Ancient and Archaeology听 permalink
Athelstan - The Great?
This discussion has been closed.
-
Message 1.听
Posted by DocFortune (U13867284) on Monday, 8th February 2010
Hello everyone,
I have some thoughts on King Athelstan and would like to get some feedback from you.
Athelstan b.894 d.939 the grandson of Alfred the Great was a distinguished soldier, no Saxon king except for possibly Offa was so widely known and respected in western Christendom. Although little is known of him compared to his Grandfather what we do know perhaps justifies a raising of his national identity/importance.
Like his grandfather, Athelstan was literate and was evidently a man of considerable artistic taste as he collected many special books and works of art. He also collected relics of saints and received gifts from all over Europe.
William of Malmesbury lists a number of his continental friends:
Harold, King of Norway, who it is said sent Athlestan a ship with a purple sail to signify Athlestans kingly status.
Henry I of Germany who asked for Athelstans sister as wife for his son Otto.
Hugh the Great, Duke of the Franks and Conrad, Duke of Burgandy, who married two other sisters of the King.
These friends sent to him many great gifts including the fabled sword of Constantine the Great which still had the name of the ancient owner in gold letters upon it, also the spear of Charles the Great which was said to be the same spear used by the Centurion to pierce the side of Jesus whilst on the cross. Also a piece of the holy cross enclosed in crystal and a portion of the crown of thorns. Whether these were real artifacts or bogus relics is unknowable but for Athelstan they were undoubtably the real deal.
But above all of this Athlestan was perhaps the greatest warrior the English nation has ever seen. Less than two years after his coronation in September 925 he began a campaign to take West Saxon arms over the whole of Britain.
After the Viking King of York, Sihtric, had died in early 927 Athelstan invaded Northumbria and entered York. This was a historic moment, for a southern King had never directly ruled in York before. The north British Kings submited to Athelstan. Constantine, King of the Scots, Owain, King of the Cumbrians and also Constantines brother Donald, King of the Strathclyde Welsh. This event was the prelude to "all the kings of the island becoming Athelstans men.
In July 927 Athelstan rode south and launched an attack on the North Welsh Kings. They were eventually defeated and all five Kings who ruled within Wales met Athelstan at Hereford and acknowledged his overlordship and each agreed to pay a hugh yearly tribute. Even after all this Athelstan wasn't finished and he now turned his attention to the "West Welsh", the Britons of Cornwall and crushed their opposition.
By Easter 928 Athelstan was rejoicing and feasting in Exeter having achieved something no one else ever had, not even the Romans, all of the Kings of England, Wales, Scotland and the Viking rulers in the country had been subjugated and he was now "Emperor of the World of Britain"
His influence and power was well known throughout Europe and foreign kings showed their respect by sending their sons to be fostered in the English court. A Frankish cleric wrote to Athelstan describing him as "excelling in fame & honour above all earthly kings of modern times". In Norway he gained the nickname "Athlestan the Victorious" and also "The Greatest King in the Northern World". Almost universally he was remembered as the most honoured figure in the west.
In 934 he defeated Constantine, King of the Scots after the treaty between them was broken having marched a hugh army deep into Scotland, Pictland & Cumbria. Soon Constantine and the northern Kings around Caithness renewed their submissions to Athlestan and Constantine handed over his son as a hostage. Once again Athelstan had proved he was King of Kings.
Then of course, in 937, comes the greatest battle in Anglo-Saxon history the battle of Brunanburh.
Without going into as much detail here as I would like this was a battle of immense proportions. A grand Celtic alliance of Vikings, Britons & Scots, led by Constantine and Olaf Gothfrithsson of Dublin intended to wipe out Athelstan and his troops. Athelstan however did something else that no one ever had before he joined the armies, perhaps 8000 in number, of Wessex and Mercia together so that they would fight side by side. This was another historic moment in the emergence of an English nation-state.
Athelstan enjoyed a great victory, however the losses on both sides were huge, no less than five Kings and seven Earls were slain and on Athelstans side he lost two royal cousins, Aelfwine & Aethelwine, two bishops, two unnamed ealdormen and a multitude of lesser men.
The exact location of the battle has been discussed for centuries and if one dismisses Egil's Saga as a fictional source for the battle then the battlefield cannot be located. If however one chooses to follow John of Worcester then a location somewhere south of the Humber and east of the Pennines is indicated. Stephen Harding's case for a site on the Wirral looks more convincing than any other.
Not surprisingly the battle was viewed as the great event of the era. According to the chronicler Aethelweard, writing in the 980's "the man in the street still called it the Great Battle". In the royal court the victory was celebrated as a national triumph. No one was more successful in warfare than Athelstan. It was said that he ruled "by terror of his name alone" and that he "implanted the nations around him with dread".
In his last years Athelstan was an elder statesman in the eyes of Europeans. His court was a haven for guests, scholars, pilgrims, poets & churchmen. In 939 he even sent an English fleet to Flanders, the first case in history of English intervention on the continent.
In the last months of his life his friend Cenwald, bishop of Worcester expressed Athelstans supremacy in these terms:
"King of the Anglo Saxons, Emperor of the Northumbrians, ruler of the Pagans and guardian of the Britons"
His grandfather Alfred is remembered as "The Great" but it is perhaps Athelstan who really deserves that title and it is probably only because there was no "Asser" for Athelstan like there was for Alfred that he is not remembered as
Athelstan the Great
Kind Regards
DocFortune -
Message 2
Posted by TonyG (U1830405) on Tuesday, 9th February 2010
Doc Fortune,
I agree that Athelstan is sadly overlooked and you are probably correct in that he had no Asser as his famous grandfather did.
Having said that, while not decrying Athelstan's achievements which , by the standards of his time were exceptional, I would like to put a more controversial view. One can hardly blame a king of the Saxons for feeling that he was surrounded by enemies. The experiences of his grandfather prove that. But, quite simply, Athelstan was an aggressive warmonger. Subjugating Northumbria, a long-time enemy of the Saxons wa sone thing, but unprovoked attacks on the northern kingdoms of Britain can hardly be justified except to say that he was a bully who wanted everything for himself. Had he not undertaken these attacks, the subsequent "Treaty breaking" or "revolts" would not have take place. Brunanburh would not have been necessary.
Athelstan's conquests barely outlived him but he left a legacy of enmity which, it could be argued, began the centuries of hostility between England on the one hand and Wales and Scotland on the other. I acknowledge that Scotland barely existed as an entity at that time but that is just nomenclature. The land was there, the people were there and the rulers, whether Picts or Scots, would be aware of Athelstan's unprovoked aggression.
In summary, I agree that, from an English perspective, Athelstan deserves much more recognition. From a British perspective, he was just another warlord, albeit probably the most successful one.
Regards,
Tony -
Message 3
Posted by TwinProbe (U4077936) on Tuesday, 9th February 2010
Hi DocFortune,
It's really encouraging that you are taking such an interest in Anglo-Saxon kings who, whatever their many faults, did actually exist; as opposed to a Romano-British 'leader of battles' whose very existence is so questionable.
Offa, Alfred, Athelstan (and I grudgingly add the Norse Cnut) were all immensely powerful rulers, but I guess only Alfred has been well served by spin-doctors and historians. But then Alfred saved his country and religion in the darkest of dark times, and will always be 'England's Darling'.
I would take a more positive view of Athelstan than TonyG's I think. He was in fact, not just in name, King of All England. I don't think a powerful lowland king would ever have tolerated an independent Scandinavian kingdom in York, and I think one has to distinguish the contemporary situation from the Anglo-Saxon Northumbria of earlier centuries, although Wessex and Northumbria were not exactly 'close' then. I believe that the Scandinavian kingdom of York made diplomatic contacts with the Scot's king and the British of Strathclyde and North Wales, consequently these kingdoms could hardly avoid being dragged into the conflict that ensued.
I think that there are parallels between Athelstan and Edward I. In both instances the English king felt that the Scots and Welsh rulers had acknowledged his sovereignty, and then broken their covenants. Whilst understanding completely that the Scots and Welsh will take a different view of both monarchs, to call Athelstan an 'aggressive warmonger' is an exaggeration I think. Athelstan's behaviour was simply what successful and ruthless medieval kings did; Offa and Cnut, Charlemagne and William the Conqueror, Edward I and Henry V. When your king was unmilitary and incompetent, an Ethelred perhaps or kindly Henry VI, then God help you.
On the more positive side Athelstan seems to have to have had a genuine interest in religion, laws and coinage reform. Finally to defeat all his enemies combined against him, especially if he was physically present on the battlefield risking his life, was a considerable achievement.
To say that Athelstan's conquests 'barely outlived him' is a rather harsh judgement. There was a catastrophic competition for power in Northumbria sure enough, but Athelstan's successors did retrieve the situation In many ways the reign of his great nephew Edgar was an Anglo-Saxon golden age. It was Edgar's unexpected death in 975 that really stirred things up!
TP -
Message 4
Posted by DocFortune (U13867284) on Tuesday, 9th February 2010
Hi TonyG
Thanks for your opinion on this subject, I do respectfully disagree with some of your points though. Was Athelstan any different to any other 'wannabe' King or such like in wanting everything for himself? Is that not the general idea of being a King in these times?
I must also agree with TwinProbe that no southern King would accept continued advancement of Scandinavian territory in the North especially if they had designs on heading south, so it can hardly be said that he attacked the northern provinces without any reason. The initiative had to be siezed and any successful warlord/king would do the same, pick his battles and fight them on his terms.
I must also disagree that things would have been fine if he had 'left them alone'. Constantine, the king of the Scots had broken two alliances with Athelstan due to his own desire for further gains and not as a result of any military action on Athelstans part. It was only in response to Constantines actions that he led his army into Scotland to quell the uprising.
I believe regardless of Athelstans actions he was a marked man simply because of his grandfather Alfred and had he not instigated alot of his battles they would have eventually found their way to him and he may not have been in such a strong position to defend himself. I am sure that a battle like Brunanburh would have happened somewhere at some time regardless of Athelstans actions.
Regards
DocFortune -
Message 5
Posted by DocFortune (U13867284) on Tuesday, 9th February 2010
Hi TwinProbe
How nice to speak to you again.
Thanks once again for such an interesting reply and as you will see from my reply to TonyG we agree on various points.
I think there is a real need for a change of name for this period in time, they certainly are not Dark Ages, there is plenty of information to be found on various characters other than Arthur and I am fascinated by each one I come across.
It's not just the people, some of the battles of this period are almost beyond comprehension in scope & scale. 'The Great Battle' Brunanburh which is associated with Athelstan, even with the scant details we have regarding the actual engagement, is one of the most brutal & bloody encounters ever recorded in the British Isles.
I firmly believe that the unquestioning sense of duty toward their King and extraordinary valour of the Dark Age warrior is not given its full recognition.
Regards
DocFortune -
Message 6
Posted by TwinProbe (U4077936) on Tuesday, 9th February 2010
Hi DocFortune,
I agree that the Dark Ages are not really Dark. We know more about the period AD 400-600 than we do about the pre-Roman Iron Age for example. But what's the alternative?
Us Roman enthusiasts might be happy with 'Late Antiquity'. This term makes sense in the Frankish kingdom but not perhaps in East Anglia. The many medievalists, who are only too delighted to see the back of the Romans, would be happy with the 'Early Medieval Period'. But somehow it seems wrong to call Latin speaking people living in villas 'medieval'. Perhaps the 'Age of Migrations' is best, but that embarrasses me since I have spent a great deal of time trying to convince people that there were not massive migrations! So I would be really interested in any new suggestions.
If the accounts of Brunanburh are true another very impressive aspect is the way the Scots, Norse, Welsh and British managed to put together an anti-Athelstan coalition. Even if ultimately unsuccessful it must have represented a considerable political achievement.
Best wishes,
TP -
Message 7
Posted by baz (U14258304) on Monday, 15th February 2010
Seeing as most of Europe and even parts of North Africa were overrun by Germanic tribes, we could call this era the Teutonic age. The 'Dark Ages' is an insulting term, as I suspect it is meant to be.
-
Message 8
Posted by somewhatsilly (U14315357) on Monday, 15th February 2010
Personally, I like 'Early Historic', a bit bland perhaps but difficult to argue with.
Ferval -
Message 9
Posted by Vizzer aka U_numbers (U2011621) on Monday, 15th February 2010
How about 'Late Ancient/Early Mediaeval'.
-
Message 10
Posted by TwinProbe (U4077936) on Tuesday, 16th February 2010
Thanks for the interesting suggestions, clearly they all have merit, as does my favourite 'post-Imperial'.
The problem with 'Dark Age' is that it is hardly a neutral descriptive term any more. There is no problem with the neutrality of 'Early historic', and the only possible objection is that the period is centuries later than the earliest times that the region concerned entered the historical record.
The disadvantages of 'Teutonic' is that is not the period associated with the tribe known as the Teutones, nor that linked to the Teutonic knights. Finally the word may be just too closely associated with modern Germany to be neutral. I think that if you wanted a descriptive term that related to the movement of north European tribes then the existing 'Age of Migrations' might be preferable.
'Late ancient /early medieval' is perfectly neutral and accurate but may be just a little too cumbersome to replace the evocative, if inaccurate, Dark Ages.
TP -
Message 11
Posted by Jak (U1158529) on Thursday, 18th February 2010
There's a village in East Lothian with the curious name Athelstaneford. It isn't on any stream nowadays worth fording, but is said to be the site of a famous battle involving one Athelstane.
A quick Google yields various suggested dates for this battle: 735, 761, 815, 832 and 934 (all A.D.!)
I've seen it claimed that the Athelstane thus commemorated wasn't the Saxon king born in 894, but another man of that name. What evidence there might be for this belief, I do not know. -
Message 12
Posted by TwinProbe (U4077936) on Thursday, 18th February 2010
Hi Jak
That's very interesting indeed. Brunanburh is usually dated at AD 937. I believe there was an earlier East Anglian king called Athelstan but I doubt if he is relevant to this problem.
In his AD 934 invasion of Scotland Athelstan's army is said to have reached Aberdeen, so East Lothian would have been no problem. A coin of Athelstan was found as far north as the Old Scatness excavation at the southern tip of Shetland! Of course there are other explanations for its presence besides a visit from Athelstan's warships.
The name Athelstan does have an intrinsic meaning, that of 'Noble Stone'. Not inappropriate for a ford if their were some very impressive stepping stones perhaps!
TP -
Message 13
Posted by somewhatsilly (U14315357) on Thursday, 18th February 2010
hi Folks,
Here's the traditional story of the Battle of Athelstaneford, followed by the address of a more
"Athelstaneford is the site of a possible legendary battle where Picts and Scots combined to defeat the Northumbrian King Athelstane in the 9th or 10th century. During the battle a white cross of clouds appeared across the blue sky.
These were the colours of St Andrew and as a result of the victory St Andrew was adopted as Scotland's patron Saint. A plaque was erected in 1965 to commemorate the tale. St Andrews in Fife was given its name following the arrival of the relics of St Andrew, the brother of St Peter.
One version of events suggests the Pictish King Angus or Oengus brought the relics from Northumberland while another claims St Rule ( Regulus) obtained them from Patras where St Andrew had been crucified on a saltire or diagonal cross"
If you go to :
you'll get the most authoritative version, basically hmmmmm.
Ferval -
Message 14
Posted by Stoggler (U1647829) on Friday, 19th February 2010
There's a village in East Lothian with the curious name Athelstaneford. It isn't on any stream nowadays worth fording, but is said to be the site of a famous battle involving one Athelstane.
听
I was taken to Athelstaneford by my Scottish mate a few years ago, as it's at that battle that the Scottish Saltire is said to have come into being. Apparently, the Scottish victory was looked over by a cloud formation in the form of a white diagonal cross across the blue sky, and the Scottish took it as a good omen.
Whether there's any truth in it, I've no idea but I liked the story. There's a flag pole with a Saltire constantly flying.
The village's name is pronounced something like Elshinford.
I've seen it claimed that the Athelstane thus commemorated wasn't the Saxon king born in 894听
I doubt he was Saxon. Anglian maybe, but Northumbrian definitely -
Message 15
Posted by Tim of Acleah (U1736633) on Saturday, 20th February 2010
Concerning the location of the battle of Brunanburh
There was a long debate on the site of the Battle a few years ago.
One person heavily involved had written an article in the Scottish Historical Review favouring the Scottish location to which I replied at considerable length. I used to favour the East of England site, this was favoured by Michael wood, by A.H.Burne in his More Battlefields of England and Hill in his book on Athelstan. The problem with the site though is that it really depends on one source referring to a Humber landing and Olaf Guthfrithson, and as came up in the previous discussions and based on an Irish sourse the commander of the allied army, was in Ireland until Lammas (1st August) and therefore a west coast site seems more likely.
This is a precis of what I posted in previous discussions.
The only description of the battlefield comes from Egil鈥檚 saga. There is a very interesting article on Egil鈥檚 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鈥檚 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 knew of a great battle involving Olaf invading Athelstan鈥檚 land and being defeated.
On the naming of the battle, Hill in his book on Athelstan 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.
Athelstan鈥檚 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. In a Royal grant to Worcester Athelstan refers to 鈥楢nlaf (Olaf) who tried to deprive me of both life and realm鈥. 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 not to defend Owain and Constantine. I have read the account of William of Malmsbury and that seems clearly to point to an invasion 鈥渢hey despoiled everything with continued ravages, driving out the people, setting fire to the fields.鈥 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. Armes Pryn (a Welsh poet) called for the English to be driven into the sea, staying behind the Solway was not going to achieve that. The accounts are either neutral or seem to support an English location. None of them say that the battle was in Strathclyde and none appear to suggest that the allied army retreated into their own territory.
There is only one main source, Florence, that mentions the Humber invasion, which is the basis of an east coast battlefield but it would be on west coast where one would expect Olaf to land, coming from Ireland. 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 Britons.
Olaf Guthfrithson was recorded as fighting in Ireland on Lammas (1st August). Assuming that the date is correct, it is unusually precise for this period, then it is unlikely that he would have landed in Britain until the end of august/beginning of September. Following that landing Olaf Guthfrithson, Constantine, Owain and Olaf Cuaran? [Sihtricson] could have invaded into Athelstan鈥檚 heartland in late September down the west coast. They hardly could have sailed around to the east coast.
Perhaps also the Allies were expecting the Welsh to turn up to fulfil the Welsh poet's wish. But if Bromborough on the Wirral was the site then there strategy would have been the same as William in 1066 to draw the English king to attack. The escape would be to their ships, if needed. But they obviously expected to win.
It is interesting that in 934 Athelstan took Welsh contingents with him but again they are not mentioned in 937, perhaps they were biding their time ready to swoop on England if Athelstan lost or announce their loyalty if he won. The earlier move by Athelstan against the Cornish could also be seen as securing one of his flanks.
Another thing that occurred to me about the Wirral site is that King Edgar had all the other British kings and princes row him across the River Dee as a sign of homage. He may also have been reminding them of the great English victory over them all.
Bromborough on the Wirral is the only place whose name can be definitely derived from Brunanburh and immediately on the other side of the Mersey from Bromborough is Dingle, the organisation I work for used to have an oil storage depot there, and in the Brunanburh poem it states that the defeated army departed across Dings Mere. It also states that they were sailing for Dublin which would more logically indicate a West coast site. -
Message 16
Posted by Tim of Acleah (U1736633) on Saturday, 20th February 2010
I do not believe that the battle of Athelstaneford ever happened. This is what i posted on another website.
Athelstaneford is, I understand, a beautiful little village in East Lothian, nestling in the Garleton Hills, a mile or so from Haddington, the main town of the county. It is here that it is claimed that the origins of the Scottish flag, the Saltire, were occasioned by the results of a famous battle. The story is that a certain Saxon or Anglian king or prince, Athelstan, was in East Lothian at the head of a large army, when he came across an army of Scots or Picts, or a combination of the two led by one Angus, Hungus, or Oengus. Being surrounded and heavily outnumbered, King Angus prayed to St Andrew and just before the battle, a Saltire appeared in the sky formed by white clouds against a blue background. This represented the shape of the cross on which Andrew had been crucified and seemed a sign from above that the Scots or Picts would prevail that day. It gave added strength and purpose to Angus and his men and a great victory against overwhelming odds followed. As a result Scotland was saved from destruction. Athelstan鈥檚 head was cut off and displayed on top of a long pole on the little island of Inch Garvie, Gaelic for 鈥榬ough island鈥, in the Firth of Forth. Ever after, the Scots and Picts showed a great devotion to St Andrew and the Saltire became Scotland鈥檚 national flag and Andrew their patron saint.
This was according to Walter Bower, (1385-1449) a Scottish Augustinian monk from Haddington, who wrote a history of Scotland in Latin called the Scotichronicon. He wrote it in an Augustinian monastery on the isle of Inchcolm, Gaelic for 鈥楥olumba鈥檚 island鈥. St Andrews University had been founded in 1410, and he had been amongst the earliest students to graduate. He had also been attached to St Andrews Cathedral. In 1417 he became the Abbot of Inchcolm monastery and commenced his great work using and building on the earlier work of John of Fordun, who died in 1384. Bower was the first person to identify Athelstaneford with a battle between Picts and Angles, but there is no mention of Scots. The present day church in Athelstaneford, built on the site of an older church founded in the twelfth century flies the Saltire in its grounds and has a historical display concerning the legendary battle in a sixteenthh century building to the rear of the church.
The first question is when did the battle happen? Well according to the website Scotland鈥檚 source the battle was in 832 AD. However according to 鈥楽iol nan Gaidheal鈥 in his post on Scotland鈥檚 supposedly bloodiest battle it was in 834 AD. What is more he accuses the English as of having invaded Scotland whereas Athelstaneford is in what would then have then been Northumbria. But even more puzzling according to GENUKI the battle was won by Angus mac Fergus king of the Picts (731 to 761); it does not give the date of the battle.
In 832 or 834 the only English king called Athelstan was the king of East Anglia. The major English kingdom at that period was Wessex under Egbert and in 829 at Dore Northumbria had submitted to him. To get around this uncomfortable fact the English leader defeated is described as a 鈥渄ux鈥 or commander of the Northumbrian army. Alternatively the English king is claimed to be Eadbert of Northumbria (737/738 to 758) and yet Eadbert was allied to the Picts, they attacked the British stronghold of Dumbarton in around 756. I would also question that a significant English army at this period would be commanded by someone other than the king. Why also should the place be named after a losing commander, especially as the area in question continued under Northumbrian control for a long time afterwards.
There is, however, an English king called Athelstan who was both famous enough and powerful enough to have somewhere named after him and that is the king of the English from 924 to 939 who not only successfully invaded and ravaged the Scottish kingdom of Alba in 934 (significantly exactly 100 years after one of the claimed dates for Athelstaneford), the Pictish kingdom had ended by then. He also defeated a coalition of Scots, Britons and Norse Irish at the Battle of Brunanburh in 937 and forced the Scots and other Celtic nations to pay homage to him as not just King of the English but ruler of Britain (rex Anglorum et eque totius Albionus or rex Anglorum et eque totius Brittannie).
The actual origin of the name Athelstaneford has in fact nothing to do with any Athelstan. It means stone ford in both old English and Gaelic. One name has been translated from the other. Similarly I understand that Avon means river in Old Welsh and so the River Avon is River River.
To sum up the earliest source therefore is nearly 600 hundred years later than the latest date suggested for the battle. This would place it an equivalent period in time from the accounts of Arthur's victories given in Geoffrey of Monmouth. Given the state of Northumbria at the time and the complete lack of a suitable English Athelstan and the complete failure of any earlier chroniclers to mention the battle, I think one can conclude that the battle is nothing more than an interesting myth. -
Message 17
Posted by TwinProbe (U4077936) on Saturday, 20th February 2010
Hi Tim,
Thanks for that very full explanation. I was particular glad to hear of your support for a linguistic explanation of the name, which had been suggested by an earlier poster(!).
I suppose that even the constructors of medieval myths may take as their sources some actual events. Is there, in the battle of Athelstaneford, some faint echo of Nechtansmere (AD 685)? The contending parties were the same, and Ecgfrith the Northumbrian king was certainly killed, although the date is wrong by about 150 years in the opposite direction from Athelstan.
I know that there are several suggestions for the site of Nechtansmere, although sadly, for my hypothesis, they are not anywhere near East Lothian.
Kind regards,
TP -
Message 18
Posted by Jak (U1158529) on Tuesday, 23rd February 2010
The actual origin of the name Athelstaneford has in fact nothing to do with any Athelstan. It means stone ford in both old English and Gaelic. One name has been translated from the other.听
Perhaps so, but it does seem a bit strange that the only stream at Athelstaneford is the tiny Cogtail Burn. Its source is less than two miles away, up a narrow valley, with no possibility of any big tributaries. It is hard to imagine it could ever have been worth a ford, and harder still to think that the ford could have been so noteworthy as to give its name to a village.
Some Scots seem to be in denial about the Anglo-Saxon/Northumbrian (whatever) history of this bit of Scotland. It used to be said that Edinburgh was originally "Edwin's burg", but this must have been upsetting to some, and recently I've heard it strenuously refuted. The new story is that it was really named after some Gaelic chieftain with a similar name. What a relief! -
Message 19
Posted by baz (U14258304) on Wednesday, 24th February 2010
The actual origin of the name Athelstaneford has in fact nothing to do with any Athelstan. It means stone ford in both old English and Gaelic. One name has been translated from the other听
Gaelic? I can't believe 'Athelstane' is Gaelic. It's as English as you can get. The extent of Early English influence in what is now Scotland should be acknowledged; and the idea that the Scots are 'Celts' is surely due for review. -
Message 20
Posted by Stoggler (U1647829) on Thursday, 25th February 2010
Gaelic? I can't believe 'Athelstane' is Gaelic. It's as English as you can get. The extent of Early English influence in what is now Scotland should be acknowledged; and the idea that the Scots are 'Celts' is surely due for review.听
Tim's post, which YOU QUOTED, clearly says that it's a TRANSLATION from Gaelic of "stone ford": he is not saying that the actual word "Athelstaneford" is Gaelic, but that it's a straight translation from the Gaelic.
Just as Casablanca (Spanish for "White House") is a straight translation from the Arabic name for the city (which is Al-Dar Al-Beydha) -
Message 21
Posted by Jak (U1158529) on Thursday, 25th February 2010
"Athelstaneford" as a bit of translated Gaelic still sounds a bit dodgy to me.
Where exactly was this ford? Doesn't look too likely on the map. -
Message 22
Posted by Stoggler (U1647829) on Thursday, 25th February 2010
"Athelstaneford" as a bit of translated Gaelic still sounds a bit dodgy to me.
Where exactly was this ford? Doesn't look too likely on the map.
听
A water course today can look very different to a water course in the past, especially when you take well into consideration a millenium's worth of geomorphology having its effect. Look at how the original Cinque Ports (apart from Dover) are all now inland by a mile or two when once they were coastal. Also, many a river that had important ports on have now lost that port due to silting and the river becoming narrower and unnavigable for ships.
A minor stream today could have been wide enough in the past to make crossing difficult in the past, hence the need for a ford.
Incidentally, the Gaelic for ford if "ath" and the Gaelic for rock or stone is "el", "eil", or "al", giving "Athel", "Athal" or "Atheil" for "stone ford", which is the same as the first two syllables for Athelstaneford. It's certainly plausible, as is the completely Old English origin name of Athelstan's ford, if only one can pinpoint the Athelstan being referred to! -
Message 23
Posted by Stoggler (U1647829) on Thursday, 25th February 2010
The OS map of the area has a burn (Cogtail Burn) running on a west-east course immediately to the south of the modern-day village, which has a wee bridge over it. No reason why a ford would not have existed before any bridge crossed it.
-
Message 24
Posted by TwinProbe (U4077936) on Thursday, 25th February 2010
To support Stoggler's point if you visit Bradford, West Yorkshire today there is absolutely no sign of a river that needed a ford, broad or otherwise.
There is, of course, a Bradford Beck now running underground in a culvert but the volume of water is so small that it is really hard to believe its ford (which was perhaps Roman) became part of a place name.
TP -
Message 25
Posted by Jak (U1158529) on Thursday, 25th February 2010
But the burn is less than two miles long up a deep and narrow valley with no possibility of significant tributaries, now or then. Whatever changes there might have been in the contours over the last 1000 years can't have amounted to any significant alteration in the flow of water, can it?
You could step over it now, and almost certainly then. Going to all the trouble of building a stone ford seems a bit unlikely.
My money's still on (some) Athelstan. -
Message 26
Posted by Stoggler (U1647829) on Thursday, 25th February 2010
You could step over it now, and almost certainly then. Going to all the trouble of building a stone ford seems a bit unlikely.
听
A ford is merely a crossing point of a river, it does not have to be stone - all the name suggests is that there was a crossing at that point, regardless of how wide the water course is.
And yes, the flow of water can change dramatically over the centuries. Many a British river used to be much wider and much more impressive than their modern-day counterparts. In some places, human actions have to be taken to stop some water coursees silting up completely. -
Message 27
Posted by Stoggler (U1647829) on Thursday, 25th February 2010
To add to that, this is a link that was posted by another poster on a recent thread on changing coastlines which shows not only the change in the coastline around Hastings but also how it affected areas that are now very much inland:
And read Nordmann's post on the same thread about how some people take the modern landscape as indicitive of former landscapes:
such an assumption is dangerous. Just because the burn is small today, that does not in any way indicate that that was the case 1,500 years ago. That amount of time is massive in hydrological and geomorphological terms and the landscape may well have changed a huge amount in that time.
And then you have to take the role of humanity in changing the landscape into consideration. Many a water way has been changed, deepened, course altered or amended in one form or another by humans over the centuries. East Lothian, the garden of Scotland, is a fertile place which has been subject to centuries of arable farming which would not have missed out on all this human interference with the landscape. -
Message 28
Posted by somewhatsilly (U14315357) on Thursday, 25th February 2010
if you have a look at the SEPA flood map on
you can see that the flood plain of the burn is significantly wider near the village so it's fair to assume that the river would have been wider in the past.
Ferval -
Message 29
Posted by Tim of Acleah (U1736633) on Friday, 26th February 2010
Hi TP
Sorry that I have been so long getting back, for several years I have, I am afriad only been an erratic poster on the 麻豆约拍 pages. Thanks for your kind comments and also for your support and pointing out to thers what I was actually saying that athel is gaelic for a stone ford. As you correctly state, terrain changes with time. The stone ford could also have been quite small and over a fairly small river.
Those still supporting the battle stil do not seem to be appreciating that they have no reliable evidence for it. the first mention is in a late medieval Scottish history and yet none of the much earlier English histories give it a mention. Also their is no evidence for the use of the the cross of St Andrew beforre the late 12th C.
On Nechtansmere, as you say it was fought much further north and I am not aware on any other than legendary evidence to associate St Andrew and hence the St Andrew's cross with the Picts.
regards and thanks
Tim
ps despite being the most powerful of the Anglo-Saxon kingdoms and British kingdoms for much of the 7th C AD, it is notable how many Northumbrian kings were killed in battle; Oswiu was one of the few not to be so die. -
Message 30
Posted by Haesten (U4770256) on Saturday, 27th February 2010
Eric Bloodaxe is said to have been the godson of Athelstan by one of the sagas, sent to England as a boy.
Some think Athelstan's mother Ecgwynn was a northern girl, Athelstan's sister was married to Sihtric C谩ech Norse King of Dublin and York, Sihtric died in 927 and Athelstan claimed York, presumably on behalf of his sister.
Some think the Cuerdale Hoard was the pay chest of Guthfrithsson's army. -
Message 31
Posted by stanilic (U2347429) on Sunday, 28th February 2010
Surely East Lothian is too far south for Gaelic place-names? But then `stang' can do for a ditch.
I can understand a battle being fought at Aethelstaneford as it is close to an invasion route from the south. I would have thought a better argument for this name is that it could be based on an original Pictish name later murdered into something sounding more English.
Also the tale of the saltire in the sky looks very much like a piece of hagiography but it would sound fine after a beer or six. Although it does illustrate that the weather can be very changeable.
This is all pure speculation on my part and as always I am happy to be corrected.
By the way the argument that the site for the Battle of Brunanburgh is in the Wirral is very convincing. -
Message 32
Posted by somewhatsilly (U14315357) on Sunday, 28th February 2010
I'm sure you're right that it is too far south and east for a q Celtic name but it's too far south for Pictish as well, more likely to be mangled Brythonic if anything but it could very well derive from the Northumbriam period in Lothian. Athelstaneford is right on the main route between the Anglian Royal Centre at Dunbar and Edinburgh so must have been well known and it could easily have been named or renamed then.
None of the serious literature treats the battle and cross story with any crecedence, just an appealing story that turns up in the 12th century.But never mind, it's kept a few jobs going in the Saltire Centre and the local pubs.
Ferval -
Message 33
Posted by Haesten (U4770256) on Sunday, 28th February 2010
Archbishop Wulfstan played a big part in the politics of York at this time.
Athelstan, Eric Bloodaxe and Wulfstan seem to have been closely allied.
Athelstan appears to have represented a northern faction and been a bit of an outsider in the Wessex clan.
Both Athelstan's half brothers from the second marriage of his father, died in suspicious circumstances and Edmund and Eadred from the third marriage were hostile to Wulfstan and Eric. -
Message 34
Posted by Jak (U1158529) on Friday, 5th March 2010
It seems the village of Athelstaneford was moved from somewhere else, by some landowner who wanted to get rid of these pesky peasants from his estate. A sort of Lowland Clearances.
So (what a relief!) no need for elaborate speculation about how such a tiny stream might ever have needed a ford.
The village - and presumably the alleged battle, and the alleged appearance in the sky of the white-on-blue saltire cross - all happened elsewhere. -
Message 35
Posted by somewhatsilly (U14315357) on Friday, 5th March 2010
Jak, you've got me interested with that. I'm not doubting you at all but do you have a source or at least the name of the landowner? I'd rather like to try to follow it up so I'll have a look at some old maps and see if there's anything there. If there is, I'll let you all know.
ferval -
Message 36
Posted by somewhatsilly (U14315357) on Friday, 5th March 2010
Had a quick look and Athelstaneford is on all the maps from the Blaeu 1654 onwards in more or less its present position.
will explore a bit further in the morning but any more info would be great.
Thanks
Ferval -
Message 37
Posted by Jak (U1158529) on Friday, 5th March 2010
Sorry, Ferval - it was in a book about the Lothians by Nigel Tranter. I can't refer back to it just now (it belongs to a temporarily absent friend) and I haven't looked at the Old or New Statistical Accounts, which may say something useful.
I hope it wasn't just a wild guess of Nigel Tranter's, and that he got the story from some local history book. I'll nip up to the library tomorrow.
Jak. -
Message 38
Posted by Jak (U1158529) on Saturday, 6th March 2010
Ferval:
Have just had a look at the Blaeu map. Athelstan foord is marked between W. Fortoun and Fortoun Ester (now West and East Fortune) - and near a stream, by its position and direction obviously the Peffer Burn, and opposite and south of Congletoun (Congalton today).
Athelstan foord is shown some distance NW of Gilmortoun, whereas today's Athelstaneford is quite near and SW of Gilmerton. Unless the surveyor or draughtsman was quite muddled (always possible, of course) it really looks as if the village has been moved southwards since the Blaeu map was drawn.
The Peffer Burn runs E - W, unlike the Cogtail Burn near Athelstaneford today, and is on flat land which is easier to visualise as having been a marsh, or anything that would have required a ford. From the look of the contours, just south of Congalton would be a sensible place for a ford.
Confusingly, the W - E Cogtail Burn becomes another "Peffer Burn" which continues E to the North Sea. -
Message 39
Posted by somewhatsilly (U14315357) on Saturday, 6th March 2010
Hi Jak,
yes, I had a look at the Stat Accs online and the large scale OS and sorted out the Peffer burn confusion. They certainly make the point that the Northern Peffer was much wider, shallower and boggier in the past. Doesn't seem to mention the village being moved and said the church is 12th c. I'm going to compare the Blaeu map with Roy etc and see if I can see anything.
I should be researching something else entirely just now but I've got interested!
Could Athelstaneford be a corruption of Athelstane's fort given the Iron age fort nearby, I wonder.
Ferval -
Message 40
Posted by TwinProbe (U4077936) on Saturday, 6th March 2010
Hi ferval,
I've been following your discussion with Jak. I look forward to the conclusions you both come to.
I think that the word 'fort' was introduced too recently into English to have been applied to an IA defended settlement in the Anglo-Saxon period. Burh would be the more likely place-name element, as in Edinburgh.
Kind regards,
TP -
Message 41
Posted by somewhatsilly (U14315357) on Saturday, 6th March 2010
Jak(and TP)
I think the Blaeu and the Roy maps are pretty much the same. The Blaeu has only the northern Peffer showing which confuses the issue. Certainly the buildings in Roy are the basis for the modern village.
The fort - ford idea was that it might have been a later name incorporating a local tradition of Athelstan in the area and the ancient structure close by. The battle is allegedly around 830 and so far too early for him to have been involved in that but it again maybe a folk memory of a battle/skirmish involving Oengus 11 and the Vikings before the final defeat at Fortriu and subject to bit of retrospective mythologising.
I know a Prof. of Historical Archaeology whose area this is so if I see him I'll get his thoughts or some suggested reading.
Must now get back to the rest of my life for a while but I'll keep mulling it over.
ferval -
Message 42
Posted by Jak (U1158529) on Saturday, 6th March 2010
Ferval -
The Roy map certainly shows Athelstaneford on its present site, but I still think Blaeu shows it further north. Which may be a mistake in draghtsmanship.
Maybe this is where Nigel Tranter got the idea that the village had been moved. It's odd that such a move doesn't seem to be mentioned anywhere else, although the old writers of local history often seem to be obsessed by the really ancient fanciful stuff, while ignoring more recent events. Especially if some remark of theirs might be taken as criticism of the local laird or his forebears, such as mentioning the enforced removal of a village.
It will be interesting to get to the bottom of this; now I've peered at the maps I'll be able go back to Tranter and read him with a bit more understanding, and maybe more critically.
Jak. -
Message 43
Posted by Tim of Acleah (U1736633) on Wednesday, 17th March 2010
The source that I got a lot of the information concerning the non-battle of athelstaneford comments that the National Gazetteer for 1868 also proposed the etymology that there is a 鈥榮tane ford鈥 in 鈥楢thelstaneford鈥, and ath el in Gaelic is a translation. Ath, is Gaelic for 鈥榝ord鈥 and el, ail, eil are Gaelic variations of the word 鈥榮tone, rock鈥. He suggests that perhaps it was meant as a helpful translation for Ada, who was married to Prince Henry son of David I when she founded the church in the 12th C AD.
Concerning Gaelic names in Lothian, and the author has written at least one book on place names; he states that Gaelic would have been commonly heard along with Old Norse and Brythonic (Old Welsh). 鈥淕aelic was actually the first and only language of a number of people in this area up to the beginning of the 20th century, according to the Census returns of this time.鈥 Another example he quotes hear in that area is the Cogtal Burn, Tal in Gaelic signifies a crag or rock face. Cog is Gaelic for a 鈥榝ifth鈥, which was a common land measure.
He also quotes other examples of tautological couplings (names or meanings that are replicated in another tongue). Examples are, Knock Hill, Gaelic, cnoc, 鈥榟ill鈥攚hich is ON h枚ll鈥; Broon Hill, Brythonic Broun, 鈥榟ill鈥; Nungate Road (in North Berwick), Old Norse gata, 鈥榓 road鈥.
Tim -
Message 44
Posted by Jak (U1158529) on Wednesday, 17th March 2010
Tim -
You had me a bit confused at first when I thought you meant that the National Gazetteer of 1868 had a reference to the beginning of the 20th century. (I should read more carefully.) Now I see your source was something else, and more recent. Can you name it, or give us a clue?
鈥淕aelic was actually the first and only language of a number of people in this area up to the beginning of the 20th century, according to the Census returns..."听 This statement might present a rather skewed picture; "a number of people" who only spoke Gaelic might have been found almost anywhere - maybe old folk from the Hebrides who had moved with their young relatives into the Lowlands: to Glasgow, say, or Edinburgh.
If your author is implying that there were communities living in (say) Lothian in the early 20th century who spoke nothing but Gaelic, and had been doing so continuously since the 12th century (or thereabouts), I suspect a leg-pull, or tendentious propaganda. Or maybe I'm missing something, again. -
Message 45
Posted by TwinProbe (U4077936) on Saturday, 20th March 2010
Since this thread has temporarily hit the buffers can you place name experts advise on a similar problem?
Is Dumfries still thought to be the 'fort of the Frisians' or is the theory that it was derived from Dun phreas or preas the 'fort of the woodlands' accepted?
With thanks,
TP -
Message 46
Posted by stanilic (U2347429) on Sunday, 21st March 2010
TP
Alexander Macbain has argued that `preas' or `pres' which in Gaelic means brush or a thicket is of Pictish origin. Quite what it meant in Pictish will probably remain unknown.
I first saw the argument for Dumfries meaning the fort of the Friesans in John Morris, nearly forty years ago. He used it to argue in favour of Vortigern's supremacy across the former Roman provinces in Britain. Although I have used this reference in the past I have progressively come to distrust it. The geography does not seem right.
I would say the jury is still out but am happy to be disabused. -
Message 47
Posted by TwinProbe (U4077936) on Sunday, 21st March 2010
Hi stanilic
Many thanks. If only we could understand place names unambiguously!
Best wishes,
TP -
Message 48
Posted by somewhatsilly (U14315357) on Sunday, 21st March 2010
Hi folks,
Is there any significance in the Pont and Blaeu maps rendering Dumfries as Drumfrees and it being quoted as that in the 1638 list of provincial general assemblies?
IV. The Province Of Drumfrees.
Dumfrees.
Penpont.
Lochmabane.
Middilbee. Niddisdail, Annandaill.
Ewsdaill, Eskdaill.
Wachopdaill, and a part of Galloway. To meet the first time at Drumfrees, the second Twesday of April.听
ferval -
Message 49
Posted by an ex-nordmann - it has ceased to exist (U3472955) on Tuesday, 23rd March 2010
Dumfries is either an etymological enigma or else it's very simple to explain. The enigmatic version seems to have been encouraged in its development by a strong desire to link placenames in Scotland derived from topographical features at least partially to Pictish roots, and I am not sure that the logic behind this desire has always been driven by strictly academic motives.
The simpler explanation is that it is most probably British. Although "Dun" and "Dum" are recognisable Gaelic for "fort", "Dun" at least is also fairly well represented in English placenames, for the same topographical reason, and traditionally traced back to the indigenous Celtic language. It was not a word introduced by Gaels to Britain, though it may well have been reintroduced in places. "Prys" survives in Welsh, and means "hedge" or "thicket". Ir is not inconceivable therefore that the placename DumPrys or similar has a very long history in the region.
The Scots (as in Gaelic speakers) may well have contributed however to its eventual pronunciation when they arrived later. The genitival portion of a composite placename in Irish always comes last and assumes a "seibheatha" on the initial letter of the genitive, represented in modern Irish by a "h", and which softens or alters the consonant it applies to. As in English "P-seibheatha" sounds like "F". To the Scots this would have been almost a mandatory change in pronunciation as "m" and "p" in juxtaposition would have been quite alien to them anyway. Hence an older British hill-fort of the thicket becomes a Scottish hill-fort of the thicket with just a seibheatha added.
Drum and dum are two very different topographical entities (Dundrum in Ireland combines both) but to later chroniclers the distinction might not have seemed so important. Given the history of English reinvention of Irish phonetics in Ireland regardless of the placenames' meanings I would suggest that Dumfries got off light if it only temporarily acquired an extra "r" in some peoples' minds. Think of poor old Termonfeckin! -
Message 50
Posted by TwinProbe (U4077936) on Tuesday, 23rd March 2010
Hi Nordmann,
Many thanks for your exegesis. I have a long way to go before I can be trusted with a place name, and a very long way before I can be trusted with a Scottish place name.
TP
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 听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
麻豆约拍 iD
麻豆约拍 navigation
麻豆约拍 links
麻豆约拍 漏 2014 The 麻豆约拍 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.