Βι¶ΉΤΌΕΔ

Wars and ConflictsΒ  permalink

Unprovoked aggression by Athelstan?

• Message 1.Β 

  Posted by TonyG (U1830405) on Monday, 20th February 2006

  Everything I know about Athelstan comes from reading English authors. He is always lauded as the king who laid the real foundations of a united England, following his grandfather Alfred saving the nation from being overwhelmed by Danish invasion. Athelstan's victory ar Brunanburh is usually portrayed as a successful defence against an alliance of foes making an unprovoked attack, just like the Danes who had attacked England previously.
  
  I have just read a book on the history of Scotland which gives a different perspective and claims that it was actually Athelstan who first invaded what was then the kingdom of Alba in an unashamed act of unprovoked aggression aimed at expanding his own kingdom. Having gained control of the Viking York, Athelstan was then able to bring English Northumbria into his sphere of influence which, for the first time, gave him a border with the kingdoms of Strathclyde and Alba. Love thy neighbour? Not a bit of it. Athelstan decided to keep marching north and forced the Picts to give tribute. He claimed to be king of all Britain, although the Picts probably had a different view of the reality of the situation.
  
  So the later alliance of the Picts of Alba with the Irish Vikings, defeated at Brunanburh, was not yet another assault on poor England, but an attempt to get revenge on and reclaim land from an aggressive expansionist.
  
  Yet another example of different perspectives on the same event? Of course, sources for this time are relatively scarce, so it is fairly easy for historians to put their own interpretation on the known facts. However, next time anyone starts up the Scottish - English antagonism, just remember: the English started it.
  

  Link to this forum: Unprovoked aggression by Athelstan?

  Report message1

• Message 2

  , in reply to message 1.

  Posted by DrkKtn6851746 (U2746042) on Tuesday, 21st February 2006

  Athelstan was indeen an imperialist b@stard who imposed the rule of Wessex upon previously independent bits of 'England'.

  Link to this forum: Unprovoked aggression by Athelstan?

  Report message2

• Message 3

  , in reply to message 2.

  Posted by Elistan (U1872011) on Tuesday, 21st February 2006

  Or he was a insightful leader who realised that the disparate parts would only tear themselves apart unless united under a strong (Wessex) monarch. Independence can be overrated when it is only the freedom to rob cows and indulge in pointless acts of bravado. Look at Ireland of the same period. Boru manges to suppress the nation, but because of the ludicrious inheritance laws, his heirs have to start fron scratch again. The whole system is designed to maintain division. When the Normans turned up the Saxons could at least put up a bit of a united front, rather than all individually toading up to William.

  Link to this forum: Unprovoked aggression by Athelstan?

  Report message3

• Message 4

  , in reply to message 3.

  Posted by DrkKtn6851746 (U2746042) on Wednesday, 22nd February 2006

  But whose to say that the Anglo-Scandinavian north would even have been in the Normans' sights, let alone necessarily conquered, if Wessex's imperialism had failed? The whole history of 'England' & the north's relationship with Ireland, Scotland & Scandinavia would've been different if independence had been maintained. I regard Athelstan as having established a tradition of southern domination at the north's expense that has yet to be shaken off (& I want the Lindisfarne Gospels repatriated too!).

  Link to this forum: Unprovoked aggression by Athelstan?

  Report message4

• Message 5

  , in reply to message 4.

  Posted by TonyG (U1830405) on Wednesday, 22nd February 2006

  I can understand Athelstan wanting to reclaim York from the Danes and so re-establishing contact with Northumbria. Fair enough. But going further north against Celtic tribes he had previously had no contact with is blatant militaristic expansionism. It's not as though Strathclyde and Alba had any great resources he could want. The Vikings had realised that years before and had stopped attacking Alba in preference for raids on southern Britain and Ireland where there was something worth plundering.

  Link to this forum: Unprovoked aggression by Athelstan?

  Report message5

Back to top