757-796: The Age of Offa: What Else Was Happening Before the Vikings

In the previous post we referred to a first abortive attempt to create an English Empire within at least Southern Britain by Offa King of Mercia and suggested that, at the end, he was not the man for the job. As we will see, further 'progress' would be delayed by the eruption of the Viking raiders, bad luck and lack of strong leadership. It may be argued that this delay in creating a viable English State was at the root of one of the salient events of British history - the ease with which the brutal post-Viking Normans were able to occupy and destroy the native English aristocracy without even bothering to absorb them as the Romans had done. But we run ahead of ourselves ... what else was happening around Offa in these years?

Northumbria had turned in on itself as it ceded moral secular authority to Offa. Its great age was well and truly over. King Edbriht became a monk in 758 (we noted earlier in our postings how the Church had created a means of retirement to effect a peaceful transition of power). He is succeeded by his son Osulf but there is no peaceful transition - he is killed within his own household and Aethelwold Moll becomes King in 761. Throughout the next half century, every King of Northumbria (and there are six of them in our period including Aethelwold Moll) is deposed, murdered or exiled with only one returning to the throne only to be murdered in his turn. I suggest we pass over the unedifying details, fascinating though these may be to students of dark deeds and courtly intrigue in a generation being raised on Game of Thrones. One can reasonably assume that the Mercians were dabbling in these murky waters as well as in every other court in England.

Northumbria is not going to be the core of a central English state. Its political weakness may even have been the first encouragement to Viking raids - a back door to the rape of Southern England. There is a certain logic to this loss of impetus for Northumbria. Southern Britain is where the wealth is. That wealth would increase with the development of relatively ordered pre-feudal societies which could trade with Europe and accumulate the capital to invest in further order (we have already seen the economic and political effects of a deterioriation in the relationship between Offa and Charlemagne). The deliberate creation of the Frankish Empire as Roman substitute would have helped shift Britain back to its 'normal' Roman pattern of wealthy province in times of relative peace.

Power would flow from the North to the South. Perhaps even Mercia was not South enough to be the pivot of a viable English nationalism. Perhaps that destiny was always going to be that of Wessex which would underpin a half-viable English State, albeit one ready to be plucked like a ripe apple by European opportunists because of its delayed political development. Whoever was going to create a unified English Nation State, it was not by the end of the Eighth Century going to be Northumbria and the odds were already lengthening on Mercia. The tragedy would be that a European invasion would exploit England's delayed development and impose an alien regime that was neither the fish of native organic State nor the fowl of wealthy Province of a Universal Empire. Perhaps our current post-Imperial Atlantic system, neither organic native State nor centralised European Empire reproduces that weakness today - neither fish nor fowl.

We run ahead of ourselves to note that, in three hundred years, a series of events would impose a bunch of military adventurers and brutal gangsters as an occupying force that was neither native nor universal. Those gangsters, no different other than their superior efficiency than the gangsters who seized Britannia after the departure of the Romans a further three hundred years before Offa, are the lineal ancestors of our current elite albeit thoroughly watered down and democratised over our last 350 years! That same elite, in a rare moment of polemic here, that has given up on the independent nation and yet cannot go for integration into a more logical empire and sits, like the weak English aristocracy of the Eleventh Century on the historical fence waiting for events to happen to it, ducking and diving and crossing its fingers in the hope that the worst will not happen.

Meanwhile, it is a case of business as usual for the petty kingdoms that accepted or were to accept Offa's overlordship or, in the case of Northumbria, were just outside his remit as rex totius Anglorum Patriae. The natural Southern rival of Mercia remained Wessex where Sigebehrt is succeeded by Cynewulf as King in 757. We have noted in the previous posting that Offa was at war with Wessex in 779 and came to some kind of dynastic alliance through the marriage of his daughter to Brihtric in 789. Wessex too, like Northumbria, was subject to internal dissension. Cynewulf is killed in 783 by Cyneheard but is then killed in turn to be succeeded by Brihtric in that same year.

In the minor Kingdoms, Ethelbert of Kent dies in 762 to be succeeded by his son Eardwulf. Kent was may have been particularly problematic for Mercia (the Battle of Otford is noted in 776). We can put this down to Kent's pivotal role in the cross-channel European trade. The wealth of Kent would be vital to any claim to overlordship. The pacification of Europe under the Carolingian Frankish Empire would have increased trade substantially. Kent, a wealthy but essentially small and so weak polity, would have been target for any aggrandising English nation builder. Offa should have offered no exception. Offa was, as we have seen, quite capable of beheading a King of East Anglia (792) for what amounts to temerity although he clearly had to back-track soon enough to keep his alliance with the Church and no doubt internal peace but the power was there in the Mercian State as we shall see. Kent survives Offa only to fall to a successor - a matter for the next posting. Eadbert King of Kent, who will be the target of Mercian ire, comes to the throne only at the very end of our period in 796.

Archbishops also come and go. Cuthbert of Canterbury dies in 760 and is succeeded by Bregowine in 761. Ethelbert of York dies in 780 and is succeeded by Eanbald.  In the same year, there are changes in the Northumbrian Bishoprics - Ealhmund of Hexham dies to be succeeded by Rilberht and Cynewulf of Lindisfarne resigns to be succeeded by Higbald. From now on, we will take these copmings and goings as read, referring only to those Churchmen who make some greater mark on history. By the end of the Eighth Century, the proper relationship between Church and State, of which we have a modern pale reflection in the Established Anglican Church today, had been established and, until the Reformation, would not be disrupted except by pagan raiding and the occasional schism in the Church or irruption of popular protest as heresy.

We should note as a marker event the politically but not theologically contentius Synod at Chelsea in 787 and signs that Offa's position owes not a little to Papal support, the Papacy always tending to encourage centralised secular authority that respects its own claim to a higher spiritual authority.  Offa promoted at his Synod the supply of funds from the English Church to Rome through what later was to become St. Peter's Pence, an institution that survived until the Henrician Reformation but which here signifies (in essence) an annual payment to the Papacy for its endorsement of Offa's divine right to rule so long as he continued to toe the spiritual line.

The Catholic Church was, by now, an effective operation for establishing its own totalitarian position within Early Medieval society - soft power endorsement and a universal network of social control and intelligence operations (albeit with social welfare aspects) offered in return for the elimination of all rival religious structures and a flow of funds to maintain an extensive parallel government, a proto-civil service that buttressed secular power (and could survive the chaos of secular politics much as the British Civil Service does today), moderated its tendencies towards ruthlessness and brutality and (at least in part) protected the general population fromn extremes of exploitation. As a system, it was finely tuned to grow with pacification, centralisation and economic recovery although the seeds of its own eventual destruction lay in the internal contradictions of it supporting ambitious secular kings who, with increased wealth and authority, would chafe at the restraints put on them by a Church that was to become fully secularised as a power in its own right over the subsequent 750 years.

But then everything is in danger of being turned upside down by the Pagan Vikings who are going to dominate our next set of postings. The first raids on the Anglo-Saxon world are recorded in 787 and they are back again in 793 during a period of famine. In this latter raid, the Vikings sack and destroy the Church at Lindisfarne. This first major raid is reported across the nation. The raiders go on in the same year to sack the monastery at Jarrow but suffer a reverse when their fleet breaks up in bad weather and many are drowned, any survivors who struggle ashore being killed by the Northumbrians at Tynemouth. There is another raid on Iona in 795 so we see a pattern of targeting the easy money to be found in church treasures in a smash-and-grab raid within a polity past its prime and unable to organise itself to defend or effect a punishing defeat on what amount to an organised crime operation that strengthens as it accumulates capital from its raids. Northumbrian weakness is the first stage in the creation of a loose gangland empire of initially pagan plunder. We might today wonder whether Western weakness is not enabling a similar accumulation of capital amongst organised criminals leading to similar effects. After all, ISIS has emerged out of smuggling gangs much as the Normans arose out of the raiding Northmen. We shall see.

757-796: The Age of Offa: A False Start for an English Kingdom

Offa, King of Mercia, dominates the second half of the Eighth Century. We will cover the other kingships in a subsequent post in order to have the facts on the table but it is Offa who interests us here. He seized power in 757 and united most of England under his rule. If his rule did not extend North of the Humber on his accession that was only because his son-in-law ruled in Northumbria (which we will deal with in the next posting). As leading 'Southumbrian', Offa is now termed in the Churchmen's Latin Rex Totius Anglorium Patriae. We have the first inklings of the possibility of a unified English State, a mini-empire to ape that of Charlemagne on the Continent.

Offa's Dyke - incomplete today but still the longest earthwork in Britain [1]

Wars to assert dominance have to continue however. In 776 Mercian and Kentish forces meet in battle at Otford in Kent and in 779 Offa defeats Cynewulf of Wessex near Benson (Oxfordshire) which town Offa then seizes. A border (Offa's Dyke) is also constructed between Anglian Mercia and the Welsh Kingdom of Powys although more recent archaeological research has suggested that he was building on earlier Mercian construction that may possibly have gone back to post-Roman times. 

Offa was a dynastic player intent on building a lasting 'house'. In 787, Offa has his son Egfrith solemnly consecrated as King of the Mercians under his overlordship. In 789, Brihtric of Wessex takes Offa's daughter Eadburg as his Queen. Offa is the most powerful King in England before Alfred, powerful enough to feel able to quarrel with the Empreror Charlemagne over marriage arangements. Apparently he thought himself important enough to have his son marry a daughter of the Emperor in return for sending a daughter over to Aachen to marry one of the Emperor's son. The Emperor did not agree and this lese-majeste led to Frankish ports being closed to English merchants, a serious economic matter for the Southern English.

Things got worse. Ethelbert of East Anglia was a suitor for Offa's daughter Alfrida in 792. Offa, for whatever reason, beheaded him but something about this did not sit right with him or with the public. He felt remorse, or was forced to appear to feel remorse, and ordered a tomb for the murdered king in what was later to become the Saxon Cathedral of Saints Mary & Ethelbert in Hereford (near Sutton Walls where the King was based). We also get a sense that Offa was now very interested in ensuring that the Church was on side (and we cannot forget the relationship between the Universal Church and the new Imperial Frankish regime in Europe). He founded St. Albans Abbey in the next year (793). It is hard not to see a connection between all this and reports of famine (perhaps connected to the economic effects of the closure of the Frankish sea ports) and of 'portents' (which we may take as signs of rumblings amongst the people). This is also the beginning of the period of Viking Raids, initially affecting Northumbria rather than points further south but perhaps creating an air of anxiety and fear.

As Offa's reign drew to a close, we can see the reasons why he was a false dawn from the point of view of England. He had an exaggerated sense of his own importance in relation to the Frankish Empire, he made political misjudgements and he came too late to an understanding that a viable Kingdom must be built on an alliance with the Church rather than through simple force of arms and dynastic fixes. Given that a European culture of dynastic legitimacy was emerging that required the backing of the Catholic Church, the lesson would not be lost on Alfred the Great. Offa died in 796. Mercian dominance died with him. His son and successor Ecgfrith did not live out the year and Ecgfrith was succeeded by Cenwulf.

[1] Source - BBC: http://www.bbc.co.uk/schools/primaryhistory/anglo_saxons/kings_and_laws

695-756: After Theodore - The Church Established

Once Archbishop Theodore had established the Church of Rome as a cultural absolute for the English, any lingering controversy could end and England could find its saints and shrines. We have already noted how retiring kings (perhaps saving themselves from a grisly end as power slipped away from them) became monks or found themselves migrating to Rome - Cenred of Mercia in 704 (in Rome by the next year) and Ine of Wessex who died in Rome in 726 being two examples. Aristocrats were also active in founding new establishments - Ine of Wessex's sister, Cuthburg, founded a religious community at Wimborne in 718 - so the integration of Church and aristocracy is becoming ever more close in the half century before Offa.

Wilfrid outlives Theodore by almost two decades in 709 but without any essential change to the settlement created by his old rival. He is buried at Ripon, presumably reconciled to the facts of the matter. He is succeeded at Ripon by his chaplain Acca in 710. Former John Archbishop of York (retired 717), reckoned to be a kind man, dies in retirement at Beverley (a monastery he had founded) in 721, showing that monasticism was also a means of retiring from the cares of office.

Theodore's successor at Canterbury, Brihtwold (there are many variants of the name), died in 731 after a very long incumbency (he had been appointed in 693) and is succeeded by Tatwine who has a very short incumbency (he dies in 734). Another short incumbency for Nothelm (735-739) is succeeded by another long one for Cuthbert (740-760).

This was not a conciliar period until 746-7 with the first Council of Clovesho (the first of several quasi-synods in England). The location is unclear but was probably in Mercia and it involved not only religious figures but political figures such as kings and aristocrats. Some have claimed this to be the earliest version of an English Parliament not without justification and the Clovesho Councils were to meet periodically through the second half of the eighth century and first quarter of the ninth. As far as we can gather this was primarily a dispute-resolving, administrative and advisory body to kings and shows again how the Church was becoming essential to the construction of the rules by which society would be ordered. Religious matters remained a matter for the Church alone but it seems that kings and nobles welcomed this intervention by the spiritual wing of the system as a means of securing power at the cost of some civilised restraint of their own impulses.

As for saints and shrines, at the beginning of the period (695), Abbess Sexburga, sister of Saint Etheldreda (Aethelthryth) founder of the convent at Ely in 673, places her sister's body in its Abbey Church and so created a shrine. To this day, there is a Catholic St. Etheldreda's Church in Ely Place in London - the oldest Catholic Church in London - in a building that was the town chapel of the powerful Bishops of Ely in the later Middle Ages. Another Fenland saint is Guthlac of Crowland who died at his hermitage in 714 on which site Crowland Abbey was to be founded only two years later. Six churches alone are dedicated to him in Lincolnshire today and others in nearby counties.

The Lindisfarne Gospels date from this period (late Seventh Century). England is culturally starting the process of matching the experience of the Irish Celtic Church and contributing to a later Charlemagnic Europe with its fine illuminated scholarship, piety toward spiritual exemplars and monasticism.  This is also the period of Bede's important source The Ecclesiastical History of the English People, completed in 731 four years before his death in 735. His death marks the closing of a spectacular flowering of Northumbrian art and scholarship.

There is a defintely a humanising influence going on here even if the lot of the peasantry was probably only marginally improved - the real improvement (a betterment felt across Europe) was the Church's ability to defuse the sheer violence of a warlord society by imposing at least some restraint on barbarism, building a society of rules without the requirement for terror (an alternative model to Chinese legalism of which the West knew nothing thankfully), permitting a non-violent way out for yesterday's men and allowing scholars to retire in moderate security. The best of them tried to show respect to the poor and educate the brightest for the new administration - not quite mandarins in the making perhaps but still providers of rule-making and administrative services to rulers who had been little more than pirates and thugs not so long ago.

695-756: Before Offa - The First Half of the Eighth Century

The lack of development (of which we wrote in the last posting) will persist for another half century before the next great overlord appears - Offa of Mercia - in 757 but we run ahead of ourselves. It is our duty first to tell of kings and then, in the next posting, of prelates. The basic system remains the same as in the previous century - near constant fighting for survival and precedence amongst the same small set of Anglo-Saxon kingdoms whose instability is more noticeable than their power.

In 697, Osthryth, the Queen of Aethelred of Mercia, is murdered for reasons unknown by Mercian nobles. She is daughter of Oswy, King of Northumbria. If that it is not going to be the basis of a blood feud, one wonders what might be but nothing of significance happens as a result. Perhaps she was just written off as a wasting asset. Aethelred seems not to have had the confidence of his own people and abdicated to become a monk in 704 (he dies in 716). He is replaced by Coenred who is then replaced by Aethelred and then Osthryth's son Ceolred. Cenred makes his way to Rome (accompanied by the East Saxon King Offa, not to be confused with the later Offa of Mercia) where he remained until his death. Ceolred lasted until 716 and was buried at Lichfield to be succeeded by Ethelbald

In Northumbria, King Aldfrith died in 704 to be succeeded by Eadwulf but only for a few months before being succeeded by Osred, Aldfrith's son, who, in turn is killed, probably in a battle (716) with the Picts. Osred is succeeded by Cenred who dies two years later (718). Cenred is succeeded by Osric, another son of Aldfrith, who is succeeded by Ceolwulf in 729. In East Anglia, Aldwold succeeds Aldwulf as King of East Anglia who dies in 749. East Anglia is then divided amongst three successors - Hun, Beonna and Alberht. In Kent, the long-reigned (690-725) Wihtred of Kent is succeeded by a succession of often joint obscure monarchs best listed from Wikipedia.

This decentralising tendency, with the patrimonies of the Eastern Anglo-Jutes being divided up instead of turned into centralised states, is interesting. It suggests that not having a border with neighbours who posed a direct threat took away the incentive to centralise power and reversed history somewhat by restoring power to the highest nobility. Empires seem to require external threats or radical ambition to self-organise (as we know from our own time). However, this does not mean that the nobles were idle in internal politics - where kings failed to offer a decentralised model through their princelings, as in Wessex, rebel nobles would clearly try to force the issue.

Both Mercia and Wessex are thus rather more centralised states with important border issues with the 'Welsh' (see below) and each other - Northumbria, of course, exists in direct competition with the Picts. The struggle for supremacy between Wessex and Mercia in the South and Midlands is ever-present with Ine of Wessex and Ceolred of Mercia fighting at the Battle of Adam's Grave, a Neolithic Long Barrow in Wiltshire in 715. Later, in 752, Cuthred of Wessex and Ethelbald of Mercia go to war and the latter is defeated in battle in 749 despite an earlier alliance of the two against the Welsh (see below).

But, when not fighting neighbours, the rulers of Wessex were fighting rebels. In 722, Ine's wife Ethelburgh had to destroy a town founded by Ine (Taunton) in the West because (apparently) it became a rebel stronghold - the circumstances are obscure. Ine dies in 726 and is succeeded by Aethelheard in 726. He dies in 740 and is succeeded by Cuthred whose reign also appears to have been troubled with revolts and dissent. Indeed, compared to Kent and East Anglia (though we know precious few details to be sure of this), Wessex appears to be peculiarly unstable during this period. While always stronger than the 'Welsh' and able to hold the Picts to a standstill, the Anglo-Saxons remained, in secular though not in religious terms, a fragmented and unstable culture with an inability, it would appear, to create a strong indigenous State, a weakness that would prove fatal three centuries later.

Although most of the action takes place within and between the Heptarchy, we should not forget the small poor principalities of the 'Celts', the Romano-British survivor states in the far West of Britain against which the Saxons continue to push their advantage. In 710, for example, Ine of Wessex and his under-king Num of Sussex made war on Geraint, the last significant King of Dumnonia (the South Western 'Wealhas'), who died that year.  From this point on, the Southern 'Welsh' are continuously pushed back to what is now modern Cornwall. Further to the North the rivals Ethelbald of Mercia and Cuthred of Wessex will find themselves in alliance in another war against the 'Welsh' (which we will now call them) in 743.

Cuthred dies in 756 ( to be succeeded by Sigebehrt)  and Ethelbald, still the acknowledged overlord of the Southern English despite recent events, was murdered in a palace coup at Seckington in the same year. The scene has been set for Offa.

664-694: The Dullness of English Politics

In our last posting, we were able to report the vigour of the Church under the last truly Roman Archbishop of Canterbury, Theodore of Tarsus, and how his legacy was a Church that could be ruled by local lads yet owe its full allegiance to Rome rather than to an English King - a legacy that would last until the time of Henry VIII 850 years later. Unfortunately the history of the secular authorities during this period is rather dull in comparison.

The most notable event is the ending of the Northumbrian supremacy. King Oswiu is succeeded by Ecgfrith in 670 and this is generally taken to mean the end of the supremacy, confirmed at the Battle of Dun Nechtain in 685. Ecgfrith and many of his men are killed and he is succeeded by Aldfrith.

Not much else changes, Kings come and go. In Kent, Earconbehrt has been succeeded by Egbert I (663-673). King Hlothere of Kent dies and is succeeded by his son Eadric in 685 who dies the next year and is succeeded by Oswini. Oswini is succeeded by Wihtred, son of Egbert I in 690. In East Anglia, Ethelwold has been succeeded by Aldwulf in 663. In Mercia, Wulfhere dies in 674 and is succeeded by Ethelred, son of Penda.

In Wessex, Cenwalh, founder of Cerdicing Dynasty that will eventually include Alfred the Great, is succeeded by his Queen, Seaxburg in 672 but Aescwine follows her in the following year. Centwine, the next King is deposed in 685 and is succeeded by Caedwella. Caedwalla gives us a burst of savage excitement by attacking Kent, for the second time in 687 when his brother Mul, probably briefly installed as King of Kent after the earlier attack, is burned to death by the locals with some of his followers. Caedwella abdicates in 689 and travels to Rome where he is baptised Peter by Pope Sergius, dying only a week later (he is buried in St. Peter's). He is succeeded by Ine who styled himself 'King of the West Saxons' with a domain that extended across Dorset, Wiltshire and Hampshire. He is notable for producing the earliest surviving set of English laws. By 694 the growing power of Wessex is indicated by the fact that Kent is forced to negotiate with Ine over compensation arrangements for the murder of Mul.

So there we have it. These relatively small states are now broadly established in some sort of balance of power, not exactly stable, competing and often warring with each other, but, although the Northumbrian supremacy comes to an end and Wessex is on the way to its eventual ascendancy, none can master the others sufficiently to create a unitary Kingdom. This alone makes them weak players against a Church that may not have any legions but has a global (in early medieval terms) presence and a monopoly of the education required to administer even relatively small statelets.

664-694: Imperial Structures and the English Church

I suggest we avoid talk of eclipses and plagues, comets and bad luck for prelates and monarchs and their alleged connection - this was an age of simple ideas about cause and effect and so an age of magical thinking. The religious life of the second half of the seventh century has to be partly seen in this context but also in terms of chance and necessity and rational struggles of power using irrational beliefs as tools and weapons - no different from today in fact. Bishops and archbishops could die of the plague as Tuda, Bishop of Lindisfarne, and Deusdedit, Archbishop of Canterbury, did in 664, without any suggestion that they had incurred God's wrath. Bad things happen to 'good people'. Deusdedit's designated successor, Wigheard, the candidate of Oswiu of Northumbria and Ecgberht and the 'local man', also dies on arriving in Rome to be consecrated in 667. Deusdedit was to be canonised in the popular record.

Pope Vitalian, in the event, consecrated Theodore of Tarsus, a Byzantine Greek, in the following year. He arrived at Canterbury in 668 to undertake a programme of reforms which appear to have resulted in conflict with the incumbent Bishop Wilfrid of York who may here have represented a particular Northumbrian and localist interest within the English Church. The reforms are definitely 'Roman' - an orderly and strict system of parishes and a centralised episcopal structure, an imperial model that would be mimicked in due course by the secular state. These culminate in the Synod of Hertford in 672 which clarified the principle that bishops were sovereign in their territory but only in their territory, a principle that we can see working today in the conventions surrounding parliamentary constituencies, as well as greater control over the freedom of movement of the lower clergy. Theodore also brings with him a new appreciation for the culture of the Graeco-Roman world.

The conflict between Wilfrid, another example of a Northumbrian nobleman making himself part of the clerical structure and becoming a saint on the back off it, and Theodore is the defining conflict of the period. It is yet another proxy for what is becoming the defining motif of our history, one which is played out right up until the present day with the struggle over whether one empire, the United Kingdom, is to be subsumed within another, the bureaucratic, orderly but undemocratic European Union, heir to Rome. Bede says that Wigheard had not only the endorsement of Northumbria and Kent but that of all the clergy and the people, implying a national consensus around him. Although it is postulated that Oswiu was keen not to have Wilfrid as Archbishop in Canterbury, this still implies that Vitalian, in choosing his reforming associate Theodore, was coming up against some degree of nativist resistance to 'imperialism'.

This conflict between Wilfrid and Theodore is complex, too complex for our short summary of history and it involves a great deal of 'amour propre' and position-taking as well as church and royal factionalism, involving such notables as Hilda of Whitby. Wilfrid seems to have been quite good at rubbing people up the wrong way. Initially, there is no problem. Theodore deposes Ceadda Bishop of Northumbria in order to instal Ceadda's rival Wilfrid in the See (669) which is immense though soon to be whittled down in size. This is the point at which the claims of what will be the Archbishopric of York to equal status to and non-interference by the Archbishopric of Canterbury may be traced though this process does not really end until the Norman Conquest. Ceadda (also to be canonised as St. Chad after his death in 672)) was moved to the role of bishop to the relatively recently pagan Mercians.

Wilfrid gets driven out of his See in 678 by King Egfrith of Northumbria as part of a factional war of tortuous complexity. Off he goes to Rome to appeal the expulsion by way of the Frisian Kingdom based in Utrecht where he converted some nobles, at least for a while, but not the court. Wilfrid then makes it to Rome in 679. Pope Agatho orders his restoration (to no immediate effect) in a Synod but forces a compromise that substantially backs Theodore's diocesan reforms. He returns to England in 680 with a deed for the new monastery in Peterborough, which would have been pleasing to Ethelred of Mercia, and vestments and ornaments for the new church at Hexham. Regardless of the documentation, Wilfrid is virtually ignored and goes on his travels around the Kingdom concentrating on converting the recalcitrant South Saxons and Jutes of the Isle of Wight under the aegis of Caedwalla of Wessex. Theodore consecrates a reluctant Cuthbert as Bishop of Hexham (685) at the command of Egfrith who remains deeply opposed to Wilfrid, a situation only rectified by the death of the King at the Battle of Nectansmere in that year. Cuthbert is clearly uninterested in the job, retires, falls ill and dies in his monastic cell in 687. In the meantime, Wilfrid becomes reconciled with Theodore and he is allowed to resume his position in Northumbria albeit with his power somewhat reduced.

Eventually, in 690, Theodore, the last true Roman Archbishop of Canterbury dies and is buried at Canterbury, his legacy being the imposition of an imperial structure stronger than any individual incumbent and capable of being one day transferred as a 'methodology' to secular rule. Our history is often taught as if, when the Romans left in the early fifth century, Rome was no longer important to Britain. Nothing could be further from the truth. Although the secular imperial structure had gone, the Church of Rome ensured the reinstitution of its authoritarian imperial system and culture. Much of British history is about the creative tension between European or continental discipline and the more anarchic sense of local liberty and sovereignty of the natives - once again, the issue to be decided in a Referendum in 2017 or earlier.  If the ideology is different - replace God-fearing obscurantism with an attempted liberal totalitarianism - the system is much the same. Theodore was to be succeeeded by Brihtwold, Abbot of Reculver, the first native Anglo-Saxon to be Archbishop, in 692/3 who seems to have been a bit of a nonentity. It is almost as if the Church could now feel comfortable that a native could be given charge of a structure bigger than he could ever be. The story of the constraints made on free-born Englishmen by the forces of discipline and order are captured in that event alone.

Meanwhile, there were complicated issues of heresy and orthodoxy that had seemed to require the commitment to the imperial model in the eyes of Rome, with the Celtic Church remaining in the background as an issue only recently resolved. There is, for example, a new Synod (680) presided over by Theodore at Hatfield arranged largely to deal with the Syriac monothelite controversy. I suppose we may ask nowadays whether we really care about these obscure disputes - in this case about whether Christ had one will and two natures - but they mattered at the time and were intimately related to power struggles within and outside the Church. The matter exercised the Papacy considerably as a strategic threat from the East and, like all heresies, it had to be extirpated wherever it popped up its head.

The Crypt at Hexham Abbey [1]

This is also an era in which the Church becomes an ever more effective patron of building and the arts, in the North in particular, and so of propaganda. Hexham Abbey built by Wilfrid (beginning in 674) and using stones plundered from Hadrian's Wall could seat 2,000. Women also became more important participants in the Church - Aethelthryth, a female saint, founds Ely in 673. Hilda of Whitby who dies in 680 is consulted by kings and known for her wisdom. And more bishoprics are founded as order is put in place - Winchester in 674 for example.

And we should not forget our source for much of what we know about the period - the Venerable Bede, author of the 'Ecclesiastical History of the English Nation' (to be completed in 731), who was born in 673 and will report on the preceding centuries in the first part of the eighth century.

[1] The stones are from Corbridge and are recycled roman building material - photographic source: http://janusatthedoor.blogspot.co.uk/2011/06/crypt-beneath-church-hexham-abbey.html

645-663:The Anglicisation of British Christianity

What we see now in English history is little more than perpetual conflict between relatively small Germanic states seeking overlordship in Southern Britain or seeking merely to survive, with the Church both tool and asset but one with powerful interests of its own. The three big players in the game are going to be Weseex, Mercia and Northumbria. Penda of Mercia drives Cenwalh of Wessex from his kingdom around 645, although nearly all dates are obscure at this time, yet Cenwalh is back in power to consecrate the precursor to the Cathedral in Winchester and found its Bishopric some time after 648.

Interestingly, Cenwalh arranges for the Bishop to be a Saxon having "grown weary of [Agilbert, the bishop of Dorchester's] barbarous tongue" suggesting a new phase for the Church in England, one of replacing foreign clerics with native clerics more in tune with the needs of courts handling people who spoke Anglo-Saxon dialects as their first language. The Church is still, however, an international corporation. Executives get moved around - the Frank Agilbert is neatly translated to become Bishop of Paris in 600. If there is a 'nationalisation' process, it seems not to be restricted to England. One suspects that Rome was having issues with Roman manpower as it expanded rapidly into barbarian territory.

A native 'spiritual sensibility' is also in evidence. On August 31st, 651, as Bishop Aidan is dying in the parish church at Bamburgh, a shepherd in the Lammermuir Hills, Cuthbert, sees a vision of angels which, connecting with the death of Aidan, he interprets as a call to religious service. Again, this 'shepherd' is not all he appears to be - he was almost certainly of noble origins and raised in the environs of Lindisfarne's sister Scottish establishment Melrose Abbey. This future patron saint of Northern England bears all the hall marks of a celebrity-driven propaganda operation but the outcome is still that the Church is no longer quite so reliant on outsiders for its maintenance.

The Church's symbiosis with royal power is beginning to nationalise it: in return for gaining royal protection, it gets political influence but it has to concede that the men who will run it in England will be of the same class and blood origins as their political allies. Though answerable to Rome, these men will interpret Roman ways according to the political, cultural and social needs of the local States. It is all very finely balanced. The unbalancing of the relationship will lead to periodic crises, excommunications and splits over the next thousand years that will lead ultimately to the breach with Rome of Henry VIII.

With exquisite timing in this context, Honorius, the aged Archbishop of Canterbury who had arrived to help introduce Christianity to Kent in 597 and was a Roman by birth, died in September 653. His successor in 655 was an Anglo-Saxon given the name Deusdedit, a transitional figure, a Romanised native, repeating the patterns of control of the old Roman Empire whose continuities have perhaps been underestimated.

Loyal natives can often be better governors of imperial systems than imposed foreigners after the first generation of charismatic leaders has passed - one might say that the entrepreneurs are being replaced by the managers and that the corporation is maturing. The fact that all this was achieved in only half a century suggests the degree to which the Church had provided some things very important to the small English states in their struggles with each other - legitimacy, administrative support, psychological management of the subject peoples and charismatic magical power.

Meanwhile kings come and go. Oswine of Deira dies in August 651 and is succeeded by Ethelwald son of Oswald. Anna, King of East Anglia dies in 654 and is succeeded by Aethelhere. The dynastic details are for antiquarians, The real action though is taking place in Middle England where Mercia's recent dominance comes under threat. Penda, the pagan mainstay of Mercia, is defeated and killed, along with a considerable number of allied royalty and nobles including Aethelhere of East Anglia (succeeded by Ethelwold), at the Battle of Winweaed (November 15th, 654).

Oswiu, King of Bernicia, brother of Oswald of Northumbria, seizes Mercia and holds it for three years as King. He follows up with the seizure of Deira in 655 and so becomes bretwalda. Peada of Mercia, brother of Penda, struggles on briefly but is murdered in 656 and succeeded by Wulfhere, son of Penda, who was king from 657 to 675. Wulfhere becomes bretwalda of at least the Southern English but not of the Northumbrians. It may not be unimportant here that Wulfhere converts to Christainity and abandons the ways of his father (Peada had also converted). His southern bretwalda role involved some support for his allies and attempts to clean up the anomalies existing on the borders between small states - in 661 he invaded the Jutish Isle of Wight (the Jutes seem to have been a problem for the dominant Saxons) and handed it over to Ethelwold, King of Sussex.

Nor should we forget the continued presence of the Cymry. King Cenwalh of Wessex is in battle with them at Penselwood in 658. Yet the real action is taking place in more prosperous England. The Cymry are largely an excluded side show to English state formation. The Church knows where power lies in that context. The monastery at Whitby is founded in 657 and an Augustinian foundation appears at Canterbury in 600.

Whitby becomes central to the history of British Christianity because it is here, in 663, that Oswiu of Northumbria holds the Synod of Whitby, ostensibly to deal with calendrical issues. In fact, it is an assertion of the dominance of Roman Christianity over Celtic Christianity. It sets the cultural seal on two hundred years of Saxon victories over the Cymry and half a century of the Roman Christianisation of the victors in the post-Roman struggle for Southern Britain. Rome is back but not as it was - not as 'top dog' but as devious and powerful junior partner to brute barbarian power.

625-644: Christianisation and Kingship

The last two posts gave a picture of two processes operating in tandem - the re-christianisation of England, now the appropriate name for the land of the Angles and Saxons who had only appeared in force in less than two centuries, and the transformation of the gangster warlord into a 'King'. The sacralisation of the King by the Church is the next natural step. It happens surprisingly quickly for all the reasons we gave in the previous posting.

Raedwald of East Anglia, overlord or bretwalda of England, who probably dies in or before 625 and is associated with the Sutton Hoo burial, is definitely pagan but the 'national' trend is now towards christianisation. The key statelet here is not Kent but Northumbria to whom the overlordship returns under Edwin. The story has it that Eomer, a West Saxon assassin, attempted but failed to kill Edwin. Paulinus, the seasoned missionary who became Bishop of Northumbria in 625, is promised (626) that his new-born daughter will be given to the christian god if Paulinus' prayers result in the defeat of the West Saxons. Cwichelm of Wessex is accordingly defeated and Wessex subjected to Edwin as bretwalda. Edwin's life had already been saved by Paulinus in exile in 616 so a certain personal bond is already in place, a fact made clearer when Paulinus is forced to leave the Kingdom on Edwin's death and return to Rochester (as Bishop) in Kent (633) where he was to die in 644. The baptism of Paulinus' daughter on Whit Sunday in York is a marker that christianity was now imperially associated with at least one bretwalda. The attempt to link overlordship with the christian faith is to be a key war aim of the Roman interest for the next few decades. The next year (Easter 627) Edwin himself is baptised into the Church.

The tide is never certain for Roman christianity though. Edwin's overlordship is clearly resented by some and in 622 or 633, at the Battle of Hatfield Chase, Edwin is defeated and killed by an alliance of the pagan Penda of Mercia and one of the last of the great Cymry leaders of the age, Cadwallon ap Cadfan, King of Gwynedd which was centred on North West Wales. Not only Edwin but his son Osfrith were killed in battle. His other son Eadfrith not long after. Penda becomes the dominant figure in England for the next thirteen years so we have a period when matters were in the balance between christianity and paganism. The pagans almost certainly did not reckon on the statecraft and diplomatic skills of the christian leadership.

Paulinus had fled Northumbria with good reason because Edwin's successor, Osric of Deira, reverted to paganism as did Eanfrith of Bernicia although their reigns lasted only a year. However, a christian heir to Northumbria, Oswald of Bernicia (later venerated by the Church as a saint), not only took the reins of power in 633 but added the previous year to his reign as if the pagans had never existed. Oswald becomes bretwalda in 634 as far as the christian faction is concerned. Northumbria becomes a safe haven for christianity once again after only a very brief gap and, as we shall see, Northumbrian royal legitimacy and the Church soon become intimately connected. It is at this time that christianised nobles such as Wilfred (later to be the key spokesperson for Rome at the Synod of Whitby in 664) are beginning to be educated at court to become potential clerical administrators in a much more formal way. Christian clerics of noble descent soon become as much a part of the machinery of the State in England as eunuchs in the Chinese empire, neutered by custom rather than physical force.

The christianisation of Northumbria is not just a court matter. An important initiative was the founding of the monastery at Lindisfarne (636) by Aidan, the Irish monk. Aidan also seems to have been influential in mediating between the Roman and Celtic branches of the faith. Lindisfarne was deliberately placed within sight of Oswald's Bamburgh Castle. Church and State are becoming separate but equal, each buttressing the claims of the other.

The Church's response to defeat elsewhere was to keep on trucking. It had Kent. It clearly had the dominant line of royalty in Northumbria and it could appeal to any Saxon Kingdom that disliked the tutelage of Mercia. It now mounted a clever game in which it would support a bretwalda that was christian (of the Roman persuasion) but also sought to appeal to those oppressed by a bretwalda when he was not - realpolitik has always been part of the clerical skill set. The obvious target was the hitherto powerful and ambitious but also divided West Saxons. Birinus, a Frank, was sent into Wessex as a missionary , successfuly converting the West Saxons to Roman christianity under King Cynegils. Cynegils was not King of all the West Saxons but rather someone who aspired to be from his smaller base in the upper Thames valley covering the modern counties of Somerset, northern Wiltshire, southern Gloucestershire, Oxfordshire and western Berkshire. Birinus baptised Cynegils in 635 with Oswald of Northumbria as his sponsor (Oswald also married Cynegils' daughter) so we are already seeing the lineaments of a strategy of encirclement of Mercia by Roman (not Celtic) christianity. Clearly, the Church of Rome in Kent was heavily diplomatically engaged in bringing these two Kingdoms into alliance. Birinus becomes the first Bishop of Dorchester in that same year.

The death of Eadbald of Kent could have removed a lynchpin from this rapidly growing system of Roman influence but his son Earconbehrt proved even more firmly christian than his father - according to Bede, he commanded that pagan cult images be destroyed and that Lent be observed. This was a step further than any other Saxon King had taken to date. It showed confidence that paganism was no longer politically powerful enough to present a threat to the court. Until this point, kings were happy to see the court and nobility flourish as christian while the people continued with their 'pagan superstitions'. Court and the christian element amongst the masses and traders worked around and then crushed the world of the pagan settlers. English christian totalitarian rule proves a creeping paralysis from this day on. It is an object lesson in what happens when a people loses its power and ceases to be vigilant. Religion creeps in not only from below but is insisted upon from above.

Another marker is the canonisation of Oswald of Northumbria after his death at the hands of Penda in 641 (probably in battle at or near Oswestry). The King is sacralised by the Church and another step is taken towards the symbiotic total system of Church and King that would dominate the English people right up until the nineteenth century and even beyond. The political culture that was put in place in these few years would define the English in one way or another for another 1,300. On the other hand, the Cymry were allies of the pagans so what we are seeing is an alliance of Rome and the proto-English State against dissident christians and traditionalist pagans rather than simply a matter of conflict between christian salvation and pagan honour. The Church's problem now was how to pull the Celtic christians back into its orbit and encircle the English pagans as a prelude to their extinction but this is for the future.

Two new Anglo-Saxon kings, Oswiu in Northumbria (641) and Cenwalh in Wessex (643) change little. Both men were christians man and boy in what seems to be an unquestioning way as if their identity as kings were now bound up with the faith. However, there is one change to note - Northumbria splits into its two constituents in 644, Deira and Bernicia. The details are not of interest to us since Northumbria comes together again within a decade but it tells us something of the complexity of state formation in the first half of the seventh century - nothing could be taken for granted and the kings and clerics of the era were very well aware of that fact. A unitary state could still fragment and the Church was thus trying to corral many small warlord kingdoms as a federated system under Rome. Rome was no longer a military but a 'spiritual' (that is, a cultural) power. There was no objection to any future unification of military and administrative power (quite the contrary) so long as it was ultimately culturally answerable to the Papacy. Since the Church increasingly provided the administrators of this proto-state system, and drew part of the warrior nobility into its ambit as those administrators, the process was slowly moving towards the 'global' reinstatement of the Constantinian arrangements that had collapsed when the Roman State collapsed.

560-624: The Return of Christian Influence

Christianity can never said to have been eliminated from Britain during the extended time of troubles between the final failure of Rome to guarantee Britain's safety in 446 and the decision of Pope Gregory to send an official Papal mission to the then-most significant Anglo-Saxon Kingdom, Kent, in 596. During that 150 years, Christianity survived and even extended its range to the 'Gaels' beyond the Cymry. It undoubtedly lingered as the religion of the oppressed under Anglo-Saxon rule but without any significant help or leadership from Rome.

There were now several political considerations from the Roman Church's perspective and that of the Anglo-Saxon Kings, no doubt calculated with all the consummate cynicism of such pragmatic realists. First, the continuation of a religion of resistance amongst the Cymri without Papal authority threatened to turn into something that might became heretical, uncontrollable and an alternative focus of loyalty for the unhappy Christians in the North West of Europe. Second, the Papacy had done a great deal to re-establish itself as the cement for Kingship with those barbarians with pretensions to be heirs to Rome generally or locally on the Continent. Its support would be very valuable to rising warlords who wanted both to be respected overseas and command authority over their own chaotic and proud elites and peoples. Third, and connected to the first, stable rule required that the masses who had been conquered accept the new situation and their new masters and lose hope of a return to a former situation. The Church could certainly help with pacifying those Catholic Cymri practising the religion of the oppressed under the yoke of pagan warlordism. Fourth, pagan settlers were a lot less easier to handle with their allegiance to gods of place and struggle than Christians who were taught to seek their salvation in the world beyond through an ethos of passivity and compliance. All that was required was for warlords to aspire to become kings of small settled statelets and the Church would find a ready audience for their 'moral' message. Basically, the Cymri were about to be suckered - and so were the bulk of ordinary Saxon settlers - in a classic deal (we cannot say 'of the devil') between two powerful forces working towards order

But we should not forget those beyond the defeated Cymri. The Church was making separate inroads (with all the prestige of a passing civilisation) amongst those Celtic 'barbarians' who had never been truly conquered by Rome and who were seeking to up their own game as plunderers, the Irish and Scots. A significant figure in this respect is Columba who, based in Ireland, which had received a significant Roman missionary presence in the 430s under Palladius and Patrick, had moved, in 563, to Iona in Scotland to found an important monastery in the Scots Kingdom of Dal Riata. By 574, he is anointing Aedan mac Gebrain as King, showing the important political function of senior religious figures. It is hard not to see the history of Christianity in the British Isles, as it is elsewhere, as primarily the psychological business of creating cultural power for military and economic figures in return for shared control over the population and a slice of the action.

Dal Riata was important as an 'overlord' of the Western Isles, reaching across to the Irish mainland. Columba became Aedan's adviser. In 375, there is a Council Meeting at Druim Ceat in what is now County Londonderry obscure in intent but which seems to have involved a negotiation which weakened the hold of Dal Riata's Irish overlords without recourse to further war. The Church's backing seems to have given a sub-King significant advantage in those negotiations and it entered into its new historical role as consigliere to the bosses amongst the barbarians. Columba died in 597 just as Augustine was settling into Canterbury and within days pilgrims are arriving at Iona, indicating another facet of Catholicism, the popular devotion of items connected to its saints (an early example of the cult of relics and what is now the sale room prices that might be given for Elvis' toothbrush). This popular appeal will constrain Kings as the only power that the masses have left in an age of iron and slavery. It is probably true that the Church dies in proportion to Kings being no longer necessary or powerful.

Towards the end of the sixth century, Christianity has thus already established a magical and cultural role amongst the Irish and Scots (perhaps merely supplanting functionally that of the druidic priests) that the Pope now wants to have accepted by the much more challenging Germanic barbarians. The Church has made enormous headway amongst those barbarians who had been awed by the monuments and culture of Rome on the Continent. It was logical that Gregory should seek to extend that process by sending Augustine to the capital of Kent in 596, probably still the most culturally Roman-friendly of Anglo-Saxon Kingdoms and no longer a frontier state. Augustine arrives the next year to persuade Aethelbert of Kent to embrace Catholicism which means if he does so, so does much of Southern England. Augustine becomes the first Archbishop of Canterbury in 597 (although he had probably already been ordained Bishop by the Frankish Church). Catholicism thus returns to Britain. The mission is a success. The Pope sends more resources in 601 in the form of assistants, bringing vital ritual tools (the whole business being not just one of claiming magic but of showing magic to be done). There is then a surge of pastoral activity - he revives the Bishopric of York (there is a strong institutional memory of the old provincial administrative structures within the Roman Church) and appoints Paulinus to it and consecrates two more assistants, Mellitus and Justus, as bishops for the East Saxons in 604. Mellitus gets Bishop of London and Justus Bishop of Rochester so we can see the mission steadily moving into enemy pagan territory.

This is not without its risks. The pagan Aethelfrith of Northumbria in that same year (604) had allegedly slaughtered 200 priests who, like their druidic forebears, had turned up at the battle of Chester to pray for the Cymric forces. We can see the challenge - on one side of the Island, the Church is promising the same sort of support for power granted to Aedan mac Gebrain only a few years before in Scotland to the sort of people who probably believed that Christians were employing their magical, political and religious powers against them on the other side of the island. The question was going to be whether the Church in Rome could guarantee the neutralisation of the magical power employed against the Saxons (not that it appeared to do the Cymry any good) by making it equally available to them and whether that magical power was more politically useful and efficacious than traditional pagan ways. Whether Scrocmail the priest who was one of the fifty who escaped the massacre at Chester would have appreciated Augustine's dealing with the enemy is not recorded by history.

Aethelbert of Kent is converted to catholicism. His son reverts to paganism on acquiring the throne (as we noted in the last posting) but reverts back quite quickly suggesting that there are powerful political motives for abandoning paganism in Kent by this date (616). Augustine's successor, Archbishop Laurentius, who oversees this hiccup, dies in 619. He is succeeded by Mellitus but London reverts to paganism on his departure which suggests that something is enforcing the religion and that its power waxes and wanes with the degree to which religious observance can be 'insisted upon'. History of course is with Christian power. The succession of Archbishops continues with Honorius (note the Latin name) in 624. As with the kings, we will not bother ourselves with episcopal successions, only being interested in those clerical figures who mark major shifts and changes in culture and power. By the end of our period, it is clear that, although Christianity may have only a formal foothold in just one Anglo-Saxon Kingdom and is the ramshackle religion of the defeated everywhere else and those who always were outside the Roman pale, it is to be taken seriously once again in British politics after 150 years in the wilderness.

560-624: The Kingdoms Establish Themselves

A king's leadership is not, however, always uncontested. Ceawlin himself seems to have been ousted, probably by Ceol, but he may just as likely have been killed at another significant battle, also obscure, with Aethelbert of Kent reversing the position of 568 in 591and replacing Ceawlin as capo di tutti capi or rather 'bretwalda' or overlord of the Anglo-Saxons, at least in Southern England.

The violence continues into the seventh century as you would expect (the arrival and early history of Christianity is covered in the next posting). Two kingdoms, Bernicia, which we have mentioned, and Deira merge to become a major force in the North of England called Northumbria under Aethelfrith who becomes a dominant figure in wars against the Cymry, with a great deciding battle at Chester in 607. He dies in 617 at the hands of Raedwald, King of East Anglia, another Anglo-Saxon Kingdom we have taken somewhat for granted in this series. We have also taken for granted Mercia in the Midlands through which Raedwald marched with impunity to 'take out' Athelfrith. Mercia will later become very important. Who is and who is not an overlord of the English is sometimes never very clear - Aethelfrith appears to have been one so Raedwald defeating and killing him in battle naturally made him his successor. Or did it? Although defeated by Raedwald, Aethelfrith is succeeded by a strong figure in Edwin under whom Northumbrian power continues to increase culturally and politically and he is widely seen as the natural 'bretwalda'.

What is actually going on is a story of personal and dynastic rivalries, greed and lust for power, of which Game of Thrones is merely the fictional version. Most of the detail is of no interest to us. What we are interested in are the grand themes and it is to be noted here that by the time we get to struggles between Athelfrith and Raedwald in the 610s, positions on Christianity and paganism have become part of the mix. For example, it is a material political fact that the son of Aethelberht of Kent, Eadbald, reverts to paganism for a brief period in 616 but is soon 'persuaded' back into the fold because it is becoming clear that Christian clerical support is an asset and loss of that support is a problem. The re-emergence of Christianity is what we have to turn to next.

The period closes with a number of kingdoms vying for leadership of Anglo-Saxon England. Traditionally these will come to be termed a heptarchy of four major players (Wessex, Mercia, East Anglia and Northumbria) and three small 'original' settler Kingdoms (Kent, Sussex and Wessex) but this belies the complexity of the situation with borders shifting, mergers (as with Bernicia and Deira into Northumbria), shifting power bases (with the South Eastern Kingdoms becoming less important over time in favour of the geographically bigger 'frontier' states) and some small settlement kingdoms simply becoming subsumed into others, such as Middlesex as contested territory. There are also viable small Cymric states surviving in the South West, Wales proper and Cumbria and, of course, there are Pictish and Scottish proto-states to the North.

447-559: The Mercenaries Take Over

The fateful but probably unavoidable decision in 449 by the Romano-British warlord Vortigern to invite a mixed Anglo-Saxon force over to Britain to help defeat the Picts and the Scots is shrouded in mystery but the legends plausibly suggest a brutal palace coup by the incomers and their seizure of the profitable part of the country closest to the trade route across the Channel (Kent).

The coup took place in 455 in Aylesford in Kent and was not without cost to the invaders. Hengist, the leading Angle, may have slaughtered the Romano-British court but he lost his brother Horsa and it is quite possible that an attempt to seize control of the whole country by ousting the 'superbus tyrranus' merely left them with Kent which they seem to have ethnically cleansed of the entire Romano-British elite who then fled to Londinium and elsewhere. The exiles would be the descendants of the thoroughly Romanised Cantiaci and have included many merchant princes. It can reasonably be said that England was founded on an ethnic massacre which might suggest to the English that they should be wary of being over-judgmental about the founding histories of other nations.

The matter was not uncontested. Hengest and his son Esc have to defend their newly acquired acquisition. The dispossessed, called the Welsh by the Angles (or rather Wealhas which means foreigners or strangers in Anglo-Saxon) fight back but are defeated at Crayford in 456, apparently with great losses, and then at Wippedesfleot (probably Ebbsfleet) in 465 before the Anglo-Saxons go on the offensive with a major raid in 473 against the Cymri (the term we will now use rather than Romano-British which they have ceased to be and use rather than Wealhas which defines them in the terms of the invader). There is no point in trying to tell the story in detail of the remorseless drive for control of South Britain by clearly superior (in military terms and in terms of sheer will and greed) Anglo-Saxons but we can perhaps highlight the process by which Roman Britain failed to become Cymru and largely became England instead.

The next key moment is a mini-invasion by Saxons under Aelle and his three sons and the seizure of another key economic asset close to the continent, Sussex, in 477. They need only three ship loads of men to dispossess the Cymry landowners, engaging in the same slaughter that Hengist and his brother had dished out two decades earlier. This is essentially an organised crime operation, using superior force to seize assets from a richer but more vulnerable population although we should perhaps not feel overly sorry for a local elite grown fat on slaves and peasant labour and refusing to organise itself adequately for resistance. There is method in all this - the new warlords are targeting the existing rackets with the same determination that Al Capone did in Chicago. Selsey where Aelle lands was a central distribution hub for the profitable trade in wheat and other agricultural and industrial goods in a regional economy which is still (just) functioning on Roman lines although the political and military protection for it has long since crumbled.

As in Kent, the Cymry try to fight back but the fighting skills and no doubt armament of these ruthless gangs is too much for them. They are finally defeated in Sussex with the seizure of the important Roman fort at Pevensey (Anderida) in 491 and the slaughter of everyone inside. There is much that is obscure in all this - context, precise dates and events, names and lineages, the actual politics - but Britain (we reserve the name Cymru for later and apply it to the area the Wealhas/Cymri were finally pushed into) may have suffered these attacks because around 480, Clovis, King of the Franks, was cutting the possibility of the Saxons raiding and seizing Northern French land. The idea that England might have emerged as much on one side of the Channel as the other might amuse but the reality was that Germanic aggression was taking place on a massively wide front, filling the huge vacuum left by the Romans.

In 495 the Saxon warlord Cerdic appears in Hampshire to create the basis for what will be the Kingdom of Wessex (to follow alongside Sussex and Kent). Other Saxon warlords seize land around Portsmouth in 501. The pattern of capturing the export zones of Britain continues, exerting a stranglehold on the old Romano-British economic system. Since the new arrivals are interested in extracting as much as they can by way of taxation and dues and pushing the locals off the best land in order to be otherwise self-sufficient, the economic disruption is immense. It is at this point that there is an attempt to pull together the Cymry in what might be called a last attempt to create a viable independent Romano-British state, that of 'King Arthur' and push the Anglo-Saxons back into the sea.

In fact, King Arthur is so shrouded in legend and subsequent accretions that we can discount the vast bulk of it as history. What it is probably safe to say is that a Romano-British warlord was able to muster the forces to halt the Western Anglo-Saxon advance and, if not push them back into the sea, stop their move inland and seizure of prime agricultural land and markets for a while. The legend centres around a major battle at an unknown site, the Battle of Badon Hill, where the Cymry finally defeated a major Anglo-Saxon force in pitched battle in or around 513. The relief is not one that lasts for long. Cerdic is acknowledged King of Wessex by 519 (to be succeeded by his son Cynric in 534), although all these dates and even persons are uncertain, and he apparently seizes the Isle of Wight (although it seems to have been settled and ruled in practice by Jutes) in 530. Wessex appears at this time still to be a small  'stranglehold' kingdom in and around Hampshire and to be far from the West of England hegemon that it was to become later.

Meanwhile, a similar process of invasion and settlement is taking place in Northern Britain with the most important development being the reign of Ida (547-559), King of Bernicia, an Anglo-Saxon Kingdom established throughout the sixth century to give Anglo-Saxons mastery of south-eastern Scotland and what is north-eastern England. It almost certainly emerged out of mercenary operations similar to those in the south east and directed at northern Pictish and Scottish raiders. Ida builds a strong fortress at Bamburgh and is succeeded by his son Glappa but we are going to forgo king lists in this series. Ida's ability to maintain his position and fight off attempts to oust him is the basis for what will be the important Kingdom of Northumbria.

By the middle of the sixth century, Roman Britain is not merely dead on paper but in fact. Romano-Britons, to be the ancestors of the modern Cymry but already regarded as such in our series for convenience, are still occupying much of the country but their frontiers to the North East and South are firmly in the hands of Germanic warlords who, in the South, have a stranglehold on the vital export trades that had kept the country prosperous. It is down hill for the original inhabitants all the way from now on.

369-446: The Roman Withdrawal

After a half decade of brutal and co-ordinated raiding from overseas, Emperor Theodosius the Great restored order in Britain in 369. The next great crisis will shift us like a pendulum from external threat to internal rebellion once again. This time it is a revolt by the military commander Magnus Maximus in 383 after a victory in the previous year against the Picts. His revolt lasts only until 388 but involved an incursion into the heart of the Empire itself in a failed attempt to seize the Imperial throne (albeit that he had already been declared Western Emperor). His invasion of Italy was defeated by Theodosius at the Battle of the Save.

It is not long after this (401) that the Roman legions began to be withdrawn from Britain and defence transferred to local forces. Hillforts would eventually begin to be reoccupied, including Cadbury Castle in Somerset from around 470, later to become associated with the legend of Arthur as Camalet. It remained so occupied until the 580s. The legions proved necessary for the struggles for power within the Empire as it began to crumble under the barbarian invasions on the mainland. In 407 the local Roman usurper Emperor Constantine III (after a series of such usurpers had emerged and fallen in the Province) withdrew the legions entirely to support his own claims.

Given the general mayhem as Vandals, Burgundians, Alans and Sueves crossed the Rhine at Mainz in 406, it is no surprise to see Saxon raids start up again after Constantine's departure and, in 409, there is a native British revolt against his rule. This is the best marker date for the end of Roman rule since Emperor Honorius' assertion to the British that they are on their own and must organise their own defence (410) is simply, by that point, a statement of the obvious. In that year, Rome itself was sacked by the Goths under Alaric.

There is, of course, still a Roman administration and a Romano-British ruling class operating in Britain after the withdrawal of the military but it appears that, where possible, capital is being exported or buried and the administrative structures begin to weaken and collapse as resources disappear. The Christian Church feels the strain even though it sustains its relationship with the province for another 45 years or so. In 429, the well recorded visit of St. Germanus, a Gallo-Roman Bishop, was made to combat the growing influence of the Pelagian heresy which might be said to reflect what was later to become a very strong part of the British character - the importance of free will and self reliance in seeking salvation. It was Germanus who constructed the story of St. Alban the martyr, as a useful propaganda tool for stiffening Romano-British spines within the Christian tradition.  The famous debate held with the Pelagians at Verulamium seems to have had a class element to it. Germanus appeared to be able to appeal over the heads of the wavering Romano-British aristocracy and merchant class to the broader population assembled there. The Church's determination to hold on to Britain was matched by its equal determination to convert the rising barbarian powers and tribes,. In 431 Bishop Palladius was sent on missions to the Irish and the Scots by Pope Celestine.

The Romano-British did not give up hope of reintegration into the Roman Empire for quite some time, no doubt assisted by the Catholic Church. Perhaps we see another constant in British history appearing here, similar to that between Slavophiles and those who looked to the West in Russia, by which the Catholics looked to Europe, whether Roman or Gallic, and the Pelagians preferred national independence, a difference of outlook that is about to be played out once again in the struggles over which way the British will vote in the forthcoming European Referendum. There was a last appeal for the return of the Roman legions in 446 but Rome was embroiled in its conflict with the formidable Huns and could not or would not help.  It is at this point that the desperate Roman-British aristocracy, unable to build a sufficient fighting force of their own, made the fateful decision to appeal to the Angles (from what is now Southern Denmark) to take on what had been Rome's responsibility but as mercenaries.

274-368: The Instabilities of Roman Rule

By the last quarter of the third century, south of Hadrian's Wall, Roman Britain was a fully romanised and prosperous occupied province under men who could become minor players in the bigger game of Roman imperial politics, using the resources made available by the need to have a significant military on hand to protect the asset from potential raiding on three of its four sides - Ireland, north of the Wall and across the North Sea.

The tension between Roman Imperial desire to control and maintain the asset and what local rulers and commanders wanted must be placed in its context - that local interests saw their primary needs as either being protected by Rome or being allowed to protect themselves on their terms if Rome could not do so for whatever reason. After the imposition of direct rule on Britain from Rome in 274, we see, within fifteen years, the rise of an independent 'British Emperor' Carausius, actually a Belgic-Roman naval commander who had been charged with clearing the English Channel of pirates. The propertied interests of Britain were wholly dependant on export of grain and manufactures to the wider Roman Empire. Rome itself was not doing much directly to keep the trade routes open and so the local military Commander clearly got himself the local mandate to keep the resources available to him on site and not have them weakened by interference from overseas, failures to provide resources or autonomy of decision-making or any attempt to have taxes or men diverted to Rome's needs rather than those of 'national' defence.

In fact, the Carausian Revolt had its opportunistic aspects as these things tend to do. Carausius was apparently about to be arrested and executed on charges of dealing with the Frankish and Saxon pirates and embezzlement. His independent Empire lasted a bare decade (286-296) but, based on observation of the dynamics of all Empires trying to hold on to their assets against the depredations of border tribes and organised crime (we see this in the struggles of our own Atlantic System to hold the line against migration and organised crime today), we might see these charges as charges of central Roman frustration at Carausius rationally following a local policy of buying off the enemy at a time when this was not the policy of the centre. It could easily have been the opposite position - the centre seeking to cut deals with the barbarians and a local commander commited to military action. This tension between military aggression against 'invaders', or building walls or bribery, accommodation and negotiation is played out today in the policy discussions about how to deal with Libyan trafficking gangs in Europe and even Mexican cartels. Under some Imperial administrations, whether Roman or Chinese, negotiation with 'terrorists' would have been regarded as self-defeating and morally culpable as much as it does today to Washington policymakers.

Carausian himself may have been called Marcus Aurelius Mausaeus Valerius Carausius but he was actually a Menapian (Belgic) of humble birth and shows us another aspect of the Roman Empire by this period. Rome had run out of Romans and a distinctive hybridisation of Roman and native culture created a class of people who saw themselves as Roman but also detached from Rome itself. In power, Carausius appears to have actively worked to create a British national identity albeit within a Roman cultural framework. It is this tendency to integrate local elites into the processes of higher administration that permits, across Empire, the emergence in time of independent centres of power that come and go - entering imperial politics from the periphery, setting up temporary independent polities and acting as minor powers representing a preference for imperial ways of doing things as more efficient but choosing or forced to deal with the rapidly developing barbarian polities and organised ethnic criminalities (from an imperial perspective) at their borders. There are analogies for this in Chinese imperial history. Over-expansion in order to acquire maximun assets and push barbarian threats ever further outwards not merely reaches a certain natural limit of cost-effectiveness but creates its own nemesis as barbarian tribes cohere and adopt and adapt imperial military technologies. Observe the skilled adoption of Western techniques by ISIS in the Middle East and you see what the Mongols and Franks did in their time. The periphery creates unstable 'civilised warlords' who can threaten the centre itself and the costs of holding everything together increase. Does this not remind us a little of our current situation in the West as Washington, free trade, NATO and the 'Big Five' surveillance reach the limits of their expansionary capability? It is as if decline is built into Empire by its very expansionary and 'globalising' nature.

Carausius held the southern shore of the English Channel, inherited as local naval commander, until 293 when Constantius I isolated Boulogne and cut him off from his Frankish allies. Boulogne was taken and Carausius assassinated by Allectus (one of his own officers who succeeded him and was also Menapian). Allectus was defeated within three years. Britain returned to Roman rule under Constantius I, founder of the Constantinian Dynasty, who invaded Britain in 296 and defeated Allectus in 297, leaving behind a myth of British independence that would reappear in Geoffrey of Monmouth's work in the twelfth century, interestingly linked to Christian resistance to Diocletian's persecution. Somewhere in the sub-text is a story of resistance to centralised power being associated with the relatively new religion of Christianity since it would seem that the punitive operations of Julius Asclepiodotus, who Constantius appointed military governor after the revolt, involved some serious persecution of Christians (part of a much wider war on the faith undertaken by Diocletian in these years).

What we seem to have in late third century Roman Britain is an identifiable Belgic ruling class that had been fully romanised but is quite prepared to work with Frankish barbarians pragmatically, simply diverting some of the tax take perhaps from Rome to the barbarians in order to buy them off, and who were perhaps partially adopting Christianity as an ideology of resistance to Roman religious (and so moral and organisational) claims. It is soon after the revolt (304) that St. Alban is executed at Verulamium (later named St. Alban's). Alban was a converted Roman legionary. It is not difficult to see this as a political as much as a religious execution, if the story is not a later invention entirely. Despite the doubts as to veracity, the sheltering by a Roman Officer of a Christian dissident (Amphibalus, also caught and executed) and the story of his conversion seems to hide a deeper narrative of political and military defeat and of an attempt to root out the elite groups who had challenged direct Roman Imperial rule.

Meanwhile, we must not forget the North Britons who would have taken their own raiding opportunities from the fighting in southern Britain. Constantine the Great will cross the Channel to claim the Empire in another ironical reversal of the recent years of struggle only after Constantius I (Constantine the Great's father) had crossed the Channel in the other direction (305) and brought his son with him to mount a major and apparently successful campaign against the Picts in 306. Constantine's father died that year in Eboracum (York) but ensured the army accepted his son as heir - the second campaign against the Picts was thus aborted in order to secure the Empire for the family.

Christianity is a significant political factor across the Empire by this time. The story of St. Alban becomes even more suggestive when we find that Constantine the Great goes on to make Christianity the official religion of the Empire in a series of measures starting in 313 with the Edict of Milan. Christianity in the Empire is another story entirely but it is hard not to see Constantine responding to its ability to mobilise continued resistance in an important asset like Britain and elsewhere, and coming to the 'realpolitik' view that, ironically, just as Carausius might come to an accommodation with the Franks to allow the English Channel trading routes to operate securely so the Emperor might come to an accommodation with the internal dissidents and turn them from cause of instability to force for stabilisation.

Britain returns to being a relatively stable back water of the Empire for a while but we see the Emperor Constans having to cross to Britain in 343 (the visit was short and sharp and undertaken under dangerous sea conditions suggesting an emergency response to some event) and  in the 360s the Mildenhall Treasure was buried suggesting some further internal instability in the elite (though the narrative about this find remains unclear). The serious problems for Roman rule really start again with a run of raids on the Britain by Saxon pirates from 363 to 368, with a particularly large raid in 364 that seems to have been more than just piratical and another in 367 by a coalition of Picts, Scots and Saxons that almost brought Roman Britain to its knees.

77-273: The Problem of Caledonia

The arrival of Gnaeus Julius Agricola gives us the most famous Roman Governor of antiquity because his life and deeds were written up by the Roman historian, his son-in-law Tacitus, but he was an important element in the final conquest of Britain even if his public relations ran ahead of his achievements. Having moved against the Ordovices and Anglesey, over which Rome had temporarily lost control, Agricola then undertook a campaign to subdue Northern England in 78, possibly as far as the Firth of Tay (Scotland) in the following year. There may even have been a small exploratory expedition to Ireland similar to that of Caesar's in 55 though nothing came of it and nothing may be assumed about its reality.

In 80, Agricola was faced with a major Caledonian (Scottish) rising. A war ensued that led to the pivotal battle of Mons Graupius (83-84) in the far north of Scotland which, if it actually took place (there is some doubt amongst a minority of historians) resulted in the complete defeat of the Northern British, led by Calgacus, Chief of the Caledonian Confederation. Whether the 10,000 British casualties figure is true or not is debatable but the Romans are unlikely to have taken many prisoners so far from home and surrounded by the enemy. Nevertheless, the battle may still have left 20,000 defeated but still formidable Caledonians in the surrounding forests.

Tacitus almost certainly invents a famous speech by Calgacus before the battle that probably tells us more about Roman doubts and sensibilities than it does those of the British. It is worth quoting in full because it suggests that intelligent Romans had some qualms about the ethical basis for their own imperialist endeavours:

Whenever I consider the origin of this war and the necessities of our position, I have a sure confidence that this day, and this union of yours, will be the beginning of freedom to the whole of Britain. To all of us slavery is a thing unknown; there are no lands beyond us, and even the sea is not safe, menaced as we are by a Roman fleet. And thus in war and battle, in which the brave find glory, even the coward will find safety. Former contests, in which, with varying fortune, the Romans were resisted, still left in us a last hope of succour, inasmuch as being the most renowned nation of Britain, dwelling in the very heart of the country, and out of sight of the shores of the conquered, we could keep even our eyes unpolluted by the contagion of slavery. To us who dwell on the uttermost confines of the earth and of freedom, this remote sanctuary of Britain's glory has up to this time been a defence. Now, however, the furthest limits of Britain are thrown open, and the unknown always passes for the marvellous. But there are no tribes beyond us, nothing indeed but waves and rocks, and the yet more terrible Romans, from whose oppression escape is vainly sought by obedience and submission. Robbers of the world, having by their universal plunder exhausted the land, they rifle the deep. If the enemy be rich, they are rapacious; if he be poor, they lust for dominion; neither the east nor the west has been able to satisfy them. Alone among men they covet with equal eagerness poverty and riches. To robbery, slaughter, plunder, they give the lying name of empire; they make a solitude and call it peace.

This speech inspired intellectual and educated anti-imperialists and British nationalists within the later British Imperium when it aspired to be the New Rome and perhaps acted as a restraint on a ruling caste educated in the classics and torn between the libertarian values of the Isles and the mission to create an ethical world empire. Be all that as it may, and despite doubts about the extent of Agricola's victory, the drive against the North Britons created space for the South Britons to be fully romanised. In fact, Scotland itself was far from pacified. Within a few years of Agricola's campaign, Rome had withdrawn to a line between the Tyne and Solway Firth which was to be the Roman frontier for much of Imperial history.

Hadrian's Wall today (For Source - See Note 1)

In 117, Hadrian became Emperor and appeared in Britain in 121 after a rebellion (119-121) in order to restore order. He famously settled the matter (with one significant gap under the later Antonines 142-162 which temporarily restored the frontier to the Firth of Forth and Firth of Clyde line and was briefly reoccupied by Septimus Severus in 208-211) of the boundary between barbarian North Briton and Roman Britain by ordering the building of his famous wall along the Tyne-Solway frontier between 122 and 128 under his Governor Aulus Platorius Nepos. Hadrian died in 138.

Rome's Northernmost Frontier - The Antonine Wall (Source - Wikipedia)

As suggested above, the advance into Scotland by Emperor Antoninus Pius in 140 was a temporary business especially as the tribes between the Antonine (under Governor Quintus Lolius Albinus) and Hadrian's Wall were organised into another anti-Roman confederacy, the continuously troublesome Maeatae: the Antonine Wall may have merely been intended to limit the connections between these lowland tribes and the Caledonians to their North as well as to control trade between them. The withdrawal from the more northerly wall in 162 simply meant the restoration of Hadrian's Wall as the definitive frontier under Marcus Aurelius.

The vulnerability of Southern Britain to Caledonian resurgence is demonstrated at the end of the second century AD. Septimius Severus, who was to die in Eboracum (York) in 211, became Emperor in 193 and appointed Clodius Albinus, a powerful Imperial politician who had tried to become Emperor in 193, as Governor of Britain. It may have been a necessary but was not a wise choice because the British and Hispanic Legions declared for Clodius Albinus as Emperor and the Legions followed him in a (second) attempt in 196 to seize the Imperial throne. Britain was left undefended. What actually happened next is unclear but it is probable that the northern tribes started to become troublesome with the withdrawal of the three Legions generally required to hold down the province. Once Clodius Albinus had been crushed with consummate brutality (Septimius Severus is said to have ridden his horse over his naked corpse as an act of humiliation and beheaded his wife and sons), Severus returned to Britain personally to restore order on the Scottish frontier with near-genocidal fervour. After his death, his son Caracalla eventually sued for peace and the Romans permanently withdrew to the Tyne-Solway line. The engagement of these Emperors in Britain throughout this period suggests that the South of Britain was a major economic asset to be protected even at great cost in men and financial resources. At the end of the day, we must never forget that empires are fundamentally intended to be profitable businesses. Legions were merely what corporate lawyers are today - very expensive necessities.

Notes

1. "Hadrian's wall at Greenhead Lough" by Velella - Personal photograph taken by Velella.. Licensed under Public Domain via Wikimedia Commons - http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Hadrian%27s_wall_at_Greenhead_Lough.jpg#/media/File:Hadrian%27s_wall_at_Greenhead_Lough.jpg

44-77: The Romans Occupy

By 47 (within four years of the initial invasion), the Roman military had occupied Britain as far west as the Severn and Cornwall and as far north as the Trent, moving far beyond a punitive action against Belgic tributaries towards a full-scale occupation of the most productive part of the British Isles. However, the occupation was not untroubled and this was no 'blitzkrieg', as we will see. The process was accompanied by 'Romanisation', the tendency to adopt Roman cultural forms which had already begun in the Southern trading ports and tribes long before Aulus Plautius had landed his troops. The Romans had pursued a policy in Gaul of destroying Druidry and now extended the policy to Britain, essentially doing to the Britons what the Soviets attempted in Eastern Europe - the elimination of the nearest equivalent to an educated pre-regime middle class, one that seemed to see the Roman threat as a profound cultural challenge and so stiffen local spines for ideological resistance. The elimination of this class, notably the invasion of their stronghold in Anglesey, was portrayed by the Romans as a civilising act. The enemy were presented as bloody sacrificers of human beings - an image rekindled for us in popular culture today by the 'Wicker Man'. The aristocrats were tolerated if they became Romanised but otherwise they would be extirpated by force if charm and self interest had failed.

In 48, the Decangi of North Wales were subdued by Ostorius Scapula, who succeeded Aulus Plautius as Governor of Britain, and this helped split the Southern British Tribes from the Northern. The military policy was the standard brutal one of razing hill fort strongholds to the ground and generally massacring their inhabitants. This is not to say that British resistance did not continue for a while yet regardless of Roman ruthlessness. The Romans, having forced Caratacus out of Eastern Britain, founded their own Camulodonum (later Colchester), the first Roman town and arguably the first town in Britain, where Celtic Camulodonum once stood, and made it their capital. Londinium (London) was founded a year later and Verulamium the year after that. Caratacus had maintained the tribal confederation based in Celtic Camulodonum for a while but had then moved his base of operations to Wales, adopting guerrilla tactics, the only way to deal with the application of direct Roman military power if you could not inspire a levee en masse as Boudicca was to do later.

Defeated in battle in 50 at a still unknown location, Caratacus fled to the Brigantes, another confederation of tribes, in North Yorkshire. There, the Brigantian Chief Venutius, married to Cartimandua, prepared for a war of resistance. The story is worthy of a soap opera. His Queen Cartimandua seems to have found a new lover and a struggle for power had ensued. Cartimandua was inclined to the Roman cause (we are finding here a common pattern of internal tribal rivalries being expressed in terms of resistance or acceptance of Roman rule much as France was divided after 1940). Venutius seems to have taken up the cause of resistance more as a result of his wife's position than because he started out in a liberatory frame of mind. The upshot was that Cartimandua simply handed Caratacus over to the Romans. He was carted off to Rome as a prisoner where he was pardoned by Claudius, no doubt to ease the process by which the Southern British aristocracy would come to terms with Roman rule.

This pardon appeared to settle the matter of Roman control of Southern Britain for the while but the occupation was not all plain sailing. By the time of the fourth Governor, Quintus Veranius [57-58], orders had been given to go further and conquer the whole island. Although he died within a year, Quintus Veranius appears to have done a great deal to create the conditions for the conquest of Wales, a process continued by his successor against fierce resistance, notably by the Silures in South-Eastern Wales who were not subdued until the 70s. The point when war in this area was replaced with occupation might be set as the founding of Isca (Caerleon) in 75. Wales took a long time to deal with partly because initial campaigning had to be brought to a halt as troops were recalled to deal with a significant revolt in Eastern Britain.

The East British revolt of Queen Boudicca of the Iceni, in alliance with the Trinovantes (60-62AD) meant the sack of the new towns Camulodonum, Verulamium and Londinium with many thousands of death in each but she was eventually defeated in a battle at an unknown site near Watling Street. Boudicca committed suicide by poison. The slaughter had made the Emperor Nero consider withdrawing from Britain altogether but the victory, which demonstrated Roman military superiority against very much greater numbers, drove Rome to push even harder to suppress dissent and romanise the province. The Brigantes, now under Venutius, then became resistant to Rome. This was really little more than a family spat in which Venutius managed to throw out Cartimandua in 69 (interestingly, at the end of the chaotic year of the Four Emperors in Rome when perhaps some British aristocrats started to wobble over the viability of the Roman project). She promptly appealed to the Romans for assistance in winning back her throne. Whether they restored her or not, the Romans decided to deal with Venutius in battle, which they won of course, but the Brigantes themselves were not subdued for some years.

This is no simple picture of military might sweeping all before it in a few quick campaigns but something more like dogged attrition in which brute legionary force was used alongside diplomatic intrigue and probably bribery, with setbacks, to bring the valuable province into the Roman fold. The very fact that the murder of the citizens of the three first colonial towns of Britain led to considerations of withdrawal suggests that Rome was not always sure of its ground and that the benefits of its minerals and agricultural production could be offset by the huge cost of maintaining order over a rag-bag of squabbling tribes. Nevertheless, by the time that Gnaeus Julius Agricola became Governor in Britain in 77, some sense of order had returned, Rome was on its way to final uncontested occupation of South Britain and consideration could be given to conquering the North.