General Trends of English Politics Before The Viking Invasions Essay

Do you detect any general trend or trends in the pattern of English politics before the Viking invasions? Although there were sporadic Viking attacks on the coasts of the Anglo-Saxon kingdoms from 793 onwards, the Viking invasions, when large forces started to appear for sustained campaigns, should probably be seen as beginning in 865, when a â€Å"heathen army† encamped on Thanet.1 Before this time, we see a trend in English politics of increasingly extensive overlordship of some kings over others. There is debate about the extent of these overlordships, but it seems reasonable to suggest that certain kings at certain times were able to dominate other kingdoms, and also that there was some increase in the area a king might aspire to control. However, there is more argument about what this trend might mean, and particularly whether it can be seen as part of an inexorable progression towards the unification of the Anglo-Saxon kingdoms in the ninth and tenth centuries. I shall argue that the pattern tended to a limit, and that there is no reason to see unification as its inevitable result, for three main reasons. Firstly, we see another trend that, as kingdoms grew both in size and strength, it became harder to convert overlordship into amalgamation, although this is seen in some cases. Secondly, I shall contend that the overlordship seen was based upon opportunism, with little or no institutional continuity between different overlords. Thirdly, the nature of Anglo-Saxon politics was such that no kingdom before the Viking invasions could sustain its ascendancy sufficiently for the trends to represent long-term moves towards unification. The best way to explain the eventual unification is not as a result of long-term trends, but as West Saxon opportunism at a time when the other kingdoms were weak, buttressed by a latent sense of united ecclesiastical identity, which the Viking threat brought to the surface. The main trend that we see in the pre-Viking Anglo-Saxon kingdoms is the growth of overlordship, whereby one political unit, while retaining a degree of separate identity, and quite possibly its own ruler, was dominated by another. Bede uses a variety of terms to refer to different rulers, including rex, princeps and subregulus. The impression that one gets from this is a complex patchwork of kings, with some subordinate to others: Dumville and Campbell both justifiably point out that the terminological variety suggests that there was no universal pattern, but a web of dependent relationships; this is similar to the situation in Ireland at the same time. It is likely that such relationships go back to the beginning of the Anglo-Saxon period; Kirby points out that this would hardly be surprising, since Tacitus describes similar hierarchies in Germany. However, we do see overlordship being exercised over increasingly large areas: the traditional starting point here is Bede’s lis t of seven kings who ruled â€Å"over all the southern kingdoms†. 2 The evidence does generally support the view that these kings exercised considerable power over large parts of England. Keynes asserts that it is inconceivable that Aelle of Sussex and Ceawlin of Wessex, the first two rulers, could have wide ranging power. We know little about them, but the Chronicle entries do suggest that they were significant and had successes, particularly against the Britons.3 Furthermore, Myres’ studies of the distribution of pottery fragments suggest that both rulers exercised some authority in the Midlands and East Anglia, since pottery finds match those in their native kingdoms. The evidence is not sufficient to suggest that they had control as far north as the Humber, but we would be unwise to dismiss the idea that these kings had some form of overlordship over much of southern England. Furthermore, Keynes is sceptical about Aethelbert of Kent’s power, suggesting that Bede’s reiteration of the claim that he was king of all the land south of the Humber4 shows that this was dubious, requiring repetition to convince readers. However, the papal appeal that Aethelbert should spread the Word to his subjects suggests that he had considerable power, as Higham argues, even if he was not literally â€Å"king of the English†, the style accorded to him by the appeal.5 It is less easy to rebut Keynes’ diminution of Raedwald of East Anglia, since we know very little about him. If we could be more certain that the person buried at Sutton Hoo is indeed Raedwald (as many historians posit), we could assume that he was a very rich and powerful king; however, Keynes does not give us any positive reason to doubt Bede’s claim regarding Raedwald’s wide overlordship. Although Keynes asserts that Bede makes inflated claims about the scope of the influence of Edwin, Oswald and Oswiu of Northumbria, there is no strong evidence to support this: Bede’s account is internally consistent, giving examples of these kings intervening in the Mevanian Islands (Angelsey and Man),6 Wessex,7 East Anglia,8 and Mercia9 at various times. These interventions could be entirely military (as is implied for the islands) or could involve peaceful shows of power, such as Oswald’s participation in the baptism of Cynigils of Wessex. It seems reasonable to conclude that these kings did exert influence across large parts of Southumbria and it appears that the areas they could control increased; Keynes’ attempt to deny extensive overlordship in this period to strengthen his (already strong) case against a formal Bretwaldic institution is not particularly convincing. Furthermore, overlordship did not end with Oswiu: indeed, the later Mercian kings were possibly even more successful in securing practical overlordship across much of Southumbria. Bede acknowledges that the southern kingdoms were subject to Aethelbald at the time he was writing,10 supporting Dumville’s conclusion that the omission of the Mercian kings from the earlier list was prompted by concern to curtail the digression from Aethelbert’s death, rather than Northumbrian bias. There is evidence of Mercian hegemony in the south before Aethelbald: Bede explicitly states that the South Saxons were subject to Wulfhere11 and Eddius refers to Wulfhere’s ability to draw forces from all the southern kingdoms.12 Furthermore, charters give us evidence that Mercian kings were overlords in Southumbria: in the Ismere Diploma, Aethelbald is styled â€Å"king not only of the Mercians but also of all provinces which are called by the general name ‘South English'†;13 Offa could confirm a land grant by an ealdorman of the South Saxons;14 Offa was apparently the â€Å"most beloved lord† of the Hwicce;15 Offa was in a position to revoke a grant of land by the King Egbert of Kent;16 Wiglaf could grant land in Worcestershire;17 and Brihtwulf could do the same in Berkshire.18 This charter evidence is very important: it demonstrates that the kings of Mercia in this period claimed authority over other southern kingdoms and also implies that this authorit y could have practical manifestations, such as the right to grant land or at least to confirm grants made by their underkings. The extent of their authority seems to decline after Offa, but the principle of overlordship, in a more limited sense, continued. One of the most debated possible indicators of widespread Mercian overlordship is the document known as the Tribal Hidage. The difficulties and ambiguities of this text are such that the charter evidence cited is a far stronger sign of extensive Mercian overlordship, but there is a significant possibility that the Tribal Hidage is a Mercian tribute list, estimating the tribute that the Mercian kings hoped to collect from southern kingdoms. Higham’s bold self-confidence in dismissing a Mercian origin is unwise, in that such levels of certainty are wholly inappropriate in this context: all we can do is suggest hypotheses, while accepting that other hypotheses may be valid. As Featherstone and Sawyer point out, the methodical arrangement, with the kingdoms being arranged in an approximately clockwise order around Mercia, hints at a Mercian origin. The inclusion of a figure for Mercia, which Higham sees as evidence that the document is a Northumbrian tribute list, might be an assessment of internal food renders, Featherstone suggests. The preservation and copying of the Tribal Hidage imply that there was some practical purpose in estimating the hidation of Southumbria: it is still possible to accept tentatively the claims of Davies and Vierck that the Tribal Hidage is an indicator of widespread Mercian overlordship. There is some agreement that Egbert of Wessex, whom the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle appends to Bede’s list of overlords and styles Bretwalda (Manuscript A – ‘ruler of Britain’) or Brytenwalda (other Manuscripts – ‘wide ruler’), was overlord of extensive territories. Keynes accepts the Chronicle’s claim that Egbert â€Å"conquered the kingdom of the Mercians, and everything south of the Humber†;19 this statement must cast doubt upon Stenton’s assertion that the extent of Egbert’s overlordship was not comparable to Offa’s. Nevertheless, Keynes’ claim that Egbert was the first, not the eighth, wide ruler is dubious: the evidence very strongly suggests that overlordship had been an aspect of Anglo-Saxon politics for centuries. However, the territories being brought under a single overlord were tending to increase in scale: the archaeological record suggests that the early great kings, like Aelle and Ceawlin, could aspire to rule much of the land south of the Humber, but nothing like as much as the later Mercians and Egbert. This trend was not relentless: in the period between Offa and Egbert, there is little evidence of comprehensive overlordship on the scale of either of these rulers. Although we observe this trend towards the formation of more extensive overlordships, we should not conclude, as Stenton and John do, that this trend could be extrapolated to encompass the unification of the Anglo-Saxon kingdoms. In the first place, it seems to have been increasingly difficult to convert overlordship into the actual amalgamation of kingdoms. Initially, with small kingdoms, it may not have been unduly difficult to effect such assimilation: Yorke points out that East Kent seems to have consumed West Kent sometime during the sixth century. Indeed, much amalgamation probably occurred in the sixth century, before the various kingdoms that we see emerged. Furthermore, it was often possible for a larger kingdom to digest a smaller one: this is seen in the cases of Deira (eventually subsumed into Bernicia after 651) and the Hwicce (gradually divested of independence by Mercia in the eighth century). However, integration was not always smooth: despite being united under Aethelfrith and Edwin, Deira was ruled separately under Oswine from 642 until 651. In the latter part of the pre-Viking period, it would have been very difficult for one of the greater kingdoms to consume another permanently: this is suggested by the fact that, despite their struggles and periods of subjection to one another, Northumbria, East Anglia, Mercia and Wessex all survived until the Viking onslaught. An illustration of this difficulty is the case of Mercia: Oswiu of Northumbria was only able to rule Mercia directly for three years after his victory in 655; he was driven out by the Mercian ealdormen in 658. Similarly, Egbert’s domination of Mercia was not secure: he was recognised as king by the Mercians in 829 but Wiglaf was restored in 830. Indeed, it would seem that political union was most successful when it was pursued gently: unlike Offa’s aggressive attempts to dominate Kent from 764 until 785, Wessex’s absorption of Kent and Sussex was done with sensitivity to the local nobles; this did, however, mean that the sense of union was perhaps not cemented, as is suggested by Aethelwulf’s proposed division of Greater Wessex, with Aethelbert succeeding in the East and his other sons taking Wessex itself in turn. However, unification in the ninth and tenth centuries can be explained in that the situation after the coming of the Vikings was different, since Mercia, East Anglia and Northumbria were seriously weakened by the attacks, aiding Wessex’s expansion. Moreover, the overlordship that we see was probably highly opportunistic, without institutional underpinnings. Yorke is probably right that the principal motivation for overlordship was the collection of tribute: Bede mentions tribute in connection with overlordship20 and Eddius says that Wulfhere’s purpose in attacking Northumbria was to gain tribute.21 Furthermore, the Mercians could presumably have conquered a tribe like the Hicca (assessed at a mere 300 hides in the Tribal Hidage), had they wished to do so; that such tribes existed as notionally independent entities suggests that, if the Tribal Hidage is a Mercian tribute list, the Mercians were content with tribute rather than political union. However, John argues that there was some kind of institutional framework and that overlordship was being gradually translated into unification. Key to this argument is the adoption of formal titles by kings: John contends that the ideal of a united Britain was a real one in kings’ minds, citing the use of various titles. The most famous of these is Bretwalda or, as John prefers, Brytenwalda, which appear in different versions of the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle;22 I shall not become drawn into an argument about which style is the original, because the ambiguity and confusion is sufficient of itself, as Wormald argues, to cast doubt upon the existence of such an institution in reality. Clearly, whoever was copying the manuscripts was not familiar with the term, which suggests that it was a literary construct devised retrospectively to describe Egbert; its frequent application to kings like Aelle and Raedwald is therefore probably anachronistic and Kirby’s vision of kings â€Å"striving to become Bretwalda†23 is most likely to be fanciful. John also argues that other titles imply the existence of some kind of abstract concept of overlordship separate from the individual kings who happened to be overlords. For example, he highlights that Adomnan says that Oswald was â€Å"ordained by God as emperor of all of Britain†24 and that Boniface refers to Aethelbald â€Å"wielding the glorious sceptre of imperial rule over the English†.25 This evidence, combined with the point about Bretwaldas, is a rather thin basis for a case: it is quite possible that the titles were simply being used for flattery; the fact that Boniface calls Aethelbald â€Å"king of the Mercians† in his letter asking Herefrith to deliver the previous communication suggests that the imperial title used in the letter to Aethelbald was unofficial.26 Moreover, Offa is also generally styled â€Å"king of the Mercians†,27 as is Cenwulf.28 In their charters, they tend to claim to be kings of various kingdoms, rather than stressing title s of institutional overlordship. If there was no institution of overlordship, each de facto overlordship would have to start afresh in trying to create cohesion: the trend of increasingly extensive overlordship was not therefore destined to result in the formation of England, since there was often little continuity between the different overlords. The sense of common identity that began to emerge by the later ninth century (Alfred could speak of Angelkynn and Englisc) probably had far more to do with religious unity in the face of the pagan Viking threat. As Wormald argues, the Church, rather than the so-called Bretwaldas, was the institution that provided a common reference point for the Anglo-Saxon kingdoms, by stressing that the Gens Anglorum was a chosen people, selected to receive the Word. Given that there were most probably no institutions to produce continuity in overlordship, momentum towards unification could only be maintained as long as a particular kingdom was in the ascendant; however, the nature of Anglo-Saxon politics in this period was such that success tended to be transient. We see this is Northumbria, whose hegemony collapsed very quickly after defeats at the Battle of the Trent (679) and Nechtansmere (685). Likewise, Mercian hegemony seems to have declined gradually after Offa. There was, to a significant extent, a natural instability in the pattern of politics: kings required land to grant to warriors (to secure their support), which required the conquest of land, which required more warriors; this pattern was clearly unsustainable in the longer term. The importance of giving gifts to warriors is seen in â€Å"Beowulf†, where Hrothgar says that he will â€Å"dispense / his God-given goods to young and old†;29 Bede shows that such gifts were necessary in the real world, expressing concern that excessive endowment of secularised monasteries had left Northumbria with insufficient land to grant to warriors. 30 There is evidence to suggest that warriors would desert their lord, if he ceased to provide them with treasure and land: Aldhelm expresses disapproval of those who do this in his letter to the clergy of Bishop Wilfrid.31 Probably, the importance of conquering new lands explains why the initiative shifted away from the south-east to Northumbria, Mercia and Wessex: these kingdoms could, at least for a while, conquer land from Britons, in a way that kingdoms like Kent could not. A notable feature of both â€Å"Beowulf† and Anglo-Saxon politics is that kingdoms tended to come to grief sooner or later; success was rarely lasting. Another source of instability was internal dynastic politics: there seem to have been frequent civil wars. This is hardly surprising given that, according to Dumville, any aetheling could claim the throne through descent in the male line from the founder of the kingdom: the â€Å"multiplicity of aethelings†32 would not infrequently compete for the kingship. The Historia Regum attributed to Simeon of Durham demonstrates that four different dynasties competed for the Northumbrian throne between 759 and 796, with murders, exiles and (probably forced) tonsures being common.33 Similarly, there is evidence of the threat of dynastic instability in Mercia, in that Offa decided to eliminate his son Cenwulf’s potential competitors; Alcuin attributes conflict in Cenwulf’s reign to this policy and says that â€Å"this was not the strengthening of his kingdom, but its ruin†. 34 Given that there were such internal problems, it is hardly surprising that kingdoms could lose overlordship quickly, as dynastic politics came to predominate. The importance of dynastic stability is seen in the eventual rise of Wessex: Egbert’s successes against Mercia came when the latter was probably engaged in dynastic wrangles; Campbell suspects that neither Ludeca (825-7) nor Wiglaf (827-40) were related to their predecessors. On the other hand, the West Saxon succession was more stable, as Dumville points out: this is seen in the succession in turn of Aethelwulf’s sons, even if it did not conform entirely to Aethelwulf’s intentions. However, dynastic tension was generally a feature of the pre-Viking period: this contributed to the rapid rise and fall of kingdoms, meaning that overlordship could not consolidate into unification. We do therefore see a trend towards greater overlordships in this period, though it must be noted that this trend was gradual and not entirely linear. Nevertheless, it is clear that certain kings were able to exert influence over far larger areas just before the Viking invasions than others could at the beginning of the Anglo-Saxon period. However, it would be unwise to extrapolate this trend and interpret it as some kind of progression towards the eventual unification of the Anglo-Saxon kingdoms under the West Saxons. It became harder to translate overlordship into political amalgamation as kingdoms grew, and overlordship was not itself stable, given the internal vicissitudes of kingdoms. We see that, before the later ninth and tenth centuries, no kingdom could sustain overlordship for long and, in the absence of recognised institutions of overlordship, this meant that whatever progress might conceivably have been made towards unification under one overlord was lost when his kingdom’s power waned. The rise of Wessex was predicated upon factors that mostly could not have been foreseen: it was able to take advantage of the weakness of the other English kingdoms in the wake of the Viking attacks and could exploit the latent sense of religious unity, which was probably made stronger by the common, external, pagan threat. Bassett’s extended metaphor of a knockout football competition, which inevitably produces a single winner, is not particularly apposite; while we might nowadays modify Kemble’s nineteenth century allusions (he described overlordship as â€Å"a mere fluctuating superiority such as we may find in Hawaii, Tahiti or New Zealand, due to success in war and lost in turn by defeat†35), his basic conclusion, that the overlordships that we see in the pre-Viking Anglo-Saxon kingdoms were not leading inexorably towards unification, still seems entirely reasonable. Bibliography Sources: Adomnan, Life of Columba, ed. and trans. R. Sharpe (1995) Anglo-Saxon Chronicle, in ‘English Historical Documents’, i, 1, ed. and trans. D. Whitelock (1955) Beowulf, trans. S. Heaney (1999) Bede, Ecclesiastical History, ed. and trans. B. Colgrave and R.A.B. Mynors (1969) Bede, Letter to Egbert, in ‘English Historical Documents’, i, 170, ed. and trans. D. Whitelock (1955) Eddius, Life of St Wilfred, in ‘English Historical Documents’, i, 154, ed. and trans. D. Whitelock (1955) Simeon of Durham, Historia Regum, in ‘English Historical Documents’, i, 3, ed. and trans. D. Whitelock (1955) Charters: in ‘English Historical Documents’, i, 54, 66-7, 76-7, 79-80, 85-7 Letters: in ‘English Historical Documents’, i, 165-6, 177-9, 191-3, 195, 197-200, 202, 204-5, 208-10, ed. and trans. D. Whitelock (1955) Secondary works: S. Bassett (ed.), The Origins of the Anglo-Saxon Kingdoms (1989) M.P. Brown and C.A. Farr (eds.), Mercia: An Anglo-Saxon Kingdom in Europe (2001) J. Campbell, Bede’s Reges and Principes (Jarrow Lecture 1979), in J. Campbell, Essays in Anglo-Saxon History (1986) J. Campbell (ed.), The Anglo-Saxons (1982) J. Campbell, The Impact of the Sutton Hoo Discovery on the Study of Anglo-Saxon History, in J. Campbell, The Anglo-Saxon State (2000) W. Davies and H. Vierck, The Contexts of the Tribal Hidage: Social Aggregates and Settlement Patterns, in ‘Frà ¯Ã‚ ¿Ã‚ ½hmittelalterliche Studien 8’ (1974) D.N. Dumville, The Aetheling: a study in Anglo-Saxon Constitutional History, in ‘Anglo-Saxon England 8’ (1979) D.N. Dumville, The Terminology of Overkingship in Early Anglo-Saxon England, in ‘The Anglo-Saxons from the Migration Period to the Eighth Century: An Ethnographic Perspective’, ed. J. Hines (1997) N.J. Higham, An English Empire: Bede and the early Anglo-Saxon kings (1995) D. Hill, Offa’s Dyke: Pattern and Purpose, in ‘Antiquaries Journal 80’ (2000) E. John, Orbis Britanniae and the Anglo-Saxon Kings, in E. John, ‘Orbis Britanniae’ (1966) J.M. Kemble, The Saxons in England, ed. and revised W. De G. Birch (1876) S. Keynes, Raedwald the Bretwalda, in ‘Voyage to the Other World: the Legacy of Sutton Hoo’, ed. C.B. Kendall and P.S. Wells (1992) S. Keynes, England 700-900, in ‘The New Cambridge Medieval History II, c.700-c.900’, ed. R. McKitterick (1995) D.P. Kirby, The Making of Early England (1967) D.P. Kirby, The Earliest English Kings (1991) J.N.L. Myres, Anglo-Saxon Pottery and the Settlement of England (1969) P.H. Sawyer, From Roman Britain to Norman England (1998) F.M. Stenton, The Supremacy of the Mercian Kings (1918), in F.M. Stenton, ‘Preparatory to Anglo-Saxon England’ (1970) F.M. Stenton, Anglo-Saxon England (1971) A. Williams, Kingship and Government in Pre-Conquest England c.500-1066 (1999) P. Wormald, Bede, the Bretwaldas and the Origins of the Gens Anglorum, in ‘Ideal and Reality in Frankish and Anglo-Saxon Society: Studies presented to J.M. Wallace-Hadrill’, ed. P. Wormald et al. (1983) P. Wormald, The Venerable Bede and the Church of the English, ‘The English Religious Tradition and the Genius of Anglicanism’, ed. G. Rowell (1992) B. Yorke, Kings and Kingdoms of Early Anglo-Saxon England (1990) 1 Anglo-Saxon Chronicle, 865 2 Bede, Ecclesiastical History, ii, 5 3 Anglo-Saxon Chronicle, 485, 491, 568, 577, 584 4 Bede, Ecclesiastical History, i, 25; ii, 3; ii, 5 5 Bede, Ecclesiastical History, i, 32 6 Bede, Ecclesiastical History, ii, 5; ii, 9 7 Bede, Ecclesiastical History, ii, 9; iii, 7 8 Bede, Ecclesiastical History, ii, 14 9 Bede, Ecclesiastical History, ii, 16 10 Bede, Ecclesiastical History, v, 23 11 Bede, Ecclesiastical History, iii, 30 12 Eddius, Life of St Wilfred, 20 13 English Historical Documents, i, 67 14 English Historical Documents, i, 76 15 English Historical Documents, i, 77 16 English Historical Documents, i, 80 17 English Historical Documents, i, 85 18 English Historical Documents, i, 87 19 Anglo-Saxon Chronicle, 829 20 Bede, Ecclesiastical History, ii, 5; iii, 24 21 Eddius, Life of St Wilfred, 20 22 Anglo-Saxon Chronicle, 829 23 Kirby, The Making of Early England, p 54 24 Adomnan, Life of Columba, i, 1 25 English Historical Documents, i, 177 26 English Historical Documents, i, 178 27 English Historical Documents, i, 191, 198, 210 28 English Historical Documents, i, 204, 205 29 Beowulf, lines 72-3 30 Bede, Letter to Egbert 31 English Historical Documents, i, 165 32 Dumville, The aetheling: a study in Anglo-Saxon constitutional history, p 13 33 Simeon of Durham, Historia Regum, in English Historical Documents, i, 3 34 English Historical Documents, i, 202 35 Kemble, The Saxons in England, volume ii, p 17