacked in 793.[5] The raiding then virtually stopped for around 40 years; but in about 835, it started becoming more regular.[6] ![]() In the 860s, instead of raids, the Danes mounted a full-scale invasion. In 865, an enlarged army arrived that the Anglo-Saxons described as the Great Heathen Army. This was reinforced in 871 by the Great Summer Army.[6] Within ten years nearly all of the Anglo-Saxon kingdoms fell to the invaders: Northumbria in 867, East Anglia in 869, and nearly all of Mercia in 874–77.[6] Kingdoms, centres of learning, archives, and churches all fell before the onslaught from the invading Danes. Only the Kingdom of Wessex was able to survive.[6] In March 878, the Anglo-Saxon King of Wessex, Alfred, with a few men, built a fortress at Athelney, hidden deep in the marshes of Somerset.[8] He used this as a base from which to harry the Vikings. In May 878 he put together an army formed from the populations of Somerset, Wiltshire, and Hampshire, which defeated the Viking army in the Battle of Edington.[8] The Vikings retreated to their stronghold, and Alfred laid siege to it.[8] Ultimately the Danes capitulated, and their leader Guthrum agreed to withdraw from Wessex and to be baptised. The formal ceremony was completed a few days later at Wedmore.[8][9] There followed a peace treaty between Alfred and Guthrum, which had a variety of provisions, including defining the boundaries of the area to be ruled by the Danes (which became known as the Danelaw) and those of Wessex.[10] The Kingdom of Wessex controlled part of the Midlands and the whole of the South (apart from Cornwall, which was still held by the Britons), while the Danes held East Anglia and the North.[11] After the victory at Edington and resultant peace treaty, Alfred set about transforming his Kingdom of Wessex into a society on a full-time war footing.[12] He built a navy, reorganised the army, and set up a system of fortified towns known as burhs. He mainly used old Roman cities for his burhs, as he was able to rebuild and reinforce their existing fortifications.[12] To maintain the burhs, and the standing army, he set up a taxation system known as the Burghal Hidage.[13] These burhs (or burghs) operated as defensive structures. The Vikings were thereafter unable to cross large sections of Wessex: the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle reports that a Danish raiding party was defeated when it tried to attack the burh of Chichester.[14][15] Although the burhs were primarily designed as defensive structures, they were also commercial centres, attracting traders and markets to a safe haven, and they provided a safe place for the king's moneyers and mints.[16] A new wave of Danish invasions commenced in 891,[17] beginning a war that lasted over three years.[18][19] Alfred's new system of defence worked, however, and ultimately it wore the Danes down: they gave up and dispersed in mid-896.[19] Alfred is remembered as a literate king. He or his court commissioned the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle, which was written in Old English (rather than in Latin, the language of the European annals).[20] Alfred's own literary output was mainly of translations, but he also wrote introductions and amended manuscripts.[20][21] English unification (10th century)[edit]![]() From 874 to 879, the western half of Mercia was ruled by Ceowulf II, who was succeeded by Æthelred as Lord of the Mercians.[22] Alfred the Great of Wessex styled himself King of the Anglo-Saxons from about 886. In 886/887 Æthelred married Alfred's daughter Æthelflæd.[22] On Alfred's death in 899, his son Edward the Elder succeeded him.[23] When Æthelred died in 911, Æthelflæd succeeded him as "Lady of the Mercians",[22] and in the 910s she and her brother Edward recovered East Anglia and eastern Mercia from Viking rule.[22] Edward and his successors expanded Alfred's network of fortified burhs, a key element of their strategy, enabling them to go on the offensive.[24][25] When Edward died in 924 he ruled all England south of the Humber. His son, Æthelstan, annexed Northumbria in 927 and thus became the first king of all England. At the Battle of Brunanburh in 937, he defeated an alliance of the Scots, Danes, Vikings and Strathclyde Britons.[24] Along with the Britons and the settled Danes, some of the other Anglo-Saxon kingdoms disliked being ruled by Wessex. Consequently, the death of a Wessex king would be followed by rebellion, particularly in Northumbria.[24] Alfred's great-grandson, Edgar, who had come to the throne in 959, was crowned at Bath in 973 and soon afterwards the other British kings met him at Chester and acknowledged his authority.[26] The presence of Danish and Norse settlers in the Danelaw had a lasting impact; the people there saw themselves as "armies" a hundred years after settlement:[27] King Edgar issued a law code in 962 that was to include the people of Northumbria, so he addressed it to Earl Olac "and all the army that live in that earldom".[27] There are over 3,000 words in modern English that have Scandinavian roots,[28][29] and more than 1,500 place-names in England are Scandinavian in origin; for example, topographic names such as Howe, Norfolk and Howe, North Yorkshire are derived from the Old Norse word haugr meaning hill, knoll, or mound.[29][30] In archaeology and other academic contexts the term Anglo-Scandinavian is often used for Scandinavian culture in England.
England under the Danes and the Norman Conquest (978–1066)[edit]![]() Edgar died in 975, sixteen years after gaining the throne, while still only in his early thirties. Some magnates supported the succession of his younger son, Æthelred, but his elder half-brother, Edward was elected, aged about twelve. His reign was marked by disorder, and three years later, in 978, he was assassinated by some of his half-brother's retainers.[1] Æthelred succeeded, and although he reigned for thirty-eight years, one of the longest reigns in English history, he earned the name "Æthelred the Unready", as he proved to be one of England's most disastrous kings.[2] William of Malmesbury, writing in his Chronicle of the kings of England about one hundred years later, was scathing in his criticism of Æthelred, saying that he occupied the kingdom, rather than governed it.[3] Just as Æthelred was being crowned, the Danish Harald Gormsson was trying to force Christianity onto his domain.[4] Many of his subjects did not like this idea, and shortly before 988, Sweyn, his son, drove his father from the kingdom.[4] The rebels, dispossessed at home, probably formed the first waves of raids on the English coast.[4] The rebels did so well in their raiding that the Danish kings decided to take over the campaign themselves.[5] In 991 the Vikings sacked Ipswich, and their fleet made landfall near Maldon in Essex.[5] The Danes demanded that the English pay a ransom, but the English commander Byrhtnoth refused; he was killed in the ensuing Battle of Maldon, and the English were easily defeated.[5] From then on the Vikings seem to have raided anywhere at will; they were contemptuous of the lack of resistance from the English. Even the Alfredian systems of burhs failed.[6] Æthelred seems to have just hidden, out of range of the raiders.[6] Payment of Danegeld[edit]By the 980s the kings of Wessex had a powerful grip on the coinage of the realm. It is reckoned there were about 300 moneyers, and 60 mints, around the country.[7] Every five or six years the coinage in circulation would cease to be legal tender and new coins were issued.[7] The system controlling the currency around the country was extremely sophisticated; this enabled the king to raise large sums of money if needed.[8][9] The need indeed arose after the battle of Maldon, as Æthelred decided that, rather than fight, he would pay ransom to the Danes in a system known as Danegeld.[10] As part of the ransom, a peace treaty was drawn up that was intended to stop the raids. However, rather than buying the Vikings off, payment of Danegeld only encouraged them to come back for more.[11] The Dukes of Normandy were quite happy to allow these Danish adventurers to use their ports for raids on the English coast. The result was that the courts of England and Normandy became increasingly hostile to each other.[4] Eventually, Æthelred sought a treaty with the Normans, and ended up marrying Emma, daughter of Richard I, Duke of Normandy in the Spring of 1002, which was seen as an attempt to break the link between the raiders and Normandy.[6][12] Then, on St. Brice's day in November 1002, Danes living in England were slaughtered on the orders of Æthelred.[13] Rise of Cnut[edit]![]() In mid-1013, Sven Forkbeard, King of Denmark, brought the Danish fleet to Sandwich, Kent.[14] From there he went north to the Danelaw, where the locals immediately agreed to support him.[14] He then struck south, forcing Æthelred into exile in Normandy (1013–1014). However, on 3 February 1014, Sven died suddenly.[14] Capitalising on his death, Æthelred returned to England and drove Sven's son, Cnut, back to Denmark, forcing him to abandon his allies in the process.[14] In 1015, Cnut launched a new campaign against England.[14] Edmund fell out with his father, Æthelred, and struck out on his own.[15] Some English leaders decided to support Cnut, so Æthelred ultimately retreated to London.[15] Before engagement with the Danish army, Æthelred died and was replaced by Edmund.[15] The Danish army encircled and besieged London, but Edmund was able to escape and raised an army of loyalists.[15] Edmund's army routed the Danes, but the success was short-lived: at the Battle of Ashingdon, the Danes were victorious, and many of the English leaders were killed.[15] Cnut and Edmund agreed to split the kingdom in two, with Edmund ruling Wessex and Cnut the rest.[15][16] In 1017, Edmund died in mysterious circumstances, probably murdered by Cnut or his supporters, and the English council (the witan) confirmed Cnut as king of all England.[15] Cnut divided England into earldoms: most of these were allocated to nobles of Danish descent, but he made an Englishman earl of Wessex. The man he appointed was Godwin, who eventually became part of the extended royal family when he married the king's sister-in-law.[17] In the summer of 1017, Cnut sent for Æthelred's widow, Emma, with the intention of marrying her.[18] It seems that Emma agreed to marry the king on condition that he would limit the English succession to the children born of their union.[19] Cnut already had a wife, known as Ælfgifu of Northampton, who bore him two sons, Svein and Harold Harefoot.[19] The church, however, seems to have regarded Ælfgifu as Cnut's concubine rather than his wife.[19] In addition to the two sons he had with Ælfgifu, he had a further son with Emma, who was named Harthacnut.[19][20] When Cnut's brother, Harald II, King of Denmark, died in 1018, Cnut went to Denmark to secure that realm. Two years later, Cnut brought Norway under his control, and he gave Ælfgifu and their son Svein the job of governing it.[20] Edward becomes king[edit]One result of Cnut's marriage to Emma was to precipitate a succession crisis after his death in 1035,[20] as the throne was disputed between Ælfgifu's son, Harald Harefoot, and Emma's son, Harthacnut.[21] Emma supported her son by Cnut, Harthacnut, rather than a son by Æthelred.[22] Her son by Æthelred, Edward, made an unsuccessful raid on Southampton, and his brother Alfred was murdered on an expedition to England in 1036.[22] Emma fled to Bruges when Harald Harefoot became king of England, but when he died in 1040 Harthacnut was able to take over as king.[21] Harthacnut quickly developed a reputation for imposing high taxes on England.[21] He became so unpopular that Edward was invited to return from exile in Normandy to be recognised as Harthacnut's heir,[22][23] and when Harthacnut died suddenly in 1042 (probably murdered), Edward (known to posterity as Edward the Confessor) became king.[22] Edward was supported by Earl Godwin of Wessex and married the earl's daughter. This arrangement was seen as expedient, however, as Godwin had been implicated in the murder of Alfred, the king's brother. In 1051 one of Edward's in-laws, Eustace, arrived to take up residence in Dover; the men of Dover objected and killed some of Eustace's men.[22] When Godwin refused to punish them, the king, who had been unhappy with the Godwins for some time, summoned them to trial. Stigand, the Archbishop of Canterbury, was chosen to deliver the news to Godwin and his family.[24] The Godwins fled rather than face trial.[24] Norman accounts suggest that at this time Edward offered the succession to his cousin, William (duke) of Normandy (also known as William the Conqueror, William the Bastard, or William I), though this is unlikely given that accession to the Anglo-Saxon kingship was by election, not heredity – a fact which Edward would surely have known, having been elected himself by the Witenagemot. The Godwins, having previously fled, threatened to invade England. Edward is said to have wanted to fight, but at a Great Council meeting in Westminster, Earl Godwin laid down all his weapons and asked the king to allow him to purge himself of all crimes.[25] The king and Godwin were reconciled,[25] and the Godwins thus became the most powerful family in England after the king.[26][27] On Godwin's death in 1053, his son Harold succeeded to the earldom of Wessex; Harold's brothers Gyrth, Leofwine, and Tostig were given East Anglia, Mercia, and Northumbria.[26] The Northumbrians disliked Tostig for his harsh behaviour, and he was expelled to an exile in Flanders, in the process falling out with his brother Harold, who supported the king's line in backing the Northumbrians.[28][29] Death of Edward the Confessor[edit]![]() On 26 December 1065, Edward was taken ill.[29] He took to his bed and fell into a coma; at one point he woke and turned to Harold Godwinson and asked him to protect the Queen and the kingdom.[30][31] On 5 January 1066 Edward the Confessor died, and Harold was declared king.[29] The following day, 6 January 1066, Edward was buried and Harold crowned.[31][32] Although Harold Godwinson had "grabbed" the crown of England, others laid claim to it, primarily William, Duke of Normandy, who was cousin to Edward the Confessor through his aunt, Emma of Normandy.[33] It is believed that Edward had promised the crown to William.[22] Harold Godwinson had agreed to support William's claim after being imprisoned in Normandy, by Guy of Ponthieu. William had demanded and received Harold's release, then during his stay under William's protection it is claimed, by the Normans, that Harold swore "a solemn oath" of loyalty to William.[34] Harald Hardrada ("The Ruthless") of Norway also had a claim on England, through Cnut and his successors.[33] He had a further claim based on a pact between Harthacnut, King of Denmark (Cnut's son) and Magnus, King of Norway.[33] Tostig, Harold's estranged brother, was the first to move; according to the medieval historian Orderic Vitalis, he travelled to Normandy to enlist the help of William, Duke of Normandy, later to be known as William the Conqueror.[33][34][35] William was not ready to get involved so Tostig sailed from the Cotentin Peninsula, but because of storms ended up in Norway, where he successfully enlisted the help of Harald Hardrada.[35][36] The Anglo Saxon Chronicle has a different version of the story, having Tostig land in the Isle of Wight in May 1066, then ravaging the English coast, before arriving at Sandwich, Kent.[32][36] At Sandwich Tostig is said to have enlisted and press-ganged sailors before sailing north where, after battling some of the northern earls and also visiting Scotland, he eventually joined Hardrada (possibly in Scotland or at the mouth of the river Tyne).[32][36] Battle of Fulford and aftermath[edit]According to the Anglo Saxon Chronicle (Manuscripts D and E) Tostig became Hardrada's vassal and then with 300 or so longships sailed up the Humber Estuary bottling the English fleet in the river Swale and then landed at Riccall on the Ouse.[36][37] They marched towards York, where they were confronted, at Fulford Gate, by the English forces that were under the command of the northern earls, Edwin and Morcar; the Battle of Fulford followed, on 20 September, which was one of the bloodiest battles of medieval times.[38] The English forces were routed, though Edwin and Morcar escaped. The victors entered the city of York, exchanged hostages and were provisioned.[39] Hearing the news whilst in London, Harold Godwinson force-marched a second English army to Tadcaster by the night of the 24th, and after catching Harald Hardrada by surprise, on the morning of 25 September, Harold achieved a total victory over the Scandinavian horde after a two-day-long engagement at the Battle of Stamford Bridge.[40] Harold gave quarter to the survivors allowing them to leave in 20 ships.[40] William of Normandy sails for England[edit]![]() Harold would have been celebrating his victory at Stamford Bridge on the night of 26/27 September 1066, while William of Normandy's invasion fleet set sail for England on the morning of 27 September 1066.[41] Harold marched his army back down to the south coast, where he met William's army, at a place now called Battle just outside Hastings.[42] Harold was killed when he fought and lost the Battle of Hastings on 14 October 1066.[43] The Battle of Hastings virtually destroyed the Godwin dynasty. Harold and his brothers Gyrth and Leofwine were dead on the battlefield, as was their uncle Ælfwig, Abbot of Newminster. Tostig had been killed at Stamford Bridge. Wulfnoth was a hostage of William the Conqueror. The Godwin women who remained were either dead or childless.[44] William marched on London. The city leaders surrendered the kingdom to him, and he was crowned at Westminster Abbey, Edward the Confessor's new church, on Christmas Day 1066.[45] It took William a further ten years to consolidate his kingdom, during which any opposition was suppressed ruthlessly; in a particularly brutal process known as the Harrying of the North, William issued orders to lay waste the north and burn all the cattle, crops and farming equipment and to poison the earth.[46] According to Orderic Vitalis, the Anglo-Norman chronicler, over 100,000 people died of starvation.[47] Figures based on the returns for the Domesday Book estimate that the population of England in 1086 was about 2.25 million, so 100,000 deaths, due to starvation, would have equated to 5 per cent of the population.[48] By the time of William's death in 1087 it was estimated that only about 8 per cent of the land was under Anglo-Saxon control.[45] Nearly all the Anglo-Saxon cathedrals and abbeys of any note had been demolished and replaced with Norman-style architecture by 1200.[49]
|
Anglo-Saxon origins (4th–6th centuries)[edit]![]() Although it involved immigrant communities from northern Europe, the culture of the Anglo-Saxons was not transplanted from there, but rather developed in Britain.[1] In 400, the Roman province of Britannia had long been part of the Roman Empire. Although the empire had been dismembered several times during the previous centuries, often because of usurpations beginning in Britain such as those of Magnus Maximus, and Constantine "III" there was an overall continuity and interconnectedness. Already before 400 Roman sources used the term Saxons to refer to coastal raiders who had been causing problems especially on the coasts of the North Sea. In what is now south-eastern England the Romans established a military commander who was assigned to oversee a chain of coastal forts which they called the Saxon shore.[2] The homeland of these Saxon raiders was not clearly described in surviving sources but they were apparently the northerly neighbours of the Franks on the Lower Rhine.[3] At the same time, the Roman administration in Britain (and other parts of the empire) was recruiting foederati soldiers from the same general regions in what is now Germany, and these are likely to have become more important after the withdrawal of field armies during internal Roman power struggles.[4] According to the Chronica Gallica of 452 Britain was ravaged by Saxon invaders in 409 or 410. This was only a few years after Constantine "III" was declared Roman emperor in Britain, and during the period that he was still leading British Roman forces in rebellion on the continent. The rebellion was soon quashed, the Romano-British citizens reportedly expelled Constantine's imperial officials during this period, but they never again received new Roman officials or military forces.[5] Writing in the mid-sixth century, Procopius states that after the death of Constantine "III" in 411, "the Romans never succeeded in recovering Britain, but it remained from that time under tyrants."[6] The Romano-Britons nevertheless called upon the empire to help them fend off attacks from not only the Saxons, but also the Picts and Scoti. A hagiography of Saint Germanus of Auxerre claims that he helped command a defence against an invasion of Picts and Saxons in 429. By about 430 the archaeological record in Britain begins to indicate a relatively rapid melt-down of Roman material culture, and its replacement by Anglo-Saxon material culture. At some time between 445 and 454 Gildas, one of the only writers in this period, reported that the Britons also wrote to the Roman military leader Aëtius in Gaul, begging for assistance, with no success. In desperation, an unnamed "proud tyrant" at some point invited Saxons as foederati soldiers to Britain to help defend it from the Picts and Scots. Gildas did not report the year, and later writers (and modern historians) developed different estimates of when this occurred. Possibly referring to this same event, the Chronica Gallica of 452 records for the year 441: "The British provinces, which to this time had suffered various defeats and misfortunes, are reduced to Saxon rule". Bede, writing centuries later, reasoned that this happened in 450–455, and he named the "proud tyrant" as Vortigern. However, the date could have been significantly earlier, and Bede's understanding of these events has been questioned.[7] The Historia Brittonum, written in the 9th century, gives two different years, but the writer apparently believed it happened in 428.[8] Another 9th century source, the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle is largely based on Bede but says this Saxon arrival happened in 449.[9] The archaeological evidence suggests an earlier timescale. In particular, the work of Catherine Hills and Sam Lucy on the evidence of Spong Hill has moved the chronology for the settlement earlier than 450, with a significant number of items now in phases before Bede's date.[10] Historian Guy Halsall has even speculated that Gildas was badly misread by Bede and all subsequent historians, and that the invitation of the foederati was part of a military reorganization in the time of Magnus Maximus in the late 4th century. Bede, whose report of this period is partly based on Gildas, believed that the call was answered by kings from three powerful tribes from Germania, Angles, Saxons, and Jutes. The Saxons came from Old Saxony on the North Sea coast of Germany, and settled in Wessex, Sussex and Essex. Jutland, the peninsula containing part of Denmark, was the homeland of the Jutes who settled in Kent and the Isle of Wight. The Angles (or English) were from 'Anglia', a country which Bede understood to have now been emptied, and which lay between the homelands of the Saxons and Jutes.[11] Anglia is usually interpreted as the old Schleswig-Holstein Province (straddling the modern Danish-German border), and containing the modern Angeln. Although this represents a turning point the continental ancestors of the Anglo-Saxons were probably quite diverse, and they arrived over a longer period. In another passage, Bede named pagan peoples still living in Germany (Germania) in the eighth century "from whom the Angles or Saxons, who now inhabit Britain, are known to have derived their origin; for which reason they are still corruptly called Garmans by the neighbouring nation of the Britons": the Frisians, the Rugini, the Danes, the "Huns" (Avars in this period), the "old Saxons", and the "Boructuari" who are presumed to be inhabitants of the old lands of the Bructeri, near the Lippe river.[12][13]: 123–124 ![]() Gildas reported that a war broke out between the Saxons and the local population, who joined forces under a person named Ambrosius Aurelianus. Historian Nick Higham calls it the "War of the Saxon Federates". Unlike Bede and later writers who followed him, for whom this war turned into a very long war between two nations which was eventually won by the descendants of the Saxons, Gildas reported that by the time he was born this war ended successfully for the Britons after the siege at 'Mons Badonicus'. (The price of peace, Higham argues, must have been a better treaty for the Saxons, giving them the ability to receive tribute from people across the lowlands of Britain.[14]) Gildas himself did not mention the defeated Saxons as an ongoing problem, but instead he noted that the Britons had become divided into many small "tyrannies". His interest was in criticizing the Romano-British ruling class, whereas archaeological evidence shows that Anglo-Saxon culture had long become dominant over much of Britain. Historians who accept Bede's understanding interpret Gildas as ignoring a large part of Britain, and writing about Romano-British kingdoms which had been limited to the north and west. Other historians have argued that in the 5th century many Romano-British people must have adopted the new culture which we now call Anglo-Saxon, even when they did not have Germanic ancestry or rulers. Unfortunately, there are very few written sources apart from Gildas until the conversion of the Anglo-Saxons to Christianity which began in the late 6th century. One eastern contemporary of Gildas, Procopius, reported a story which was apparently relayed to him by Frankish diplomats, that an island called Brittia which faced the Rhine was divided, between three peoples, the Britons, Anglii, and Frisians. Much later, Æthelberht of Kent (died 616) invited missionaries from the Pope and married a Merovingian bride, and is one of the first Anglo-Saxon rulers who can be identified with some confidence. Bede and later sources portrayed Æthelberht as a descendant of the original group of "Saxons" mentioned by Gildas, although they apparently believed they were actually Jutish. Unfortunately the king lists and genealogies produced by Bede and later writers are not considered reliable for these early centuries. A 2022 genetic study used modern and ancient DNA samples from England and neighbouring countries to study the question of physical Anglo-Saxon migration and concluded that there was large-scale immigration of both men and women into Eastern England, from a "north continental" population matching early medieval people from the area stretching from northern Netherlands through northern Germany to Denmark. This began already in the Roman era, and then increased rapidly in the 5th century. The burial evidence showed that the locals and immigrants were being buried together using the same new customs, and that they were having mixed children. The authors estimate the effective contributions to modern English ancestry are between 25% and 47% "north continental", 11% and 57% from British Iron Age ancestors, and 14% and 43% was attributed to a more stretched-out migration into southern England, from nearby populations such as modern Belgium and France. There were significant regional variations in north continental ancestry ― lower in the west, and highest in Sussex, the East Midlands and East Anglia.[15] Christianity and the early kingdoms[edit]![]() From the time of the Christian conversions the first well-attested English kings and kingdoms appear in the written record. This situation with a small number of kingdoms competing for dominance is traditionally called the Heptarchy, which indicates a period of seven kingdoms. There were however more than seven kingdoms, and their interactions were quite complex. In 595 Augustine landed on the Isle of Thanet and proceeded to King Æthelberht's main town of Canterbury. He had been sent by Pope Gregory the Great to lead the Gregorian mission to Britain to Christianise the Kingdom of Kent from their native Anglo-Saxon paganism. Kent was probably chosen because Æthelberht had married a Christian princess, Bertha, daughter of Charibert I the king of Paris, who was expected to exert some influence over her husband. Æthelberht in Kent was later seen by Bede as the third king to have imperium over the English south of the Humber, having replaced Ceawlin of Wessex (died about 593), and before this generation there are only semi-mythical accounts of earlier kings. Æthelberht's law for Kent, the earliest written code in any Germanic language, instituted a complex system of fines. Kent was rich, with strong trade ties to the continent, and Æthelberht may have instituted royal control over trade. For the first time following the Anglo-Saxon invasion, coins began circulating in Kent during his reign. His son-in-law Sæberht of Essex also converted to Christianity. After Æthelberht's death in about 616/618, the most powerful king was Rædwald of East Anglia, who also gave Christianity a foothold in his kingdom, and helped to install Edwin of Northumbria, who replaced Æthelfrith to become the second king over the two kingdoms north of the Humber, Bernicia and Deira. After Rædwald died, Cadwallon ap Cadfan, the king of Gwynedd, in alliance with king Penda of Mercia, killed Edwin in battle at Hatfield Chase. Æthelfrith's son Oswald subsequently became the third king of Northumbria. Although not included in Bede's list of rulers with imperium, Penda defeated and killed Oswald in 642 and was the dominant king of the English until he was himself killed in battle against Oswald's brother Oswiu in 655. Oswiu remained the dominant king of England until he died in 670. In 635, Aidan, an Irish monk from Iona, chose the Isle of Lindisfarne to establish a monastery which was close to King Oswald's main fortress of Bamburgh. He had been at the monastery in Iona when Oswald asked to be sent a mission to Christianise the Kingdom of Northumbria from their native Anglo-Saxon paganism. Oswald had probably chosen Iona because after his father had been killed he had fled into south-west Scotland and had encountered Christianity, and had returned determined to make Northumbria Christian. Aidan achieved great success in spreading the Christian faith in the north, and since Aidan could not speak English and Oswald had learned Irish during his exile, Oswald acted as Aidan's interpreter when the latter was preaching.[16] Later, Northumberland's patron saint, Saint Cuthbert, was an abbot of the monastery, and then Bishop of Lindisfarne. An anonymous life of Cuthbert written at Lindisfarne is the oldest extant piece of English historical writing,[a] and in his memory a gospel (known as the St Cuthbert Gospel) was placed in his coffin. The decorated leather bookbinding is the oldest intact European binding.[18] In 664, the Synod of Whitby was convened and established Roman practice as opposed to Irish practice (in style of tonsure and dates of Easter) as the norm in Northumbria, and thus "brought the Northumbrian church into the mainstream of Roman culture."[19] The episcopal seat of Northumbria was transferred from Lindisfarne to York. Wilfrid, chief advocate for the Roman position, later became Bishop of Northumbria, while Colmán and the Ionan supporters, who did not change their practices, withdrew to Iona. Wilfred also influenced kings to the south who were under the dominance of Oswiu, such as the son of Penda, Wulfhere of Mercia (died 675), who converted to Christianity and eventually recovered control over Mercia, and eventually expanded his dominance over most of England, beginning a long period of Mercian supremacy. Middle Anglo-Saxon history (660–899)[edit]By 660, the political map of Lowland Britain had developed with smaller territories coalescing into kingdoms, and from this time larger kingdoms started dominating the smaller kingdoms. The development of kingdoms, with a particular king being recognised as an overlord, developed out of an early loose structure that, Higham believes, is linked back to the original feodus.[20] The traditional name for this period is the Heptarchy, which has not been used by scholars since the early 20th century[21] as it gives the impression of a single political structure and does not afford the "opportunity to treat the history of any one kingdom as a whole".[22] Simon Keynes suggests that the 8th and 9th century was a period of economic and social flourishing which created stability both below the Thames and above the Humber.[22] Mercian supremacy (626–821)[edit]![]() Middle-lowland Britain was known as the place of the Mierce, the border or frontier folk, in Latin Mercia. Mercia was a diverse area of tribal groups, as shown by the Tribal Hidage; the peoples were a mixture of Brittonic speaking peoples and "Anglo-Saxon" pioneers and their early leaders had Brittonic names, such as Penda.[23] Although Penda does not appear in Bede's list of great overlords, it would appear from what Bede says elsewhere that he was dominant over the southern kingdoms. At the time of the battle of the river Winwæd, thirty duces regii (royal generals) fought on his behalf. Although there are many gaps in the evidence, it is clear that the seventh-century Mercian kings were formidable rulers who were able to exercise a wide-ranging overlordship from their Midland base. Mercian military success was the basis of their power; it succeeded against not only 106 kings and kingdoms by winning set-piece battles,[24] but by ruthlessly ravaging any area foolish enough to withhold tribute. There are a number of casual references scattered throughout the Bede's history to this aspect of Mercian military policy. Penda is found ravaging Northumbria as far north as Bamburgh and only a miraculous intervention from Aidan prevents the complete destruction of the settlement.[25] In 676 Æthelred conducted a similar ravaging in Kent and caused such damage in the Rochester diocese that two successive bishops gave up their position because of lack of funds.[26] In these accounts there is a rare glimpse of the realities of early Anglo-Saxon overlordship and how a widespread overlordship could be established in a relatively short period. By the middle of the 8th century, other kingdoms of southern Britain were also affected by Mercian expansionism. The East Saxons seem to have lost control of London, Middlesex and Hertfordshire to Æthelbald, although the East Saxon homelands do not seem to have been affected, and the East Saxon dynasty continued into the ninth century.[27] The Mercian influence and reputation reached its peak when, in the late 8th century, the most powerful European ruler of the age, the Frankish king Charlemagne, recognised the Mercian King Offa's power and accordingly treated him with respect, even if this could have been just flattery.[28] Learning and monasticism (660–793)[edit]![]() Michael Drout calls this period the "Golden Age", when learning flourished with a renaissance in classical knowledge. The growth and popularity of monasticism was not an entirely internal development, with influence from the continent shaping Anglo-Saxon monastic life.[29] In 669 Theodore, a Greek-speaking monk originally from Tarsus in Asia Minor, arrived in Britain to become the eighth Archbishop of Canterbury. He was joined the following year by his colleague Hadrian, a Latin-speaking African by origin and former abbot of a monastery in Campania (near Naples).[30] One of their first tasks at Canterbury was the establishment of a school; and according to Bede (writing some sixty years later), they soon "attracted a crowd of students into whose minds they daily poured the streams of wholesome learning".[31] As evidence of their teaching, Bede reports that some of their students, who survived to his own day, were as fluent in Greek and Latin as in their native language. Bede does not mention Aldhelm in this connection; but we know from a letter addressed by Aldhelm to Hadrian that he too must be numbered among their students.[32] Aldhelm wrote in elaborate and grandiloquent and very difficult Latin, which became the dominant style for centuries. Michael Drout states "Aldhelm wrote Latin hexameters better than anyone before in England (and possibly better than anyone since, or at least up until John Milton). His work showed that scholars in England, at the very edge of Europe, could be as learned and sophisticated as any writers in Europe."[33] During this period, the wealth and power of the monasteries increased as elite families, possibly out of power, turned to monastic life.[34] Anglo-Saxon monasticism developed the unusual institution of the "double monastery": a house of monks and a house of nuns, living next to each other, sharing a church but never mixing, and living separate lives of celibacy. These double monasteries were presided over by abbesses, who became some of the most powerful and influential women in Europe. Double monasteries which were built on strategic sites near rivers and coasts, accumulated immense wealth and power over multiple generations (their inheritances were not divided) and became centers of art and learning.[35] While Aldhelm was doing his work in Malmesbury, far from him, up in the North of England, Bede was writing a large quantity of books, gaining a reputation in Europe and showing that the English could write history and theology, and do astronomical computation (for the dates of Easter, among other things). West Saxon hegemony and the Anglo-Scandinavian Wars (793–878)[edit]![]() During the 9th century, Wessex rose in power, from the foundations laid by King Egbert in the first quarter of the century to the achievements of King Alfred the Great in its closing decades. The outlines of the story are told in the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle, though the annals represent a West Saxon point of view.[36] On the day of Egbert's succession to the kingdom of Wessex, in 802, a Mercian ealdorman from the province of the Hwicce had crossed the border at Kempsford, with the intention of mounting a raid into northern Wiltshire; the Mercian force was met by the local ealdorman, "and the people of Wiltshire had the victory".[37] In 829, Egbert went on, the chronicler reports, to conquer "the kingdom of the Mercians and everything south of the Humber".[38] It was at this point that the chronicler chooses to attach Egbert's name to Bede's list of seven overlords, adding that "he was the eighth king who was Bretwalda".[39] Simon Keynes suggests Egbert's foundation of a 'bipartite' kingdom is crucial as it stretched across southern England, and it created a working alliance between the West Saxon dynasty and the rulers of the Mercians.[40] In 860, the eastern and western parts of the southern kingdom were united by agreement between the surviving sons of King Æthelwulf, though the union was not maintained without some opposition from within the dynasty; and in the late 870s King Alfred gained the submission of the Mercians under their ruler Æthelred, who in other circumstances might have been styled a king, but who under the Alfredian regime was regarded as the 'ealdorman' of his people. ![]() The wealth of the monasteries and the success of Anglo-Saxon society attracted the attention of people from mainland Europe, mostly Danes and Norwegians. Because of the plundering raids that followed, the raiders attracted the name Viking – from the Old Norse víkingr meaning an expedition – which soon became used for the raiding activity or piracy reported in western Europe.[41] In 793, Lindisfarne was raided and while this was not the first raid of its type it was the most prominent. In 794, Jarrow, the monastery where Bede wrote, was attacked; in 795 Iona in Scotland was attacked; and in 804 the nunnery at Lyminge in Kent was granted refuge inside the walls of Canterbury. Sometime around 800, a Reeve from Portland in Wessex was killed when he mistook some raiders for ordinary traders. Viking raids continued until in 850, then the Chronicle says: "The heathen for the first time remained over the winter". The fleet does not appear to have stayed long in England, but it started a trend which others subsequently followed. In particular, the army which arrived in 865 remained over many winters, and part of it later settled what became known as the Danelaw. This was the "Great Army", a term used by the Chronicle in England and by Adrevald of Fleury on the Continent. The invaders were able to exploit the feuds between and within the various kingdoms and to appoint puppet kings, such as Ceolwulf in Mercia in 873 and perhaps others in Northumbria in 867 and East Anglia in 870.[38] The third phase was an era of settlement; however, the "Great Army" went wherever it could find the richest pickings, crossing the English Channel when faced with resolute opposition, as in England in 878, or with famine, as on the Continent in 892.[38] By this stage, the Vikings were assuming ever increasing importance as catalysts of social and political change. They constituted the common enemy, making the English more conscious of a national identity which overrode deeper distinctions; they could be perceived as an instrument of divine punishment for the people's sins, raising awareness of a collective Christian identity; and by 'conquering' the kingdoms of the East Angles, the Northumbrians and the Mercians, they created a vacuum in the leadership of the English people.[42] Danish settlement continued in Mercia in 877 and East Anglia in 879–80 and 896. The rest of the army meanwhile continued to harry and plunder on both sides of the Channel, with new recruits evidently arriving to swell its ranks, for it clearly continued to be a formidable fighting force.[38] At first, Alfred responded by the offer of repeated tribute payments. However, after a decisive victory at Edington in 878, Alfred offered vigorous opposition. He established a chain of fortresses across the south of England, reorganised the army, "so that always half its men were at home, and half out on service, except for those men who were to garrison the burhs",[43][38] and in 896 ordered a new type of craft to be built which could oppose the Viking longships in shallow coastal waters. When the Vikings returned from the Continent in 892, they found they could no longer roam the country at will, for wherever they went they were opposed by a local army. After four years, the Scandinavians therefore split up, some to settle in Northumbria and East Anglia, the remainder to try their luck again on the Continent.[38] King Alfred and the rebuilding (878–899)[edit]![]() More important to Alfred than his military and political victories were his religion, his love of learning, and his spread of writing throughout England. Keynes suggests Alfred's work laid the foundations for what really made England unique in all of medieval Europe from around 800 until 1066.[44] Thinking about how learning and culture had fallen since the last century, King Alfred wrote:
Alfred knew that literature and learning, both in English and in Latin, were very important, but the state of learning was not good when Alfred came to the throne. Alfred saw kingship as a priestly office, a shepherd for his people.[46] One book that was particularly valuable to him was Gregory the Great's Cura Pastoralis (Pastoral Care). This is a priest's guide on how to care for people. Alfred took this book as his own guide on how to be a good king to his people; hence, a good king to Alfred increases literacy. Alfred translated this book himself and explains in the preface:
What is presumed to be one of these "æstel" (the word only appears in this one text) is the gold, rock crystal and enamel Alfred Jewel, discovered in 1693, which is assumed to have been fitted with a small rod and used as a pointer when reading. Alfred provided functional patronage, linked to a social programme of vernacular literacy in England, which was unprecedented.[47]
This began a growth in charters, law, theology and learning. Alfred thus laid the foundation for the great accomplishments of the tenth century and did much to make the vernacular more important than Latin in Anglo-Saxon culture.
Late Anglo-Saxon history (899–1066)[edit]A framework for the momentous events of the 10th and 11th centuries is provided by the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle. However charters, law-codes and coins supply detailed information on various aspects of royal government, and the surviving works of Anglo-Latin and vernacular literature, as well as the numerous manuscripts written in the 10th century, testify in their different ways to the vitality of ecclesiastical culture. Yet as Keynes suggests "it does not follow that the 10th century is better understood than more sparsely documented periods".[1] Reform and formation of England (899–978)[edit]![]() During the course of the 10th century, the West Saxon kings extended their power first over Mercia, then into the southern Danelaw, and finally over Northumbria, thereby imposing a semblance of political unity on peoples, who nonetheless would remain conscious of their respective customs and their separate pasts. The prestige, and indeed the pretensions, of the monarchy increased, the institutions of government strengthened, and kings and their agents sought in various ways to establish social order.[2] This process started with Edward the Elder – who with his sister, Æthelflæd, Lady of the Mercians, initially, charters reveal, encouraged people to purchase estates from the Danes, thereby to reassert some degree of English influence in territory which had fallen under Danish control. David Dumville suggests that Edward may have extended this policy by rewarding his supporters with grants of land in the territories newly conquered from the Danes and that any charters issued in respect of such grants have not survived.[3] When Athelflæd died, Mercia was absorbed by Wessex. From that point on there was no contest for the throne, so the house of Wessex became the ruling house of England.[2] Edward the Elder was succeeded by his son Æthelstan, whom Keynes calls the "towering figure in the landscape of the tenth century".[4] His victory over a coalition of his enemies – Constantine, King of the Scots; Owain ap Dyfnwal, King of the Cumbrians; and Olaf Guthfrithson, King of Dublin – at the battle of Brunanburh, celebrated by a poem in the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle, opened the way for him to be hailed as the first king of England.[5] Æthelstan's legislation shows how the king drove his officials to do their respective duties. He was uncompromising in his insistence on respect for the law. However this legislation also reveals the persistent difficulties which confronted the king and his councillors in bringing a troublesome people under some form of control. His claim to be "king of the English" was by no means widely recognised.[6] The situation was complex: the Hiberno-Norse rulers of Dublin still coveted their interests in the Danish kingdom of York; terms had to be made with the Scots, who had the capacity not merely to interfere in Northumbrian affairs, but also to block a line of communication between Dublin and York; and the inhabitants of northern Northumbria were considered a law unto themselves. It was only after twenty years of crucial developments following Æthelstan's death in 939 that a unified kingdom of England began to assume its familiar shape. However, the major political problem for Edmund and Eadred, who succeeded Æthelstan, remained the difficulty of subjugating the north.[7] In 959 Edgar is said to have "succeeded to the kingdom both in Wessex and in Mercia and in Northumbria, and he was then 16 years old" (ASC, version 'B', 'C'), and is called "the Peacemaker".[7] By the early 970s, after a decade of Edgar's 'peace', it may have seemed that the kingdom of England was indeed made whole. In his formal address to the gathering at Winchester the king urged his bishops, abbots and abbesses "to be of one mind as regards monastic usage . . . lest differing ways of observing the customs of one Rule and one country should bring their holy conversation into disrepute".[8] Athelstan's court had been an intellectual incubator. In that court were two young men named Dunstan and Æthelwold who were made priests, supposedly at the insistence of Athelstan, right at the end of his reign in 939.[9] Between 970 and 973 a council was held, under the aegis of Edgar, where a set of rules were devised that would be applicable throughout England. This put all the monks and nuns in England under one set of detailed customs for the first time. In 973, Edgar received a special second, 'imperial coronation' at Bath, and from this point England was ruled by Edgar under the strong influence of Dunstan, Athelwold, and Oswald, the Bishop of Worcester. Æthelred and the return of the Scandinavians (978–1016)[edit]The reign of King Æthelred the Unready witnessed the resumption of Viking raids on England, putting the country and its leadership under strains as severe as they were long sustained. Raids began on a relatively small scale in the 980s but became far more serious in the 990s, and brought the people to their knees in 1009–12, when a large part of the country was devastated by the army of Thorkell the Tall. It remained for Swein Forkbeard, king of Denmark, to conquer the kingdom of England in 1013–14, and (after Æthelred's restoration) for his son Cnut to achieve the same in 1015–16. The tale of these years incorporated in the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle must be read in its own right,[10] and set beside other material which reflects in one way or another on the conduct of government and warfare during Æthelred's reign.[11] It is this evidence which is the basis for Keynes's view that the king lacked the strength, judgement and resolve to give adequate leadership to his people in a time of grave national crisis; who soon found out that he could rely on little but the treachery of his military commanders; and who, throughout his reign, tasted nothing but the ignominy of defeat. The raids exposed tensions and weaknesses which went deep into the fabric of the late Anglo-Saxon state, and it is apparent that events proceeded against a background more complex than the chronicler probably knew. It seems, for example, that the death of Bishop Æthelwold in 984 had precipitated further reaction against certain ecclesiastical interests; that by 993 the king had come to regret the error of his ways, leading to a period when the internal affairs of the kingdom appear to have prospered.[12] ![]() The increasingly difficult times brought on by the Viking attacks are reflected in both Ælfric's and Wulfstan's works, but most notably in Wulfstan's fierce rhetoric in the Sermo Lupi ad Anglos, dated to 1014.[13] Malcolm Godden suggests that ordinary people saw the return of the Vikings as the imminent "expectation of the apocalypse", and this was given voice in Ælfric and Wulfstan writings,[14] which is similar to that of Gildas and Bede. Raids were taken as signs of God punishing his people; Ælfric refers to people adopting the customs of the Danish and exhorts people not to abandon the native customs on behalf of the Danish ones, and then requests a "brother Edward" to try to put an end to a "shameful habit" of drinking and eating in the outhouse, which some of the countrywomen practised at beer parties.[15] In April 1016, Æthelred died of illness, leaving his son and successor Edmund Ironside to defend the country. The final struggles were complicated by internal dissension, and especially by the treacherous acts of Ealdorman Eadric of Mercia, who opportunistically changed sides to Cnut's party. After the defeat of the English in the Battle of Assandun in October 1016, Edmund and Cnut agreed to divide the kingdom so that Edmund would rule Wessex and Cnut Mercia, but Edmund died soon after his defeat in November 1016, making it possible for Cnut to seize power over all England.[16] Conquest of England: Danes, Norwegians and Normans (1016–1066)[edit]In the 11th century, there were three conquests: one by Cnut on October 18, 1016; the second was an unsuccessful attempt of Battle of Stamford Bridge in September, 1066; and the third was conducted by William of Normandy in October, 1066 at Hastings. The consequences of each conquest changed the Anglo-Saxon culture. Politically and chronologically, the texts of this period are not Anglo-Saxon; linguistically, those written in English (as opposed to Latin or French, the other official written languages of the period) moved away from the late West Saxon standard that is called "Old English". Yet neither are they "Middle English"; moreover, as Treharne explains, for around three-quarters of this period, "there is barely any 'original' writing in English at all". These factors have led to a gap in scholarship, implying a discontinuity either side of the Norman Conquest, however this assumption is being challenged.[17] At first sight, there would seem little to debate. Cnut appeared to have adopted wholeheartedly the traditional role of Anglo-Saxon kingship.[18] However, an examination of the laws, homilies, wills, and charters dating from this period suggests that as a result of widespread aristocratic death and the fact that Cnut did not systematically introduce a new landholding class, major and permanent alterations occurred in the Saxon social and political structures.[19] Eric John remarks that for Cnut "the simple difficulty of exercising so wide and so unstable an empire made it necessary to practise a delegation of authority against every tradition of English kingship".[20] The disappearance of the aristocratic families which had traditionally played an active role in the governance of the realm, coupled with Cnut's choice of thegnly advisors, put an end to the balanced relationship between monarchy and aristocracy so carefully forged by the West Saxon Kings. Edward became king in 1042, and given his upbringing might have been considered a Norman by those who lived across the English Channel. Following Cnut's reforms, excessive power was concentrated in the hands of the rival houses of Leofric of Mercia and Godwine of Wessex. Problems also came for Edward from the resentment caused by the king's introduction of Norman friends. A crisis arose in 1051 when Godwine defied the king's order to punish the men of Dover, who had resisted an attempt by Eustace of Boulogne to quarter his men on them by force.[21] The support of Earl Leofric and Earl Siward enabled Edward to secure the outlawry of Godwine and his sons; and William of Normandy paid Edward a visit during which Edward may have promised William succession to the English throne, although this Norman claim may have been mere propaganda. Godwine and his sons came back the following year with a strong force, and the magnates were not prepared to engage them in civil war but forced the king to make terms. Some unpopular Normans were driven out, including Archbishop Robert, whose archbishopric was given to Stigand; this act supplied an excuse for the Papal support of William's cause.[21] ![]() The fall of England and the Norman Conquest is a multi-generational, multi-family succession problem caused in great part by Athelred's incompetence. By the time William of Normandy, sensing an opportunity, landed his invading force in 1066, the elite of Anglo-Saxon England had changed, although much of the culture and society had stayed the same.
After the Norman Conquest[edit]Following the Norman conquest, many of the Anglo-Saxon nobility were either exiled or had joined the ranks of the peasantry.[23] It has been estimated that only about 8% of the land was under Anglo-Saxon control by 1087.[24] In 1086, only four major Anglo-Saxon landholders still held their lands. However, the survival of Anglo-Saxon heiresses was significantly greater. Many of the next generation of the nobility had English mothers and learned to speak English at home.[25] Some Anglo-Saxon nobles fled to Scotland, Ireland, and Scandinavia.[26][27] The Byzantine Empire became a popular destination for many Anglo-Saxon soldiers, as it was in need of mercenaries.[28] The Anglo-Saxons became the predominant element in the elite Varangian Guard, hitherto a largely North Germanic unit, from which the emperor's bodyguard was drawn and continued to serve the empire until the early 15th century.[29] However, the population of England at home remained largely Anglo-Saxon; for them, little changed immediately except that their Anglo-Saxon lord was replaced by a Norman lord.[30] The chronicler Orderic Vitalis, who was the product of an Anglo-Norman marriage, writes: "And so the English groaned aloud for their lost liberty and plotted ceaselessly to find some way of shaking off a yoke that was so intolerable and unaccustomed".[31] The inhabitants of the North and Scotland never warmed to the Normans following the Harrying of the North (1069–1070), where William, according to the Anglo Saxon Chronicle utterly "ravaged and laid waste that shire".[32] Many Anglo-Saxon people needed to learn Norman French to communicate with their rulers, but it is clear that among themselves they kept speaking Old English, which meant that England was in an interesting tri-lingual situation: Anglo-Saxon for the common people, Latin for the Church, and Norman French for the administrators, the nobility, and the law courts. In this time, and because of the cultural shock of the Conquest, Anglo-Saxon began to change very rapidly, and by 1200 or so, it was no longer Anglo-Saxon English, but early Middle English.[33] But this language had deep roots in Anglo-Saxon, which was being spoken much later than 1066. Research has shown that a form of Anglo-Saxon was still being spoken, and not merely among uneducated peasants, into the thirteenth century in the West Midlands.[34] This was J.R.R. Tolkien's major scholarly discovery when he studied a group of texts written in early Middle English called the Katherine Group.[35] Tolkien noticed that a subtle distinction preserved in these texts indicated that Old English had continued to be spoken far longer than anyone had supposed.[34] Old English had been a central mark of the Anglo-Saxon cultural identity. With the passing of time, however, and particularly following the Norman conquest of England, this language changed significantly, and although some people (for example the scribe known as the Tremulous Hand of Worcester) could still read Old English into the thirteenth century, it fell out of use and the texts became useless. The Exeter Book, for example, seems to have been used to press gold leaf and at one point had a pot of fish-based glue sitting on top of it. For Michael Drout this symbolises the end of the Anglo-Saxons.[36] After 1066, it took more than three centuries for English to replace French as the language of government. The 1362 parliament opened with a speech in English and in the early 15th century, Henry V became the first monarch, since before the 1066 conquest, to use English in his written instructions.[37]
|
Cite error: There are <ref group=lower-alpha>
tags or {{efn}}
templates on this page, but the references will not show without a {{reflist|group=lower-alpha}}
template or {{notelist}}
template (see the help page).