The Danish forward base in Thanet has, until now, been essentially a smash-and-grab and extortion racket. The Saxons in Kent, for example, get peace but only if they pay protection money and the Danes have no intention of honouring any agreements if they can get away with it. The real action, presenting an existential threat to England, is about to take place a little to the north as organised crime shifts into its political mode, a war of conquest.
In 865 a Danish 'Heathen Army', an invasion force possibly seeking land but certainly seeking tribute, appears under the command of Halfdan Ragnarrson and Ivar the Boneless, said to be sons of the legendary Norse King Ragnar Lodbrok (if he actually existed which is a matter that is up for historical grabs). It moves across England in the following year, taking control of York in 865 and ravaging Mercia and Northumbria. King Aelle of Northumbria and his rival Osberht are both killed in battle (the rivals united to meet a common threat) and replaced by a Viking puppet Egbert I.
Ethelred moves to try and dislodge the Vikings from Nottingham in 868, accompanied by Alfred who had married Elswitha of Mercia in the previous year but little progress is made. The 'Great Heathen Army' moves back down into East Anglia in 869, murdering Edmund King of East Anglia (his successor is Oswald, the last King of East Anglia) in 870 when he declines to play the same role there as Egbert in Northumbria.
The strategy of permanent tribute and conquest seems to be targeted at the whole of England. As winter draws close in 870, the Danes (Danes, Norse, Heathens and Vikings are interchangeable terms in this context) move south into the Thames Valley as far as Reading, right up to the borders of the Wessex heartland. In a major battle at Ashdown in 871, Ethelred and Alfred lead a Saxon army in a major victory over the invaders under Halfdan and Bagsac. Ethelred is severely injured and dies and is succeeded by Alfred. As he comes to the throne, the Danish invaders have been checked by the strongest remaining Anglo-Saxon Kingdom, one about to become England itself, but they are far from defeated. It is down to Alfred to become 'the Great' in containing the threat over the next couple of decades.
Showing posts with label East Anglia. Show all posts
Showing posts with label East Anglia. Show all posts
Sunday, 31 January 2016
Tuesday, 29 December 2015
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.
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.
Saturday, 5 December 2015
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.
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.
Monday, 2 November 2015
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.
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.
Sunday, 2 August 2015
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.
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)