History Hub permalink
Battle of Brunanburh site?
This discussion has been closed.
-
Message 1.
Posted by Huscarl (U1753368) on Saturday, 18th March 2006
Churchill once said that said the English owed their existence as a nation to victories in only three battles in their history, and Athelstans crushing victory at Brunanburh was the first of these.
Fought in 937ad between King Athelstan's 16,000 Wessex/Mercian army against an alliance of 18,000 Scots(under King Constantine); 'Britons' of Strathclyde(under King Owain); Irish and Jorvik Norsemen(under King Olaf Guthfrithsson) and most likely also some men from the isles and Northumbrian/Cumbrians.
The location of this colossal bloodbath has never been agreed upon by historians, various sites so far proposed have ranged from possibly 'Burnswark'(S.E of Lockerbie), to Bromborough/bebington on Merseyside. Others have suggested Bridgenorth, the SW of England or the Lancashire coast.
However, according to Smurthwaite ‘it seems inconceivable that the battle was fought north of the border, particularly if we accept that Olaf landed on the Humber.’ This may rule out any proposed sites more northerly than that river, as why would Olaf march NORTH to link up with his allies(Constantine heading south from 'Scotland' and Owain from Strathclyde)and march back in a southerly direction against Athelstan's advancing army- his northern-most boundary being around the Rotherham region- and where his father had recieved the submission of such foes only years before?). And it known that the allies did not penetrate deeply into Mercia, if at all.
Egil Skallagrimsson- an Icelandic poet/warrior in Athelstan's pay, who fought at the battle- states that the battlefield was described as having been fought on a heath between a large wood and a river, the river must have been on the left of the battlefield from the point of view of Athelstan's army, the wood their right, as it lined up against their foes. Hence the site of the battle should be sought on the east bank of a river that flows north/south or south/north on land belonging to the English.
Michael Wood, in his book 'In Search of England', makes the case for Brinsworth near Rotherham;-
...In the third part of In Search of England, Wood writes about places that illuminate interesting aspects of early England: Tinsley Wood, near Sheffield, which has been claimed as the site of Athelstan's great victory against the Celts in 937; ... . These are the places and events that offer a complementary version of the history that is discussed earlier in the book...
When John Porter in his ‘History of the Fylde of Lancashire’ recorded the find of hundreds of human bones on the River Wyre side at Burnaze between Thornton and Fleetwood, he mentioned that Burnaze was once called 'Brune'. With ancient maps also revealing the ‘Bergerode’ was also in this area.
However, this view does not take into account that when the Scots and 'Britons' fled the battlefield they would require a Roman road going north to take them back to Scotland. Whilst the old ‘Bergerode’ between Fleetwood and Thornton would only lead them into the sea. Certainly no commander of Scots and Cumbrian Britons would put the sea between themselves and an escape route if they were compelled to initially arrive at the battle site by land.
The various alternative sites in England will be reviewed during 2006-8 as part of a review of English battlefields for English Heritage.
Has anyone read any other detailed research that could possibly illuminate any other battle-sites?
Cheers. -
Message 2
Posted by stanilic (U2347429) on Saturday, 18th March 2006
There has been a recent article that this battle was fought in the Wirral. Unfortunately I cannot remember where I saw it.
Like you they have taken the description of the battle, examined the topography and found some place name elements that clinched it.
I must confess I was rather fond of the Tinsley Wood argument but I feel the Wirral has the answer. -
Message 3
Posted by Huscarl (U1753368) on Saturday, 18th March 2006
Hi Stanilic
Would the following link be the place where you read about the Wirral being a likely battle-site?
But if this eventually proves to be so, it leaves us with a question;
Why would such a capable and fearsome warlord such as King Athelstan march NW to [modern-day] merseyside to fight the allies, thus exposing his army's rear to attack by Olaf Guthrithsson who had landed in the Humber and was surely marching westwards to link up with Constantine and Owain?
Unless Olaf landed at the Mersey, in which case how could Egil have got it so wrong, he must have at least known the basics of English geography?
Cheers. -
Message 4
Posted by stanilic (U2347429) on Sunday, 19th March 2006
Thank you, Ironaxe
You have helped me sort out my references. I am a member of the EPNS and had read the original paper on which the Times report was based but I could not recall in which society journal I had read it. It is in Journal 36 and is entitled `Revisiting Dingesmere'.
With regard to military strategy, the question we always have to ask is who knew what and when in those days. My origins belong to the people who were defeated at Brunanburh and I often wonder how they could have been so careless as all the factors were running in their favour.
There are a number of options to be considered. What has always fascinated me is the capability of the English, when under good leadership, to organise a very workable military strategy.
I think the advance of the main English host was rapid and caught my forebears in the West off their guard. There may have been another smaller English army in the east, the fyrd from East Anglia perhaps, mobilised to deal with the Scandinavian army with the main instruction to delay their progress until the Scots, Welsh and Norse-Irish were disposed of.
To me the sudden collapse of the alliance in face of the determined English suggests to me that the alliance was not as good as it was cracked up to be. Pity, but that is how it turned out. -
Message 5
Posted by Tim of Acleah (U1736633) on Sunday, 19th March 2006
Hi Ironaxe
I have only time for the brifest of responses but will try and get back to you later.
A.H.Burnes More Battlefields of England has a chapter on Brunanburh and favours the Humber site Brinsworth site as does Michael Woods in his in search of England book.
The Bromborough site is mainly based on the fact that it is the only name that can be perfectly derived from Brunanburh.
The best overall analysis I have read is by Paul Hill 'The age of Athelstan'. It is in print and goes through no less than 21 proposed sites.
Athelstan is the first English king of whom their is a discription and there is a reconstruction of him in display in the Kingston Museum.
regards
Tim -
Message 6
Posted by Tim of Acleah (U1736633) on Monday, 20th March 2006
Ironaxe
what do you think about the reference in the poem of the battle in the ASC to the mounted troops sometimes translated as elite cavalry.
The root of the word Eoh means 'warhorse' and so suggests more than mounted infantry.
Did the Saxons have cavalry after all?
Athelstan did marry his family into the elite of europe and so may well have been aware of european military changes.
regards
Tim -
Message 7
Posted by Huscarl (U1753368) on Monday, 20th March 2006
Hi Tim
It seems likely that the Anglo-Saxons used their early form of cavalry(as we know them today) only as a means of travel and also to re-mount and then overtake a broken, routed enemy and kill them (Alfred's men "slew as many heathens as they could overtake" at Ashdown, 871 and maybe pursued Guthrum on horseback after Ethandun, 878?)- but the Germanic way was to fight mainly on foot(despite travelling on horseback)- not that the English were bad horsemen, they apparently weren't.
The Vikings themselves had used horses to traverse England during Alfred's day, to evade his armies, and both Kings Edmund Ironside and Harold II had fought on horseback- Ashingdon, 1016, and in Wales, 1063, and Stamford Bridge(speedy advancing to battle and 'surprising' their foes without a break before they could defend adequately- the Norsemen reputedly scorned the English for doing so), in 1066 respectively.
Many of those strong Saxon kings had fame which spread far beyond these shores- not least with the political marriages of his aunts and sisters to the leading European nobility figures(his aunt Elfreda to Count Baldwin of Flanders; sister Edgiva to Charles III France; sister Edhilda to Hugh, Count of Paris; another sister Eadgytha to Otto, future German Emperor).
The continental military and social influences must have filtered through to the Saxons, but the infantry shieldwall seems to have become a primary tactic in battle.
Cheers. -
Message 8
Posted by Huscarl (U1753368) on Monday, 20th March 2006
not least with the political marriages of his aunts and sisters to the leading European nobility figures
I meant King Athelstan above. -
Message 9
Posted by stanilic (U2347429) on Sunday, 26th March 2006
Ironaxe
I am sorry to have left you with a superficial answer last week but I have been doing my homework and trust that the following précis of the EPNS article will help. The article is called `Revisiting Dingesmere’ and was written by Paul Cavill, Stephen Harding and Judith Jesch of the University of Nottingham.
Their approach seems to have been to look for additional evidence to support the Bromborough site first proposed in 1957. The article starts with the original poem The Battle of Brunanburh making reference to the Dublin Norsemen sailing away ` on Dingesmere’. It is noted that this term is presented differently in each manuscript variant. Such variations in spelling and, to a certain degree, meaning, are to be expected when an oral tradition is written down.
Given these variations `Dingesmere’ has been severally described as a `sea of noise’, a noisy sea, a stormy sea, or even a watery association with the River Dee. None of these definitions are satisfactory.
John Dodgson, who first suggested that Brunanburh is now modern Bromborough, felt there was a loose end with the definition of `on Dingesmere’. The matter was explored but left unresolved in 1972 until the latest enquiry in 2003/4.
Cavill, Harding & Jesch suggest that the `Ding’ element refers to the Thing part of the modern place-name Thingwall; the difference being caused by the Old English `d’ being the modern `th’. Thingwall has its origin in the Old Norse meaning the place where the assembly meets. This is located in the centre of the Wirral peninsula and was settled by Scandinavians by the middle of the tenth century. There is a very technical discussion concerning how Old Norse was spoken in a Gaelic accent and how an English speaker would understand it.
The `mere’ element of the name may not mean the sea. I definitely do agree with this proposition. It could just as easily mean a lake or just wet-land. The next phrase in the poem describes the Norse-Irish going `over deep water’ and it is believed that this refers to the retreat of the fleet across the sea to Dublin rather than the reference to Dingesmere.
The article ends with the suggestion that Dingesmere refers to Thingwall and that the defeat of the Norse-Irish at Brunanburh was so fundamental in the battle that they even fled from a place settled and ruled by Scandinavian people. It can be argued that the decline of the Scandinavian kingdoms in the North of the British Isles began from that battle. Within fifty years the modern boundaries of the Kingdom of England had been largely established and Brian Boru had kicked the Norse out of Dublin forcing them to remove to Cumberland.
The fact that the poem concludes with the clearest statement of the English conquest myth suggests that there is a distinct desire on the part of the bards to use this victory to legitimise the predominance of the descendants of Alfred as the warrior kings of England and champions of all Britain.
I feel that this evidence does add weight to the Bromborough claim. However we have to accept that it is not conclusive. -
Message 10
Posted by Tim of Acleah (U1736633) on Sunday, 26th March 2006
Ironaxe
I entirely agree that the English normally fought on fought and interestingly enough our entire military tradition seems to more to be based on the success of our infantry than our cavalry. Even when we had good cavalry such as with Cromwell and marlborough we also had excellent infantry but too often the cavalry was too far and too fast.
However, the Brunanburh poem more seems to imply cavalry rather than mounted infantry, perhaps Athelstan experimented with their use. -
Message 11
Posted by Tim of Acleah (U1736633) on Sunday, 26th March 2006
I am fairly neutral on the site except I would like it to be firmly identified. The trouble with the Bromborough site is that it would imply that the coalition used the same strategy that Willaim successfully used agaisnt Harold i.e. draw your enemy to you and the accounts do not seem to support that. The landing in the Humber does not seem to fit and the defeated army would have had no distance at all to get back to their ships.
By the way I still like the English conquest 'myth'. -
Message 12
Posted by Huscarl (U1753368) on Sunday, 26th March 2006
Tim
Unrelated to this post, but the British heavy cavalry at Waterloo came a cropper if I remember rightly? Not to mention our light brigade in 1854 during the Crimean war?
In 937 the ASC criticised Athelstan for delaying(he actually seems to have been amassing a huge army from Wessex/Mercia, which took time) whilst the allies "ravaged" in the north to provoke him. -
Message 13
Posted by stanilic (U2347429) on Monday, 27th March 2006
The poetic imagery of a fast moving infantry battle could appear as meaning cavalry. Horse could well have been used to move the army or at least parts of it onto the battlefield but all the evidence points to the fight being on foot.
-
Message 14
Posted by stanilic (U2347429) on Monday, 27th March 2006
I like the conquest myth so long as it is accept as just that - a myth.
-
Message 15
Posted by Malvernhills (U3068630) on Monday, 27th March 2006
Churchill once said that said the English owed their existence as a nation to victories in only three battles in their history, and Athelstans crushing victory at Brunanburh was the first of these.
Fought in 937ad between King Athelstan's 16,000 Wessex/Mercian army against an alliance of 18,000 Scots(under King Constantine); 'Britons' of Strathclyde(under King Owain); Irish and Jorvik Norsemen(under King Olaf Guthfrithsson) and most likely also some men from the isles and Northumbrian/Cumbrians.
The location of this colossal bloodbath has never been agreed upon by historians, various sites so far proposed have ranged from possibly 'Burnswark'(S.E of Lockerbie), to Bromborough/bebington on Merseyside. Others have suggested Bridgenorth, the SW of England or the Lancashire coast.
However, according to Smurthwaite ‘it seems inconceivable that the battle was fought north of the border, particularly if we accept that Olaf landed on the Humber.’ This may rule out any proposed sites more northerly than that river, as why would Olaf march NORTH to link up with his allies(Constantine heading south from 'Scotland' and Owain from Strathclyde)and march back in a southerly direction against Athelstan's advancing army- his northern-most boundary being around the Rotherham region- and where his father had recieved the submission of such foes only years before?). And it known that the allies did not penetrate deeply into Mercia, if at all.
Egil Skallagrimsson- an Icelandic poet/warrior in Athelstan's pay, who fought at the battle- states that the battlefield was described as having been fought on a heath between a large wood and a river, the river must have been on the left of the battlefield from the point of view of Athelstan's army, the wood their right, as it lined up against their foes. Hence the site of the battle should be sought on the east bank of a river that flows north/south or south/north on land belonging to the English.
Michael Wood, in his book 'In Search of England', makes the case for Brinsworth near Rotherham;-
...In the third part of In Search of England, Wood writes about places that illuminate interesting aspects of early England: Tinsley Wood, near Sheffield, which has been claimed as the site of Athelstan's great victory against the Celts in 937; ... . These are the places and events that offer a complementary version of the history that is discussed earlier in the book...
When John Porter in his ‘History of the Fylde of Lancashire’ recorded the find of hundreds of human bones on the River Wyre side at Burnaze between Thornton and Fleetwood, he mentioned that Burnaze was once called 'Brune'. With ancient maps also revealing the ‘Bergerode’ was also in this area.
However, this view does not take into account that when the Scots and 'Britons' fled the battlefield they would require a Roman road going north to take them back to Scotland. Whilst the old ‘Bergerode’ between Fleetwood and Thornton would only lead them into the sea. Certainly no commander of Scots and Cumbrian Britons would put the sea between themselves and an escape route if they were compelled to initially arrive at the battle site by land.
The various alternative sites in England will be reviewed during 2006-8 as part of a review of English battlefields for English Heritage.
Has anyone read any other detailed research that could possibly illuminate any other battle-sites?
.
I have got a copy of a paper which proposes the Scottish site - at Burnswark, published in the Scottish Historical Review October 2005. I have always thought that the Humber landing was problematical - why would Olaf land in the Humber anyway? Surely a western river estuary would be much more logical.
Wood says - in "In Search of the Dark Ages" - that the Humber landing "derives from a chronicle written in York c1000)". But according to the author of the paper I mentioned above that evidence has never been produced, and should be considered highly suspect. Without it Brinsworth looks thin to put it mildly.
Bromborough seems unsound on general strategic grounds. The paper in the SHR puts up a very strong case for Burnswark, Olaf landing in the Solway area and linking with the Strathclyde Britons and the Scots -
Message 16
Posted by Huscarl (U1753368) on Monday, 27th March 2006
I always thought that Olaf landed in the Humber- admittedly on the 'wrong' coast- because he had been recruiting amongst the Norse descendants in the Orkneys and the northern isles for troops, then sailing southwards down England's east coast to do likewise at Jorvik?
-
Message 17
Posted by Malvernhills (U3068630) on Tuesday, 28th March 2006
I always thought that Olaf landed in the Humber- admittedly on the 'wrong' coast- because he had been recruiting amongst the Norse descendants in the Orkneys and the northern isles for troops, then sailing southwards down England's east coast to do likewise at Jorvik?
I don't think there is any authority at all for the participation of Vikings from York.
The main figures in the alliance were Constantine, king of Scots, Olaf(Anlaf Guthfrithson), Viking king of Dublin - and Owain, king of Strathclyde. It would be more reasonable to suppose that Vikings from the Western Isles would combine with the allies from the direction of the Irish Sea.
The paper I mentioned(Brunanburh Campaign: A Reappraisal) argues that the prime mover was Constantine, and that the campaign should be seen in this light - of his priorities. Hostilities had started anyway before Olaf arrived on the scene, he was detained in Ireland apparently and was quite a latecomer.
Although Olaf wanted the Viking kingdom of York back Constantine's agenga lay more in northern Northumbria - which he commenced harrying, according to William of Malmesbury.
The logical place for Olaf to land and combine with Owain and the Scots was in the Solway Forth area- later the place of major English operations in 1307.
It is worth remembering that Athelstan had overwhelmed Constantine in 934AD, when he led a great army north - so it makes sense to think of the allies adopting a more defensive strategy, rather than a descent deep into Athelstan's territory. And hoping to beat the English king in a showdown as far from his heartlands as they were close to their's.
Hence the identification of Burnswark, with its Iron Age defences a few miles north of the Solway. Simeon of Durham called the battle site Weondune, alternatively Brunannanbryig or Etbrunnanwerc, which sounds like there is an association with Burnswark.
The more northerly location is also argued as another factor in the site being lost, the Scots had no reason to recall it, and it was out of English territory -
Message 18
Posted by Tim of Acleah (U1736633) on Tuesday, 28th March 2006
I like the conquest myth so long as it is accept as just that - a myth.
That depends on what you mean by it being a myth. If you hold to the cultural theory then I could not agree. I believe there was some form of significantmigration from Northern Europe to Britain in the 5th and 6th C AD leading to those migrants becoming the dominant group in south and eastern Britain. -
Message 19
Posted by Huscarl (U1753368) on Tuesday, 28th March 2006
Hi Malvernhills
This all does indeed sound logical and plausible, but...(there's always a 'but'!)...if so, why did not the Saxon scribes specifically celebrate the event that Athelstan had invaded their 'country'-as recorded before(934)- to the north, way above his own established border, and any subsequent ravaging in that northern 'country' before returning home?
Or even any active 'head-hunting' of Constantine(as in 1746?), seeing as Athelstan's mighty and victorious army would then have been in 'Scotland' - within good striking range of the Scot's King's centre of power? Although a terrible rout had ensued as the battle disintegrated, no actual lengthy pursuit of the fleeing Vikings/Galwegians south and west respectively back into Athelstan's own 'country' after them to their ships is recorded, so wouldn't he have logically have hunted the 'Scottish' King?? -
Message 20
Posted by Malvernhills (U3068630) on Tuesday, 28th March 2006
Hi Malvernhills
This all does indeed sound logical and plausible, but...(there's always a 'but'!)...if so, why did not the Saxon scribes specifically celebrate the event that Athelstan had invaded their 'country'-as recorded before(934)- to the north, way above his own established border, and any subsequent ravaging in that northern 'country' before returning home?
Or even any active 'head-hunting' of Constantine(as in 1746?), seeing as Athelstan's mighty and victorious army would then have been in 'Scotland' - within good striking range of the Scot's King's centre of power? Although a terrible rout had ensued as the battle disintegrated, no actual lengthy pursuit of the fleeing Vikings/Galwegians south and west respectively back into Athelstan's own 'country' after them to their ships is recorded, so wouldn't he have logically have hunted the 'Scottish' King??
The A/S Chronicle is scanty for Athelstan's reign, compared to before and later on. The poem supplies fleeting details. William of Malmesbury ,quoting a lost source he says, doesn't say anything - if I remember rightly - about the aftermath.
Perhaps Athelstan considered that he had achieved his main objective - the coalition army was destroyed. The battle took place at the end of the campaigning season - the English had lost a "multitude of men". Time to go home, maybe. The article in the Scottish History Review was pretty persuasive.
On the Brinsworth issue it seems to me that the place-name association is not strong - take away the Humber landing, and that really damages it. Although Simeon of Durham says that the allies landed with 614 ships, he doesn't say that it was in the Humber. -
Message 21
Posted by Tim of Acleah (U1736633) on Tuesday, 28th March 2006
It has been suggested that both Olaf Guthfrithson and Olaf Sihtrricson (Olaf Cuaran) were involved in the campaign and the two have become conflated.
I can see no suggestion in the accounts of Athelstan invading Scotland in 937 as he did in 934.
Simeon of Durham in 934 states that Athelstan invaded Scotland but does not do so in 937 when he says that Athelstan put to flight King Olaf who he identifies as the main enemy not Constantine.
William of Malmesbury’s account clearly implies an invasion of Athelstan’s territory ‘now the fierce savagery of the north encroaches on our land’.
In the poem in the ASC it says ‘they defend, land, treasure and homes’
According to Paul Hill ‘the Age of Athelstan’; drawing from Egil’s saga, Ingulf and William of Malmesbury' Olaf’s penetrated into England.
Hill states that Simeon of Durham records that the allied army came up the Humber with 615 ships and Florence of Worcester states that they landed in the Humber.
In a Royal grant to Worcester Athelstan refers to ‘Anlaf (Olaf) who tried to deprive me of both life and realm’.
According to Burne, Egil’s Saga states that the invading army fought against Alfgeirr and Gundrek, Lords of Bamborough prior to Brunanburh.
According to Burne ‘More Battlefields of England’ in Egil, Athelstan told the Scots to ‘go back to Scotland’.
Olaf was to invade England again after the death of Athelstan penetrating further south than either the umber of Wirral site for Brunanburh.
Senlac is enough reason to explain the site of the battle being lost, as for example was Aclea and many other early medieval battlefield sites. Rhe site of Assingdon is still disputed. -
Message 22
Posted by Malvernhills (U3068630) on Wednesday, 29th March 2006
"Simeon of Durham in 934 states that Athelstan invaded Scotland but does not do so in 937 when he says that Athelstan put to flight King Olaf who he identifies as the main enemy not Constantine."
Simeon says that: "King Athelstan...put to flight King Anlaf with 615 ships and also Constantin, king of Scots, and the king of Cumbria, with all their host".
I am not sure this qualifies Anlaf as the main foe, but in any case there are apparently good grounds for believing that Anlaf was engaged in Ireland in August 937, and that he could not have landed in Britain until September. And that the campaign had started without him - with the descent of the Scots, by land, on northern Northumbria.
"William of Malmesbury’s account clearly implies an invasion of Athelstan’s territory ‘now the fierce savagery of the north encroaches on our land’."
True - but that does not necessarily mean a penetration as far south as the Don valley in south Yorks. We surely need to treat the Saga with great caution - it has it that "Olaf" is king of Scots, but it makes sense to think that the Scots fought the "Lords of Bamborough" - an Anglian dynasty according to "Bloodfeud" - and subsequently harried the territory as William of Malmesbury tells it. This for the purpose of getting the inhabitants to submit - and to pose a challenge that Athelstan, the overlord, must respond to. Also the interests of the Scots must have been in northern Northumbria, they had no intrinsic interest in the very risky task of recovering the Viking kingdom of York
"Hill states that Simeon of Durham records that the allied army came up the Humber with 615 ships and Florence of Worcester states that they landed in the Humber."
Simeon of Durham does not say that they landed in the Humber, Florence is a later chronicler of course. Given that Anlaf was a latecomer to the fray, time was pressing - and that it is far easier and safer for the Viking king of Dublin to have effected a landing in a western river estuary, then there have got to be severe doubts about the Humber story.
If he did land in a western estuary then the Solway does make sense in terms of a combination with Constantine and Owain. Athelstan had an entirely justified and fearsome reputation - it makes sense to fall back to a defensive position.
"I can see no suggestion in the accounts of Athelstan invading Scotland in 937 as he did in 934."
It is surely anachronistic to think in terms of "Scotland" and "England" in this context. Athelstan was king of the English and Constantine, king of the Scots - with their core territories. But there were great swathes of territory where the allegiance of local rulers shifted periodically, and overlordship was uncertain and sometimes pretty nominal.
If the battle was fought at Burnswick then I wouldn't have thought this an invasion of Scotland as such - as really it was the traditional territory of the Strathclde Welsh.
"In the poem in the ASC it says ‘they defend, land, treasure and homes’"
True - but that doesn't preclude defending this in someone else's backyard, that in fact is much preferable.
"Olaf was to invade England again after the death of Athelstan penetrating further south than either the umber of Wirral site for Brunanburh."
Indeed - but this illustrates the absolute importance of strong kingship, there was perhaps a bit of a hiatus after Athelstan's death - a young unproven king on the throne, Edmund - who succeeded in re-establishing his authotity in these areas. -
Message 23
Posted by Malvernhills (U3068630) on Wednesday, 29th March 2006
"Olaf king of Scots, drew together a mighty host, and marched upon England. When he came to Northumberland, he advanced with shield of war......"
This is from Egil's Saga, Olaf wasn't king of Scots of course but it is unequivocal that the Scots came by land. Now this is obviously the pattern in Anglo-Scottish conflict. Large-scale Scots amphibious operations are rare indeed, plus of oourse it seems that they had Owain of Strathclyde's force along as well. It is exceedingly improbable, surely, that Brunanburh would have been the result of a combined amphibious operation with a large host composed mainly of the forces of "Olaf" - Anlaf Guthfirthson, Constantine of the Scots and Owain of Strathclyde.
William of Malmesbury's excerpt from the lost "poet" lends support to the Scots coming overland: "At the will of the king of Scots, the northern land lends a quiet assent to the raving fury". Anlaf's arrival is best interpreted as a seperate event: "now the pirate Olaf, deserting the sea, camps in the field".....distinct from the preceeding "now the fierce savagery of the North couches on our land".
Another relevant factor is the rarity of incursions by the Scots as far south as the Don Valley in south Yorks - the battle of the Standard was fought in N, yORKS, as were Robert the Bruce's successful battles against the useless Edward II..
Brunanburh in south Yorks would then depend upon Constantine, with Owain in tow, agreeing to march south to a rendezvous on the Humber with Anlaf, and hoping that they would see him at the appointed place and time, rather than Athelstan with the fyrd of Wessex and Mercia. That strikes me as a pretty optimistic kind of thing to do. -
Message 24
Posted by Malvernhills (U3068630) on Wednesday, 29th March 2006
If the idea of a combined D-Day in the Humber is to be rejected, as I think it must, then there is another argument against a Scots descent south of York.
That is that it assumes that the Northumbrians were incapable of putting up serious resistance. This can hardly be so - territory in Lothian was long defended by the Anglo-Saxon house of Bamburgh. Lothian was only nominally ceeded in 973, finally after the battle of Carham in 1018.
The head of the house of Bamburh was sometimes styled "high reeve", which has a Gondorish feel about it. In 1006 Uthred of Bamburgh destroyed a Scots army beseiging Durham. "Bloodfeud" quotes the Durham Chronicle; "the young warrior gathered the army of the Northumbrians and the people of Yorkshire....and slaughtered the Scottish host; whose king himself only just escaped by fleeing with a few men. Uhtred had the heads of the dead made more presentable with their hair braded, as was then the custom, and transported to Durham; there they were washed by 4 women, and fixed on stakes round the ramparts. They gave the women who had washed the heads a cow each as payment".
For all these reasons I think the southern locations for Brunanburh are improbrable, and lacking in Burne's IMP. Maybe it makes more sense to see it in more limited terms - of the Scots harrying in northern Northumbria, then combing with Anlaf and Owain near the Solway, falling back on Burnswick to do - or as it turned out die in most cases. -
Message 25
Posted by Thjodolf (U1900675) on Wednesday, 29th March 2006
"Olaf king of Scots, drew together a mighty host, and marched upon England. When he came to Northumberland, he advanced with shield of war......"
This is from Egil's Saga, Olaf wasn't king of Scots of course but it is unequivocal that the Scots came by land. Now this is obviously the pattern in Anglo-Scottish conflict. Large-scale Scots amphibious operations are rare indeed, plus of oourse it seems that they had Owain of Strathclyde's force along as well. It is exceedingly improbable, surely, that Brunanburh would have been the result of a combined amphibious operation with a large host composed mainly of the forces of "Olaf" - Anlaf Guthfirthson, Constantine of the Scots and Owain of Strathclyde.
William of Malmesbury's excerpt from the lost "poet" lends support to the Scots coming overland: "At the will of the king of Scots, the northern land lends a quiet assent to the raving fury". Anlaf's arrival is best interpreted as a seperate event: "now the pirate Olaf, deserting the sea, camps in the field".....distinct from the preceeding "now the fierce savagery of the North couches on our land".
Another relevant factor is the rarity of incursions by the Scots as far south as the Don Valley in south Yorks - the battle of the Standard was fought in N, yORKS, as were Robert the Bruce's successful battles against the useless Edward II..
Brunanburh in south Yorks would then depend upon Constantine, with Owain in tow, agreeing to march south to a rendezvous on the Humber with Anlaf, and hoping that they would see him at the appointed place and time, rather than Athelstan with the fyrd of Wessex and Mercia. That strikes me as a pretty optimistic kind of thing to do.
Particularly in view of Athelstan's seizure of York following the death of Sigtrygg 'Caech' of York, husband of Athelstan's sister (St. Edith, according to Roger of Wendover); Sigtrygg was the brother of Ragnall of York (d. 920), who had, along with Constantine II of Scotland, Donald of Sthrathclyde, Ealdred of Bamburgh and his brother Uthræd, concluded a treaty with Athelstan's father Edward.
There can be little doubt that the increasing power of the 'Wessex' kings was causing alarm throughout the British Isles; Ealdred and Uthræd had received lands from both Athelræd of Mercia and Edward of Wessex befre 911, the grants were later confirmed by Athelstan, possibly indicating the desire of the 'southern English kings' to push their power even further to the north. The extension of the influence of Wessex had begun following the death of Athelræd of Mercia when his wife, Æthelflæd, sister of Edward of Wessex, appears to have combined with her brother to extend the family's power (effectively the power of Wessex). Following Æthelflæd's death in 918, Edward occupied Tamworth leading "all the nation of the Mercians which had been subject to Æthelflæd submitted to him [Edward]". According to Ann Williams with the capture of York in 928, Athelstan became the first West Saxon king to rule all of the English peoples. It would seem that the apparently relentless advance of West Saxon power, exemplified by Athelstan's aggressive moves in northern England, caused considerable alarm for his neighbours; Constantine II, Owen of Cumbria and Ealdred of Bamburgh all met with Athelstan at 'Eamot' in Cumbria to establish ‘peace’ treaty.
It is at this point that both English 'ambition' and local 'world-view' becomes clear: Athelstan's coins begin to bear the legend 'rex totius Britanniae' ('king of all Britain'); Athelstan, about this time, also accepted the submission of the Cornish (at Exeter), and of the Welsh kings (at Hereford). The relative speed of the advance of the Wessex Saxons under Edward and Athelstan must have seemed like a not impossible threat to the various British rulers; a single united Britain under the rule of an English king may have seemed like a very real to contemporary eyes - the final stage of the process begun by the 'adventus Saxonum'. The 'Armes Prydein' was a call to arms against the threat posed by the English; an appeal for a concerted bid to drive the English out of Britain altogether. It is quite possible that Athelstan's expedition of 934 into Scotland was intended as a show of force against those who would challenge English dominance or even as an early stage of a planned conquest of Scotland. The grandiose hopes of the author of the 'Armes Prydein' were never likely to be fulfilled; however, the leaders of the allies who were destroyed at Brunanburh may have hoped, at the very least, to turn back the clock by a few decades. Constantine had sheltered Gothfrith, brother of Sigtrygg, who had been expelled by Athelstan prior to the English seizure of York. Athelstan's raid of 934 into Scotland probably convinced Constantine to risk all and colloborate with Olaf Gothfrithsson and the other allies; if the ambition of the 'Armes Prydein' could not be fulfilled then at least a real balance of power might be established. -
Message 26
Posted by Thjodolf (U1900675) on Wednesday, 29th March 2006
re- above
Apologies for not proof reading various bits!
''The relative speed of the advance of the Wessex Saxons under Edward and Athelstan would have threatened the various British rulers; the possibility of a single united Britain under an English king may have seemed very real to contemporary eyes - the final stage of the process begun by the 'adventus Saxonum'.''
''Constantine had sheltered the brother of Sigtrygg, one Gothfrith, who had been expelled by Athelstan prior to the seizure of York.''
et al... -
Message 27
Posted by Malvernhills (U3068630) on Wednesday, 29th March 2006
That's really interesting, Thojodlf
I get the impression that the 'Armes Prydein' "mission statement" might have misled historians into thinking that the Alliance and the lead up to the battle was a much grander affair than might have been the case. After all there is no evidence of Welsh participation at all.
Have you a favoured location? -
Message 28
Posted by Thjodolf (U1900675) on Wednesday, 29th March 2006
That's really interesting, Thojodlf
I get the impression that the 'Armes Prydein' "mission statement" might have misled historians into thinking that the Alliance and the lead up to the battle was a much grander affair than might have been the case. After all there is no evidence of Welsh participation at all.
Have you a favoured location?
Like you I find it very difficult to believe that that Humber was the disembarkation point for the 'allied' force. One wonders if later invasions have been confused with this episode or simply the Humber was inserted because the later chroniclers had no idea where it actually took place (it is possible that an entriely separate Norse force appeared on the Humber at this time). Mistakes in compilaton and copying may account for this, but the Humber always seems to feature in narratives for the north: Geoffrey of Monmouth had Hengest and Horsa stationed there to combat the Picts and Scots; Tostig Godwineson famously launched and attack along the Humber in the Spring of 1066 to be followed with his alliance with the Norwegian king later in that year.
Personally I would imagine that a more northerly location is most likely. As you noted, the importance of Bamburgh in this region, particularly during this period, may indicate that a northern location is likely. The quote from William of Malmesbury is interesting, "now the fierce savagery of the North couches on our land": if Athelstan had united the 'English' people (the coronation liturgy known as the Second English 'Ordo' originally composed for the coronation of Edward 'the Elder' refered to the kingship of 'both peoples', 'West Saxons and Mercians' was later altered to include the Northumbrians) if this was a case of 'perfecta Saxonia', then Bamburgh was subject to Athelstan, the confirmation of land grants mentioned elsewhere may indicate this, and if, as the coinage suggests, Athelstan saw himself as the 'king of all Britain' then Athelstan may have regarded all of Britain as ''our land''. The kingdoms of England and Scotland were very different entities at the time that Symeon, John/Florence and William wrote: The Anglo Saxon 'D' Chronicle refers William the Conqueror was the 'King of England' (1077) rather than 'of the English'. The fact that Symeon does not mention that Athelstan did not invade Scotland in 937 may be because the original source(s) which he copied may have been damaged or illegible at that point in the narrative. I find it hard to believe that the 'allied' forces would have not wanted to concentrate their main forces before marching against Athelstan, so I would imagine they would have formed a junction in non-hostile territory. Perhaps the later English chroniclers wished to show Athelstan as actually defending England itself rather than having adopted an 'attack is the best form of defence' policy. Athelstan's coinage does suggest that he regarded himself as an overlord of all Britain, he had invaded deep into Scotland in 934, so would have thought little of advancing to Burnswark. It does seem as likely a site as any, and more likely than most. -
Message 29
Posted by Malvernhills (U3068630) on Wednesday, 29th March 2006
Many thanks - can't think of anything to add to that.
-
Message 30
Posted by Malvernhills (U3068630) on Thursday, 30th March 2006
"Fought in 937ad between King Athelstan's 16,000 Wessex/Mercian army against an alliance of 18,000 Scots(under King Constantine); 'Britons' of Strathclyde(under King Owain); Irish and Jorvik Norsemen(under King Olaf Guthfrithsson) and most likely also some men from the isles and Northumbrian"
ironaxe
Where do the numbers come from? -
Message 31
Posted by Tim of Acleah (U1736633) on Thursday, 30th March 2006
"Fought in 937ad between King Athelstan's 16,000 Wessex/Mercian army against an alliance of 18,000 Scots(under King Constantine); 'Britons' of Strathclyde(under King Owain); Irish and Jorvik Norsemen(under King Olaf Guthfrithsson) and most likely also some men from the isles and Northumbrian"
ironaxe
Where do the numbers come from?
Yes, I have already asked that question. -
Message 32
Posted by Huscarl (U1753368) on Thursday, 30th March 2006
Malvernhills
I read those figures in one book about battles in Britain some years ago, (forget the author now- MAYBE Burne's "The Battlefields of England"?), although he was moderating even wilder figures himself. -
Message 33
Posted by stanilic (U2347429) on Thursday, 30th March 2006
I like the conquest myth so long as it is accept as just that - a myth.
That depends on what you mean by it being a myth. If you hold to the cultural theory then I could not agree. I believe there was some form of significantmigration from Northern Europe to Britain in the 5th and 6th C AD leading to those migrants becoming the dominant group in south and eastern Britain.
Migration, yes. Conquest, no.
The fighting came later as the political elites sought to establish economic control. By then it was local dynasties having a pop at one another regardless of their origin. Only the Welsh dynasties and their clerics saw it as a conquest by foreigners.
Before then it was just people trying to find a quiet and fertile place on which to get by. -
Message 34
Posted by Malvernhills (U3068630) on Thursday, 30th March 2006
Malvernhills
I read those figures in one book about battles in Britain some years ago, (forget the author now- MAYBE Burne's "The Battlefields of England"?), although he was moderating even wilder figures himself.
I see Smurthwaite says that estimates of the coalition against Athelstan ranged from 20-60000. I don't know where he got that from, I don't think there's any basis for speculative figures.
Alfred would have had around 26000 men on the basis of the Burghal Hidage - it has been calculated, but of course these were static troops. And the mobile army some thousands. Anyone got any idea about the size of 10th/11th century armies?
I did see an interesting snippet in "English Resistance to the Norman Conquest". Apparently a monastic chronicle was unearthed quite recently, and I think a Breton noble in William's army at Hastings estimated the size of Harold's army at 14000.
And also Hardrada might have had up to 10000 when he invaded England. -
Message 35
Posted by Malvernhills (U3068630) on Thursday, 30th March 2006
I like the conquest myth so long as it is accept as just that - a myth.
That depends on what you mean by it being a myth. If you hold to the cultural theory then I could not agree. I believe there was some form of significantmigration from Northern Europe to Britain in the 5th and 6th C AD leading to those migrants becoming the dominant group in south and eastern Britain.
Migration, yes. Conquest, no.
The fighting came later as the political elites sought to establish economic control. By then it was local dynasties having a pop at one another regardless of their origin. Only the Welsh dynasties and their clerics saw it as a conquest by foreigners.
Before then it was just people trying to find a quiet and fertile place on which to get by.
Dr Harke here talks of "an ethnically divided conquest society"
Gildas would not agree with you. -
Message 36
Posted by Huscarl (U1753368) on Thursday, 30th March 2006
Malvernhills
I usually try to read different sources as regards each event in history, weighing up the source's biases, relevance or weaknesses.
With each battle, I prefer to take the medium figures- not the largest and wildest claims, but not the strictest low figures either
This is how I arrived at my 18,000 allied army at Brunanburh, for example. Other sources stated they had 60,000!! (V.unlikely), it's the same at Hastings, sources vary from 5,000 each side up to 15,000!
I always think that William brought an army of 14,000- included in this figure are troops, sailors, guards, carpenters, cooks, monks, scouts, blacksmiths and stable-hands, etc.
Based upon the different sources I've read so far- if a Saxon king had mustered the full obligatory 1 man from every 5 hides (c.230,000 hides in England except Northumbria) - his arms and provisions paid for by his local community- this would 'theoretically' raise an army of 46,000 national select and great fyrdsmen!! -
Message 37
Posted by Tim of Acleah (U1736633) on Thursday, 30th March 2006
Malvernhills and Thjodolf
I must say that this is a fascinating discussion and I am glad to see that Burne and his inherent military probability is still remembered. I must admit that since reading ‘More Battlefields of England’ 40 years ago I have never considered a Scottish site, if you excuse the anachronism, for Brunanburh. It was Burne that first got me interested in Military history.
Since reading your posts I have reconsidered but I have not changed my mind. Unfortunately I was unable to find the to get a hold of a copy of the SHR paper though I found several references to it. I did, however, find a very interesting article on Egil’s Saga by Ian McDougall which puts forward a strong case that no weight should be put on siting the battle based on the description in the saga. Apparently such saga’s have more than once placed their hero in a famous past battle and then embellished it with a series of literary mechanisms. I think the best that can be said that the author new of a great battle involving Olaf invading Athelstan’s land and being defeated.
On the naming of the battle Hill lists no less than 47 different names given for the battle. He also lists 21 different suggested locations ranging from Axminster in Devon to Burnswork in Dumfriesshire of which 20 are in England.
I would consider that Athelstan’s core territory was England south of the Humber, I am not convinced that the territories of old Northumbria had any great desire to be ruled from the south and the Brunanburh poem only refers to the English of Wessex and Mercia, not Northumbria. This would tie in Northumbria either having been already overrun or acquiescing in the allied invasion. None of the accounts, as far as I am aware say that Athelstan invaded the territory of the Strathclyde Britons. As I said before in a Royal grant to Worcester Athelstan refers to ‘Anlaf (Olaf) who tried to deprive me of both life and realm’. He can hardly have done this by staying behind the Solway. I cannot see why Olaf would have been tempted into the coalition unless it was to regain York and certainly note to defend Owain and Constantine. I have reread the account that William of Malmsbury and that seems clearly to point to an invasion “they despoiled everything with continued ravages, driving out the people, setting fire to the fields.” It is difficult such an air of triumph to the Brunanburh poem if it were merely accounting a successful punitive expedition rather than defeating a major invasion. Both the ASC and Simeon record that Athelstan invaded the enemy in 934 but not in 937 which surely they would have done As has been mentioned Armes Pryn called for the English to be driven into the sea, staying behind the Solway was not going to achieve that.
I note what you say about the Humber invasion and the fact that it is the east coast not the west coast where one would expect Olaf to land. Hill suggests either than Olaf sailed to the west coast, say the Solway, and then a new fleet sailed down the east coast but even if Florence is wrong he still places the battle in English territory not Scottish or British territory. And even the two main sites of Brinsworth and Bromborough are on the border between the England of Mercia and Wessex and the old Northumbrian territories.
As I said before I am not at all convinced about the reason for the battle being forgotten being that it was fought in what is now Scotland. Let us take something else ‘forgotten’ from around the same period. The disappearance of the Picts as a separate people. I believe it was Henry of Huntingdon, reading Bede, who noted their absence and in the declaration of Arbroath, the Scots declare that ‘the Picts we utterly destroyed’ (quoting form memory; something in a previous posting one Scot was so uncomfortable with that he tried to claim that the declaration said that they intermarried. English history before 1066 has been greatly forgotten and very few English could name any monarchs other than Alfred, Ethelred, Cnut, Edward the Confessor, Harold, Arthur and old king Cole; even the numbering excludes the first 3 Edwards. There is no need to move Brunanburh to explain the loss of its location.
As to lead the campaign, well I am happy to accept that Constantine may have pulled the coalition together but I would say that Olaf lead it. Simeon mentions Olaf first as does William of Malmesbury and the Brunanburh poem. The Canterbury manuscript of the ASC does not even mention Constantine. The Annals of Ulster state refers to Saxons and Norsemen and Olaf and Athelstan.
It seems to me that the only thing going for the Burnswork site is the name and when it comes to a name Bromborough is better as that has been derived step by step from Brunanburh. If one dismisses Florence and the East Coast route and decides one cannot trust Egil then it seems to me the most likely conclusion is that Olaf sailed to link up with the Scots and Britons and that he either picked up their contingents on his fleet or they marched with his fleet accompanying, in the same way that Athelstan invaded in 934 on the east coast. Then when Athelstan approached they took a defensive position on the Wirral but were defeated. The Wirral is after all not that great a distance from the territory of the Strathclyde Scots.
I will, however, try to read the paper on Burnswark if I get a chance.
What, by the way, is the evidence that Olaf could not leave Ireland until August; it seems highly unlikely that Constantine would have risked provoking Athelstan before Olaf arrived.
Lastly Scottish armies reached Worcester 1651, Derby 1745 and, I read somewhere the South east in 1216 but this was, I believe, a Norse Irish army with Scottish and British contingents.
I guess you will not agree with my views, but as I said at the start a most interesting discussion. -
Message 38
Posted by Tim of Acleah (U1736633) on Thursday, 30th March 2006
I like the conquest myth so long as it is accept as just that - a myth.
That depends on what you mean by it being a myth. If you hold to the cultural theory then I could not agree. I believe there was some form of significantmigration from Northern Europe to Britain in the 5th and 6th C AD leading to those migrants becoming the dominant group in south and eastern Britain.
Migration, yes. Conquest, no.
The fighting came later as the political elites sought to establish economic control. By then it was local dynasties having a pop at one another regardless of their origin. Only the Welsh dynasties and their clerics saw it as a conquest by foreigners.
Before then it was just people trying to find a quiet and fertile place on which to get by.
How then do you explain the contemporary references in the Frankish chronicle to Britain falling under the power of the Saxons, not to mention Gildas. -
Message 39
Posted by Thjodolf (U1900675) on Thursday, 30th March 2006
Hi Malvernhills
This all does indeed sound logical and plausible, but...(there's always a 'but'!)...if so, why did not the Saxon scribes specifically celebrate the event that Athelstan had invaded their 'country'-as recorded before(934)- to the north, way above his own established border, and any subsequent ravaging in that northern 'country' before returning home?
Or even any active 'head-hunting' of Constantine(as in 1746?), seeing as Athelstan's mighty and victorious army would then have been in 'Scotland' - within good striking range of the Scot's King's centre of power? Although a terrible rout had ensued as the battle disintegrated, no actual lengthy pursuit of the fleeing Vikings/Galwegians south and west respectively back into Athelstan's own 'country' after them to their ships is recorded, so wouldn't he have logically have hunted the 'Scottish' King??
The A/S Chronicle is scanty for Athelstan's reign, compared to before and later on. The poem supplies fleeting details. William of Malmesbury ,quoting a lost source he says, doesn't say anything - if I remember rightly - about the aftermath.
Perhaps Athelstan considered that he had achieved his main objective - the coalition army was destroyed. The battle took place at the end of the campaigning season - the English had lost a "multitude of men". Time to go home, maybe. The article in the Scottish History Review was pretty persuasive.
On the Brinsworth issue it seems to me that the place-name association is not strong - take away the Humber landing, and that really damages it. Although Simeon of Durham says that the allies landed with 614 ships, he doesn't say that it was in the Humber.
It is plausible that Athelstan would have preferred to leave Constantine in place following Brunanburh; the coinage suggests that the English king considered himself Athelstan's something akin to a 'Bretwalda' at this stage. The victory at Brunanburh was a demonstration of English strength; the legend on Athelstan's coins ('rex totius Britanniae') could be viewed as either a 'statement of intent' or a 'statement of fact' with regard to a perceived English overlordship of the Scots and other neighbouring peoples - according to Bede, Oswiu of Northumbria received tribute from the "Picts and Irish" in the seventh century. Constantine, among others, had treated with Athelstan after the English capture of York; the Scottish king may have merely done so to buy time. The capture of York seems to have intimidated the Scottish king; the increasing power of the 'West Saxons' was a serious threat. Athelstan seems to have broken the military power of Constantine at Brunanburh, and the English king may have considered that a sufficient result, and may have considered that the greater threat would come, as it eventually did from the Scandinavians based in Ireland. The documentary evidence for this whole period is far from extensive, but one would imagine that Athelstan concluded yet another treaty with Constantine following the English victory. It is quite possible that Athelstan may have considered expeditions into Scotland, but his death in 939 interrupted any continued English expansion, and enabled Olaf Gothfrithsson to return, and undo much of the Athelstan's work, witht he capture of York in 939, before seizing large tracts of Mercian territory by the end of 940. The defeated Constantine was duly chastened by Brunanburh; the calamity, which also saw the death of one of his sons, broke his power to the extent that he would be in no position to gain from Athelstan's death, and may have led to him abdicating in 943 to become a monk. -
Message 40
Posted by Thjodolf (U1900675) on Friday, 31st March 2006
* re - above
"It is plausible that Athelstan would have preferred to leave Constantine in place following Brunanburh; the coinage suggests that the English king considered himself something akin to a 'Bretwalda' at this stage."
apologies for lack of proof reading! -
Message 41
Posted by Malvernhills (U3068630) on Friday, 31st March 2006
Thjodolf
Liked the bit about Constantine becoming a monk.
Tim
"What, by the way, is the evidence that Olaf could not leave Ireland until August; it seems highly unlikely that Constantine would have risked provoking Athelstan before Olaf arrived."
This seems to be an important key to the whole matter. The SHR paper states, quoting sources, that; "..Anlaf Guthfrithson was engaged in Ireland throughout the summer of 937 and fought against his Limerick rivals on Lough Ree in early August, defeating them and destroying their fleet, and forcibly recruiting the survivors to his expedition to England"
It is therefore argued that he could not have arrived in England earlier than September. This apparently being the case then the dramatic events that have come down to us could not be shoehorned into such a tight-timetable assuming his participation from the off, as the battle is thought to have occured in October
Therefore, and our sources lead us in this direction, Constantine must have taken the field before Anlaf's arrival. And I think you are right, Tim, in saying that, if this is so, then a much greater degree of circumspection on Constantine's part is plausible.
Also if Constantine did initiate hostilities then the interests of the Scots merit more consideration. The author of "Bloodfeud" tells us that the "Scottish rulers and their warrior aristocrats looked with covetous eyes on the much richer lands which lay to the south of the Forth-Clyde line". He says that the British rulers of Strathclyde had been reduced to client or vassal status before the teritory was finally subsumed in 1018, this also brought overlordship of Cumbria.
In the east the Scots had their eyes on Lothian, then northern Northumbria - so it seems plausible to suppose, and to go along with the Saga, that Constantine invaded the territories held, or nominally held, by the Northumbrian House of Bamburgh. Malmesbury tells us that the "North" was mercilessly harried, and some switched allegiance. Athelstan, as overlord, would have been bound to go to the aid of the Northumbrians -
Message 42
Posted by Malvernhills (U3068630) on Friday, 31st March 2006
Constantine II was clearly a considerable figure - and in the course of a long career and life he fought the Vikings of both Dublin and York with success.
Seems that there is no reason to think that he would have played second fiddle to Anlaf Guthfrithson of Dublin.
Apparently John of Worcester has it that Anlaf arrived with a fleet at the "urging" of Constantine.
So the interests of Constantine - which must lie in northern Northumbria are extremely important, perhaps the key.
William of Malmesbury has it that "the legion of plunderers" fell back upon Athelstan's approach. This would fit in with a Scots invasion of northern Northumberland, overawing the natives with much harrying - then linking with Anlaf arriving via the Solway, and then falling back on Burnswick to make a stand there.
Anlaf must have hoped that if the allies were victorious and Athelstan destroyed, then he would get York in consequence.
But it was not to be, and it is interesting that the Scots were forced to cede Lothian, including Edinburgh as a result. -
Message 43
Posted by Tim of Acleah (U1736633) on Sunday, 2nd April 2006
Malvernhills
"This seems to be an important key to the whole matter. The SHR paper states, quoting sources, that; "..Anlaf Guthfrithson was engaged in Ireland throughout the summer of 937 and fought against his Limerick rivals on Lough Ree in early August, defeating them and destroying their fleet, and forcibly recruiting the survivors to his expedition to England""
I assume that this is taken from Irish annals. But do they state what exactly is the sourse. Given the amount of time that has been poured over Brunanburh I am surprised that this hasds not been picked up before.
I am still not convined about the "Scottish site", where there are any geographic references they seem to be to a site in England, William of Malmesbury certainly states that the allied army had proceeded far into England.
By the way on the battle of Carham I think 1016 is a more logical date as Utred died in 1016 and with Edmund Ironside and Cnut in all ouit war that makes a more logical time for the Scots to atack than in 1018 with Cnut secure and able to respond.
I am aware that Simeon of Durham gives the date of 1018 but he also says that Utred was there. I am not clear as to what the long term affects of Carham were as it seems that Lothian was already under Scottish rule and I believe that later on the Scots were forced to pay homage to Cnut. -
Message 44
Posted by Tim of Acleah (U1736633) on Sunday, 2nd April 2006
Malvernhills
I usually try to read different sources as regards each event in history, weighing up the source's biases, relevance or weaknesses.
With each battle, I prefer to take the medium figures- not the largest and wildest claims, but not the strictest low figures either
This is how I arrived at my 18,000 allied army at Brunanburh, for example. Other sources stated they had 60,000!! (V.unlikely), it's the same at Hastings, sources vary from 5,000 each side up to 15,000!
I always think that William brought an army of 14,000- included in this figure are troops, sailors, guards, carpenters, cooks, monks, scouts, blacksmiths and stable-hands, etc.
Based upon the different sources I've read so far- if a Saxon king had mustered the full obligatory 1 man from every 5 hides (c.230,000 hides in England except Northumbria) - his arms and provisions paid for by his local community- this would 'theoretically' raise an army of 46,000 national select and great fyrdsmen!!
Ironaxe
Burne gives a figure of 18,000 for the allied army in More battlefields.
This is based on the 615 ships and his assumption that there were two contingents, one Olaf1 + Constantine East coast and two Olaf2 + Owain on the west coast.
ghe assumes that the English army must have been around the same size.
regards
Tim -
Message 45
Posted by Huscarl (U1753368) on Sunday, 2nd April 2006
Thanks Tim
I couldn't remember my sources earlier.
Burne seems likely to be the source that I knew I'd read- 18,000 was indeed a figure given for the coalition with a reciprocal approx number of Athelstan's men, a colossal battle for that era! -
Message 46
Posted by Malvernhills (U3068630) on Monday, 3rd April 2006
Malvernhills
"This seems to be an important key to the whole matter. The SHR paper states, quoting sources, that; "..Anlaf Guthfrithson was engaged in Ireland throughout the summer of 937 and fought against his Limerick rivals on Lough Ree in early August, defeating them and destroying their fleet, and forcibly recruiting the survivors to his expedition to England""
I assume that this is taken from Irish annals. But do they state what exactly is the sourse. Given the amount of time that has been poured over Brunanburh I am surprised that this hasds not been picked up before.
I am still not convined about the "Scottish site", where there are any geographic references they seem to be to a site in England, William of Malmesbury certainly states that the allied army had proceeded far into England.
By the way on the battle of Carham I think 1016 is a more logical date as Utred died in 1016 and with Edmund Ironside and Cnut in all ouit war that makes a more logical time for the Scots to atack than in 1018 with Cnut secure and able to respond.
I am aware that Simeon of Durham gives the date of 1018 but he also says that Utred was there. I am not clear as to what the long term affects of Carham were as it seems that Lothian was already under Scottish rule and I believe that later on the Scots were forced to pay homage to Cnut.
Tim
The sources quoted are: J. O'Donovan, Annals of the Kingdom of Ireland, D. Murphy, Annals of Clonmacnoise.
Apparently it has been accepted that Anlaf couldn't have been in Britain until September 937, after defeating Viking rivals in early August he is said to have embarking on a recruiting campaign - which sounds fair enough. The author of the SHR article believes that the imlications of this have not been factored into the chain of events.
In terms of William of Malmesbury we surely, as Thjdolf, pointed out in #28, have to be extremely cautious when talking about "England" in the contemporary context - and what may have been deemed to be "our land".
"if, as the coinage suggests, Athelstan saw himself as the 'king of all Britain' then Athelstan may have regarded all of Britain as ''our land''. The kingdoms of England and Scotland were very different entities at the time that Symeon, John/Florence and William wrote: The Anglo Saxon 'D' Chronicle refers William the Conqueror was the 'King of England' (1077) rather than 'of the English'."
Malmesbury, apparently following the lost poet, talks of the fierce savagery of the North as it "couches on our land", he says the "whole region" yielded "to the proud". We can't necessarily take this as meaning that the whole of Northumbria submitted - in part it may be a reference to lands still held north of the Tweed in Lothian by the House of Bamburgh. These were not formerly ceeded until 973 by Edgar, but even then, according to Bloodfeud, this "emphatically did not create a stable and fixed frontier". Also I doubt we can take it as an invasion of England, as - if I recall rightly - the terms does not appear until early in the following century. The Wessex kings created the English kingdom during the 10th century, but it was a pretty nascent kingdom in 937 surely.
What we have, it seems, is an incursion into Northern Northumbria by the Scots - into territory held, loosely in some areas, by the House of Bamburgh; a challenge to which Athelstan had to respond as overlord.
The ASC gives Earl Uhtred as being done in - in early 1016. The author of Bloodfeud has pieced together the details - and the way he tells it is that Uhtred and his 40 retainers met Canute under a safe conduct north of Tadcaster about March 1016. With Canute's connivance an Anglo-Scandanavian magnate called Thurbrand arranged an ambush and killed Uhtred and his men. Uhtred apparently was unwilling to give up his allegiance to the Wessex kings, even in the shape of the useless Ethelred. -
Message 47
Posted by Tim of Acleah (U1736633) on Tuesday, 4th April 2006
Malvernhills
thanks for the information. I will try and see if I can track it down and see if I agree but I think that it may well take a while.
I agree that the Northumbrian areas were not Scottish but they were not that "English kingdom" either. In an alternative history one could well have ended up with a Scottish Northumbrian kingdom stretching doen to the Humber and I have read that the Northumbrian bits that did not fall to the viking came to an Understanding with the Scost who were Christian after all and with whom there had not been a lot of hostility. I have always got the impression that Northumbria very much went its own way with regard to Southumbria one it concluded that Mercia was too powerful to perminantly subdue.
I am still not convinced with this border incurcion. the whole tennet of Brunanburh sounds bigger than that. I understand that it was referred to as 'the battle' in the way that we refer to the war. Athelstyan may have considered all of Britain to be his land but that does not not mean he considered it as England.
But on the other hand it could be that Olaf sailed straight to the Wirral to meet up with Constantine and Owain and lets face it when did Willaim the B land, quite late in the year in 1066.
I agree about Utred but he could not have been around to fight in 1018. -
Message 48
Posted by Malvernhills (U3068630) on Wednesday, 5th April 2006
Tim
"I agree that the Northumbrian areas were not Scottish but they were not that "English kingdom" either."
Indeed - as I said it is too early to talk of England in 937 anway
"In an alternative history one could well have ended up with a Scottish Northumbrian kingdom stretching doen to the Humber"
Bloodfeud author wrote in terms of the Tyne rather than the Tweed, he believed that Earl Uhtred's defeat of the Scottish beseiging army at Durham was quite influential here.
"and I have read that the Northumbrian bits that did not fall to the viking came to an Understanding with the Scost who were Christian after all and with whom there had not been a lot of hostility"
That's interesting - Constantine had fought against both the Vikings of York and Ireland. Bloodfeud, again, though says that thee was a lot of Northumbrian/Scots cross-border raiding. It was a bloody place to be, for centuries really.
"I am still not convinced with this border incurcion. the whole tennet of Brunanburh sounds bigger than that"
I suspect that the Armes Prydein might have led us to believe that the alliance against Athelstan, though still a big deal, was even bigger than was actually the case. After all there was no Welsh participation. It would be natural for Athelstan's court circle to big up the event as much as possible - and indeed it surely was a very big event in any case.
" I understand that it was referred to as 'the battle' in the way that we refer to the war."
That doesn't mean though that it had to take place on or near core English territory though - we would probably take the decisive event in WW2, from a UK perspective, as being D-Day and the Battle for Normandy - which largely led to the destruction of German forces in France.
"But on the other hand it could be that Olaf sailed straight to the Wirral to meet up with Constantine and Owain and lets face it when did Willaim the B land, quite late in the year in 1066."
To me this interpretation doesn't make any sense. The best analysis of the situation from what's available seems to be that as far as Constantine and the Scots were concerned the key territories they wanted were north and south of the Tweed. Seems they had made considerable progress in subjugating them according to Malmesbury and Egil's Saga.
It hardly seems likely that they would then abandon this project and march off down the west coast to meet, hopefully, Anlaf on the Wirral . If they were to do so it would be in the face of an English army which was presumably in advanced stages of mobilisation. Not only that but Athelstan's army must have been the most effectve military force in Britain - only 3 years earlier Constantine had been completely overwhelmed.
Further this then assumes that they would have backed themselves up into the Wirral when Athelstan arrived, this would be like committing suicide. How could Constantine have escaped, by land - as our sources imply?
The balance of military power was surely that Constantine, after provoking Athelstan through his harrying and subjugation of the "North", would fall back to link with Anlaf, and the Solway makes perfect sense here. Constantine and Anlaf, on the recent form, had surely got to fight Athelstan when the latter was as far forward as possible.
"I agree about Utred but he could not have been around to fight in 1018."
If Bloodfeud his right he would have been around for most of 1016 either, as he was apparently done to death at Canute's wish. The "Durham anonymous" has it that: "On Uhtred's death his brother Eadwulf, known as Cudel, succeeded to the Earldom. He was a very slothful and cowardly man...." Apparently Carham was all his fault.
Interesting that it was the instability and lawlessness of Northumbria, caught really between the Vikings and the Scots, which led to the end of Anglo-Saxon England. The further north, the greater the control difficulties for the Wessex lings. The imposition of Tostig on the Northumbrians, the summary way they kicked him out and killed his huscarls, Harold's understandable reluctance to back him and precipitate civil war - and then Tostig going off in a mega-huff, really put the cat amongst the pigeons. -
Message 49
Posted by Thjodolf (U1900675) on Wednesday, 5th April 2006
The 'Armes Prydein' was a "prophecy", but perhaps best described as a 'fervent wish' by certain sections of the Welsh population. It seems to have been a direct response to the treaty Athelstan imposed upon the Welsh princes at Hereford: the scale of the tribute demanded by Athelstan was quite staggering, but not impossible; Athelstan also set the Welsh border along the line of the Wye. The author of the 'Armes Prydein' rails against the 'English' as tax-collectors and rails against the taxes; the initial (prophesised) battle is described as occuring on the banks of the Wye. Above all the prophecy seems to be a very immediate protest against the oppressive taxation imposed upon the Welsh; allusions to the 'adventus Saxonum' certainly add to the vivid picture; however, almost five centuries had passed since "the scavengers of Thanet" became "princes". It is perhaps unlikely that the average Welshman of the period would have seen the 'reconquest' of the whole of Britain as his primary motivating factor; alleviating the heavy burden of English taxation and the possiblity of some plunder would certainly have satiated more immediate desires.
The 'Armes Prydein' called for the Bretons and Cornish to join with the alliance of Welsh, Scots, Irish and men of Dublin (Scandinavians); had such a coalition been forged then it is likely that Athelstan's England would have been stretched to breaking point, if not utterly defeated. The Bretons were concerned with more immediate domestic issues, while the Cornish had only recently experienced Athelstan's 'foreign policy'; the expulsion of Cornish from Exeter and the fortifying of that city certainly suggests that Athelstan had his eye on the ball with regard to possible threats nearer to his Wessx heartland. But what of the Welsh? Why did they not join against the English king who had only recently imposed such a suffocating tribute upon them; one imagines that the Welsh, no doubt well aware that Olaf and Constantine were preparing to move against Athelstan, would have seized the opportunity to fulfill the prophecy of the 'Armes Prydein'. However, the Welsh kings did not throw in their lot with what was still a substantial threat to Athelstan. The charter evidence appears to show that the Welsh princes viewed Athelstan as their lord following the meeting at Hereford. The king of Gwynedd, Idwal Foel, son of Anarwd, was a regular visitor to Athelstan's court, as was Morgan of Morgannwg; Owain of Gwent and Teowdor of Brycheiniog are also known to have witnessed charters of Athelstan. By far the most influential of the Welsh kings, seems to have been Hywel 'the Good' Dda of Dyfed. Hywel, appears to have been greatly influenced by his English neighbours; Stenton wrote that Hywel "was strongly influenced by English life and methods of government" and gave one of his sons an English name, striking coins after an English model and that "it was probably the English conception of king as legislator whih moved him to issue whatever laws are his in the code called by his name".
The influence of English 'culture' on the southern Welsh probably dates back at least as far as Alfred the Great. I do not believe that it is a particularly new idea that Asser's 'Life of Alfred' was written for a Welsh audience; Alfred would have been an attractive character to the Christians of Wales; struggling to hold back the advance of the pagan Scandinavians, the pious Alfred, particulary given the hagiographical style of Asser's 'Life' would perhaps appeal to the inhabitants of those areas of south Wales which "submitted to his royal authority". If the southern Welsh had viewed the 'West Saxon' king as their overlord since the time of Alfred, then it is perhaps understandable as to why there seems to have been no involvement in the coalition against Athelstan depsite the complaints of the author of the 'Armes Prydein' - a more 'nationalistic' view, perhaps? Hywel seems to have been "above all the Welsh kings...in his loyalty to the king of England"; the fact that Hywel moved against Gwynedd and Powys and became ruler of most of Wales in the years following Athelstan's death, might suggest the extent of the power at his disposal. If Athelstan could rely on Hywel to secure one particular flank then he would have perhaps been able to concentrate more attention in the more vulnerable regions in northern England, possibly giveing him a 'running start' at the invasion of Olaf and Constantine. If the Welsh were unlikely to particpate in the coalition, then perhaps Olaf and Constantine would have been better served forming a junction at a relatively safe distance from the reach of Athelstan; a reach which had extended far beyond the Solway only three years earlier. It is interesting to note that Æthelweard 'the Chronicler', a man with very strong connections to the house of Wessex (a direct descendant of Æthelræd I), writing in the late tenth century, and an apparently independent source, named the "great battle" as 'Brunandun'. Whether Æthelweard can be trusted any more than Symeon of Durham, William of Malmesbury or John of Worcester is debatable; as the ealdorman for the western provinces (Wessex) he may have lacked geographical knowledge of northern England or erred when copying from his sources, but the twelfth century historians may have been equally guilty, particularly is their narratives of Brunanburh was based on a common source. Michael Swanton suggests that the confusion surrounding the 'Humber' may originate in an encounter between Athelstan and Olaf the Red, mentioned in Egil's Saga.
The author of the 'Armes Prydein' refers to Athelstan as 'Mechteyrn', 'Great King', perhaps mockingly, but it seems that it was also very much a reality for the Welsh. It is perhaps not too difficult to understand Athelstan's own conception of his authority: in many of his charters, Athelstan is described as "King of the English and ruler of all Britain", as well as equally grand titles such as 'monarchus', 'basileus' and 'imperator'. Although it is unlikely that Athelstan was the first English king to have had such grand designs; Æthelbald of Mercia was referred to as 'rex Britanniae' in one charter of 736. -
Message 50
Posted by Malvernhills (U3068630) on Thursday, 6th April 2006
Probably the Bromborough, Wirral, proposed site would only make sense in the conext of Welsh co-operation with Anlaf, but there is absolutely no evidence for that of course.
And it doesn't explain why the Scots, with their Strathclyde allies/vassals, would march south after harrying and subjugating lands in northern Northumbria.
About this Board
The History message boards are now closed. They remain visible as a matter of record but the opportunity to add new comments or open new threads is no longer available. Thank you all for your valued contributions over many years.
or to take part in a discussion.
The message board is currently closed for posting.
The message board is closed for posting.
This messageboard is .
Find out more about this board's
Search this Board
鶹Լ iD
鶹Լ navigation
鶹Լ links
鶹Լ © 2014 The 鶹Լ is not responsible for the content of external sites. Read more.
This page is best viewed in an up-to-date web browser with style sheets (CSS) enabled. While you will be able to view the content of this page in your current browser, you will not be able to get the full visual experience. Please consider upgrading your browser software or enabling style sheets (CSS) if you are able to do so.