And often is used to invalidate the study and practice of history.
It is based on truth. Those who are dominant, or gain dominance, often shape narratives to suit their agendas.
An example of this is the Third Punic War – where the Roman Republic destroyed Carthage. The Carthaginians were said to have sacrificed babies as part of their religion. Therefore, the Romans felt justified in taking their conquest. however, whilst infant skeletons were and have been discovered, we don’t know why they died. Or whether it was sacrifice or not.
The Norman Conquest of England is also another factor. My own view is that the standard narrative is sketchy, and maybe concocted. King St. Edward the Confessor couldn’t have promised William the throne. That was beyond his power as Anglo-Saxon kingship didn’t work this way. The eldest capable relative of the former monarch took the throne. The great King Athelstan – the first king of England – had no children, just like St. Edward. But King Edmund, Athelstan’s eldest half-brother, succeeded him. Edmund had two children, who later became kings of England – Edwy and Edgar the Peaceful. But they were children at the time, and Edmund’s full brother (Athelstan’s half-brother) Eadred took control after Edmund’s death. The Bayeux Tapestry also was written post hoc, using faulty knowledge to justify the Normans’ conquest. It’s not advisable to take it on face value, IMHO.
Is the Norman Conquest narrative true? Who knows?
So whilst ruling powers can control the narrative, this doesn’t mean all history is based on their doctoring of the points at hand.
Let’s take random events/people from various eras of British history. Let us choose:
– The Anglo-Saxon invasions post-Roman departure – King James VI of Scots and I of England and Ireland – Benjamin Disraeli
How do we know these events and people existed?
Well, there are several common steps in historical analysis.
We look at both primary and secondary sources. Primary sources are those taken directly from events or actors. Secondary sources are those from others with second-hand knowledge. These often are written records, but also can be in modern times video, audio, photos, etc. If various people – especially those on opposing sides of a conflict or struggle – comment on it, this is proof concoction is unlikely.
Artefacts are another point. We can physically dig up bones, weapons, or jewellery, or other items of value.
Wood can be tested to determine the age a tree was felled.
DNA from bones and tissue can determine the place of origin, and even a person’s diet.
Moreover, a solid test is to match all of these items to determine the facts as close to reasonable narrative as possible.
We know the Anglo-Saxon invasions happened for the following reasons – linguistic changes such as English, which didn’t exist as much in Roman Britain. Many placenames in England are Anglo-Saxon. The DNA of most English is heavily Germanic – though this could be Norse as much as Anglo-Saxon. And the records of the Venerable Bede corroborate with general facts of the invasion. Bede lived 200 years or so afterwards, but then as a noted clergyman he may have had access to records denoting this. Or even heard fables, tales, or stories supporting his narrative. We can date bones from the period, as well as felled trees use to make ships.
And how do we know Benjamin Disraeli existed? Well we have photos. We have numerous written records (Hansard for instance) documenting his speeches in Parliament. We also have statements from his rivals, like William Gladstone, commenting on him. And from his sovereign, Queen Victoria. He after all arranged for her to be styled Empress of India.
Similar can be said of King James. Records of him span his reigns of Scotland, and then from 1603, England and Ireland.
Hengist and Horsa led the initial Anglo-Saxon invasions. We don’t know if they existed due to a sparsity of records available
History therefore, whilst not a science in the classic sense, uses a methodology very close to a classic Popperian model. That is – hypothesise, test, and then theorise.
What is historical fact is therefore what we know based on the evidence at hand.
Let’s take King Henry VI. We know that he had often years of catatonia. But was he schizophrenic? Did he have autism? Did he ingest something to cause this? Or had some other congenital neurological issue? We cannot know. We just know, from records, that he his illnesses were apparent.
So yes, those in power often control narratives. That’s human nature. But then proper history is geared to looking objectively at various inputs. If they match, or provide a reasonable narrative stemming from the facts, then we get “historical fact”. Or facts as far as we can know.
We know that before the Christianisation of the Anglo-Saxons, that they believed in Woden. Just as the Norse believed in Odin. However, we don’t know if this was the same practice as the Norse. There may have been similarities, considering Woden and Odin were both chief gods of their pantheons. But we don’t know if c. 5th century Anglo-Saxons believed if they died in battle they’d go to a proto-English Valhalla. Or if they sacrificed slaves and animals to Frija for good harvests.
We don’t know because we have no records pointing towards anything – so we cannot fill them in and extrapolate from later Norse records.
History is and can be written by the victors. However, this doesn’t cloud what constitutes historical fact.
A BBC documentary inspired this piece – in which the Tudors, Stuarts, and Hanoverians were all noted for their various ailments and medical shortcomings.
However, what conditions and diseases did Anglo-Saxon sovereigns suffer from?
From the records we have available, we know of several cases:
Alfred the Great
The esteemed punisher of the Norse, scholarly advocate and endower to the church was said to have suffered from Crohn’s Disease.
he himself, as a pious man, thought this was a punishment for youthful frolicking, as it were.
But if it is true he had this condition, then his achievements are all the more remarkable.
Note they didn’t have anywhere near the same understanding as we do today – so he suffered a lot along with safeguarding his kingdom from the Norse.
Eadred
Eadred, like his full brother Edmund, and half-brother Athelstan, was a king of all England. The project commenced by their grandfather Alfred the Great was expanded by Lady Athelflead of Mercia and King Edward the Elder. And after Edward died, it was realised by Athelstan. Both Edmund and Eadred reconquered the Five Boroughs and Jorvik respectively, however like his grandfather, Eadred is said to have suffered from Crohn’s Disease, like his grandfather King Alfred the Great.
There are Chronicles were he’s said to have squeezed the juices from his meat and drank them, as opposed to eating it, due to the meat causing him pain on digestion.
Eadred notedly defeated King Eric Bloodaxe on his way to finalising the unification of England, and did so under immense physical strain to boot.
This is naturally a controversial topic.
So I will breach this with as much sensitivity as possible.
However, I can see both sides to this argument, or debate.
The recent killing of George Floyd in the USA highlighted the ongoing struggle against racism. There are many cases of police brutality in the world, and the protests occurring globally all highlighted this.
Black Lives Matter, BLM, has been a prominent case in this regard as it’s for several years highlighted various cases of racism.
A protest in Bristol by BLM-affiliated groups lately toppled and felled a statue of a noted Bristolian slave trader, Edward Colston.
Bristol was a primary hub of the English and later British slave trade, though it was superseded by Liverpool in the mid-18th century. Merchants based in the city constructed ships, gathered crews, sourced supplies and wares for sale in the city, and used the profits to construct buildings and for the city’s welfare.
It’s fully understandable why the statue was felled.
The acts of Colston directlyled to the current state of racism. The contemporary anger of the killing of George Floyd directly stems from the actions of Colston, amongst others.
However, the history buff in me revulses a bit, in truth.
When analysing history, we need to detach contemporary morality from studying the past. This ensures that we follow the basis of what history is – what happened, what were the causes of it happening, and what were its effects or precedents. We can praise the Romans, for instance, for their greatness. But they owned slaves – which is against our own morality. However, we need to take this into a proper context. They made great works, won great battles, had great men and figures, but still thought humans could be owned as property. That’s just the way it is, really.
Contemporarising history is a dangerous thing, whether academically or culturally.
There was a debate about the scarring of Churchill’s statue. Churchill’s views on race, eerily enough, were similar in some ways to Churchill. He of course opposed him in the war and didn’t endorse fascism. But as an ardent proponent of British imperialism, he saw the role Britain had in ruling the “lesser races”. Churchill’s views on Indians were quiet Nazi-esque and believed that Britain had a right to rule inferior races imperially.
Another facet is Oliver Cromwell. He stands as one of the best military figures in British history, and his reign as Lord Protector saw the expansion of English colonial interests, religious tolerance, and the reintroduction of Jews into the country.
However, this is balanced by his actions in Ireland, as many Irish died amidst his crushing and conquest of the Irish Confederates. The massacres of Wexford and Drogheda still are remembered as dark and painful episodes in Irish history.
Should his statue be removed, however?
As a history buff, I believe a balance should be struck. Contemporary views and affairs have to be accounted for. But the past is the past – and it’s dangerous to erase it.
This is an irreverent post, albeit mixed with serious reasoning.
So here are some pet peeves of historical analysis that I hold:
– Contemporary projecting
Did the Norse really have powerful warriors and leaders such as Vikings’ Lagertha? Who knows?
Much of history, as of today, consists of savagery, brutality, and inhumanity. It’s an unfortunate facet of human nature.
But then to me, it’s annoying to see people of today translating modern morals onto past actions.
Yes, some things that happened long ago, such as slavery, were reprehensible.
However, that is how they thought at the time. And it undermines proper historical analysis in this part.
It’s also a bit arrogant. Who has the insight to say what is inherently acceptable? Human insight is intrinsically limited. What we know today trumps that of the past. What people may know in the future may supersede today’s knowledge.
Imagine a person of 2020 AD who wears leather often. Let’s say in 2520 AD, there is some global standard that it’s immoral to wear leather. Or any material made from an animal. If Joe/Jane 2020 AD person was transported to this future time, and was condemned for their action, would “but in my time it was normal!” be acceptable? What then if our future brethren said “well, we don’t care. To US it’s wrong, so you must pay!!”
It’s the same thing, really.
In truth, I see morals as more subjective and relative. Morals to me aren’t like the laws of physics. they are human-derived and exist as loose conventions, that’s all. I don’t approve of brutality – however, history is the study for the truth. Like all academia. Projecting modern morals detracts from the truth involved.
– Spreading fallacies and misconceptions
There is no evidence that these figures were black. It’s not something that should be promoted nor encouraged.
Not everybody is schooled in history. that’s fine – few people have perfect knowledge. Well, nobody has perfect knowledge.
But then people on platforms shouldn’t spread knowledge rooted in fallacies.
For instance, “English isn’t a Germanic language”.
Well, it is. I made a post on this a while back, though languages are categorised on grammatic links and descent and not vocabulary. So any inclusion of lexicon is immaterial. English certainly does have more Romance-origin words than German, Frisian, Dutch, or Danish. But then it’s grammatical structure is Germanic, by any accepted standard of such (Grimm’s Law).
People aren’t helped by the spread of false points. And I do my best here to translate facts or at the least accurate knowledge. And I’d want people to call me out on this should I do such (I mean that).
– PC views on history
Hanging, drawing and quartering was a barbaric punishment. But it was the accepted method for treason for centuries in England. Our modern sensibilities on capital punishment or jurisprudence don’t undermine that.
This is related to the first point I’ve made.
Why do BBC documentaries have black characters supporting historical main leads?
And does it matter if past cultures didn’t value gender equality? Or were racist?
Is it our place to judge past cultures?
Who knows?
I’m not a fan of SJW culture in general. But I believe historical analysis shouldn’t be clouded by this.
Stories such as calls for Cambridge University to stop its Anglo-Saxon department are silly, and ultimately are based on this looney anti-racist agenda.
I guess for me, history is about the objective truth, undertaken as fairly as possible.
Is this naive? it could well be. But then there are many reasons for historical analyses. for me, it’s pretty much about seeing how past peoples lived, and the linkages of past actions to current ones.
Mixing PC morals into the mix patently undermines this.
Well, this is the end of my ranting for now. Do you agree or disagree? Supportive and detracting points are welcome!
VE Day at Buckingham Palace – from left to right – HRH Princess Elizabeth (now Queen Elizabeth II), HM Queen Elizabeth (later HM Queen Mother), Prime Minister Sir Winston Churchill, HM King George VI, HRH Princess Margaret
In honour of VE Day or Victory in Europe Day, let us examine why the Allies ultimately defeated the Axis powers.
The Allies, or officially the United Nations, were the countries opposed to the Axis of Germany, Italy, and Japan.
From 1939 to 1945, the Allies included (but were not limited to):
Elbe Day – when US and Soviet troops met at the Elbe River in the latter part of the war
The British Empire (the United Kingdom and all colonies)
British Commonwealth – former British colonies that by 1939 had gained independence and fought under the British cause such as Australia, Canada, New Zealand, and South Africa
France
Soviet Union
United States of America
China
Brazil
After France’s defeat in 1940, remaining forces formed under General de Gaulle and became the Free French. These units often fought in Europe in the liberation of their own country, and performed under both British and American commands in the SHAEF (Supreme Headquarters Allied Expeditionary Force).
Moreover, the forces and exiled governments of Norway, the Netherlands, Belgium, Poland, Czechoslovakia, etc. all were based in Allied territories and co-ordinated with the other Allies militarily.
With no pun intended, the Allied victory was truly an allied effort.
The various Allied countries of the war
As for why Victory in Europe, and ultimately the war, was attained, these are several key reasons:
– Demographics/economics
The economic disparities between the Allies and Axis
Even in 1939, the Allied belligerents formed much of the world’s population, resources, materiel, and military scope. The British Empire was the largest entity in the era, and the French Empire too had extensive lands. China was fighting Japan for a few years before the war started, and like today had the world’s largest population.
Germany had a big population, as did Italy and Japan, but on a toe to toe basis, the Allies still outdid them.
This was skewed immensely towards the Allies once the USSR and USA entered the fray, and even though France surrendered in 1940, the British still made a valiant fight and could draw on a larger resource base than the Axis.
The USA, like today, was the world’s biggest economy and industrial power. The USSR too had much industry, and these factors coupled with their high populations meant that all of the Allies could outproduce the Axis at a canter.
By 1943, the Allied share of world GDP far outstretched the Axis, and this led to dominance accordingly on land, air, and sea.
– Co-operation
Churchill, Roosevelt, and Stalin pictured at one of the major Allied strategic conferences
Both the Allies and Axis were alliances between sovereign powers.
But the Allies had various meetings and conferences, as well as shared commands in all theatres.
SHAEF was notedly led by General Eisenhower, though there were prominent British and American generals under him.
Allied operations in the Pacific too had a unified structure, as did the Atlantic battle.
Churchill, Roosevelt, and Stalin, all had various meetings to discuss grand strategy. Churchill also courted Chinese leader Chiang Kai-shek in support of the war against the Japanese, and thus the Allies shared all available resources.
The Americans and the British both gave the Soviets vital supplies. The British gave the Americans rudimentary research, which was vital in the Manhattan Project. And the Americans gave the British loans which were repaid in the early 21st century.
By drawing on each others’ strengths, and pooling all available resources, the Allies could outfox and undermine the Axis in all theatres.
The Axis in contrast seldom conducted joint operations. the Germans had to bail out the Italians in the Mediterranean, and Hitler had little knowledge of the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor.
With reference to Europe, and then pushes from Italy and Normandy, all Allied armies were under joint command, with full sharing of intelligence, materiel and personnel. The push into Germany from the west was led by Eisenhower overall, but with armies headed by Montgomery, Patton, etc. And within these formations, the mix was multi-national. US armies often had British paratrooper units. And Monty’s army had mostly British troops, but with Canadian, Free French, Polish, and American components.
Brazil fought under US/British command in Italy, and thus this represented truly the self-named United Nations.
– Technological progress
Royal Navy ships at sea using depth charges to destroy U-boats
The Germans did have advanced weapons and methods, which in part brought them successes initially in the war.
However, even in this Blitzkrieg period, the Allies were still technologically sound.
The British use of radar helped thwart the Nazis in the Battle of Britain.
The RAF also used jet engines in limited numbers, which was ahead of the German Luftwaffe designs.
Moreover, the Allies also learned and adapted better.
By the mid-war period, this led to a near-total technological edge over the Axis.
The Battle of the Atlantic was won due to this adaptation, and with the use of sonar, radar, convoys, and aerial reconnaissance.
The Bletchley Park projects in codebreaking also were pivotal and led ultimately to the formation of contemporary computer science.
The Allies were more methodical and pragmatic. And whilst they made mistakes, they were better placed to learn from them and act more wisely in future operations.
– Grand strategy
The German surrender, marking VE Day
Grand strategy in military terms means the overarching reason for war, and how an enemy will be defeated.
From this point, all points from the tactical and operational levels flow.
The Allies from the start had a sound grand strategy. It was based on not just Axis defeat, but on where the key theatres of war would and should be.
The Axis had their goals and aims, but taking in Germany at this point, it had hostile countries all around it. And countries that had greater resources in various means. It needed to have a better-defined strategy, and whilst Hitler laid out his plans in his book “Mein Kampf”, Nazi plans were very haphazard.
The Allies, in contrast, had openly defined and clear goals and were able to form globalised alliances and operations in all theatres.
The doctrine of unconditional surrender was another point here. And in reality, it played into the hands of the Axis, and both Hitler and the Japanese believed in fighting to the last man and not giving in.
This was in part that the Allies were better led. From political leaders to generals, they were methodical and pragmatic. The Axis had good leaders too, but then they made as many critical errors as Hitler did. Hitler arguably was responsible for Germany’s initial rapid wins against France, Belgium, the Netherlands, Denmark, and Norway. Even the “Desert Fox” General Rommel had some mishaps in his North Africa campaign.
So in summary, a mix of demographic, technological, economic, and co-operative might led to Victory in Europe, and ultimately over the Axis totally.
Nazi generals at the surrender signing ceremony
Most wars in history have been won on these factors, and as today is a day for the commemoration of these events, it’s keen to note why we can enjoy VE Day.
Offa of Mercia Ecgberht of Wessex Alfred the Great of Wessex and the Anglo-Saxons Athelstan of the Anglo-Saxons and England
Some even say (erroneously) that William the Conqueror was.
But who exactly can be deemed the first?
The common view, amongst historians and early medieval students alike, is King Athelstan. And I tend to agree.
However, let’s look at the candidates involved, and how their claim shapes up:
Offa of Mercia
Offa was a noted king of Mercia, whose rule in the 8th century signified the Mercian Supremacy, or a period of dominance that this kingdom held.
Mercia was a kingdom, part of the Heptarchy, situated in what is now the midlands of England. The following modern counties could be said to the part of the kingdom, such as Berkshire, Buckinghamshire, Bedfordshire, Hertfordshire, the northern half of Greater London (,i.e. north of the River Thames), Northamptonshire, Rutland, Lincolnshire, Nottinghamshire, Derbyshire, Leicestershire, Cheshire, Merseyside, Herefordshire, Worcestershire, Warwickshire, West Midlands, Staffordshire, and Oxfordshire.
So one can note Mercia’s size and power, compared to Wessex, East Anglia, and Northumbria in this era. Offa was also bretwalda, or high king of the Anglo-Saxons, and held suzerainty over all the other kingdoms in the country.
This is where Offa’s claims to be first King of England comes to play. Though it’s loose I feel. Firstly, holding suzerainty is different to true sovereignty. The best modern example of suzerainty could be the EU. The EU has institutions, like a Parliament and a Court of Justice, but it’s not a state. It is a union of member states, which are all sovereign countries, who provide funding and scope towards the EU’s maintenance and existence. So Offa may have gained submission over Northumbria or Wessex, but there still was a King of Northumbria, who in theory and practice break his tie of submission. So he didn’t rule directly over one acknowledged kingdom.
Another point is that after Offa died, and his son and successor as King of Mercia (Coenwulf) died also, Mercian power started to crumble. The suppressed kingdoms under Offa’s rule had started to reasserted their power, and it was Wessex which gained dominance in the early 9th century. So any notion of Offa being a singular king of the English, or England, is unlikely as his dominion soon ended after his death.
The rise of Wessex leads to the next candidate, in:
King Ecgberht of Wessex
Ecgberht is depicted in the History Channel show Vikings, though this like most facets of the show needs to be taken with a pinch of salt.
King Ecbert from History Channel’s Vikings
Vikings draws on some facets of the real life Ecgberht, including his son and successor as King Aethelwulf, his overlordship (or bretwalda) status over the other Anglo-Saxon kingdoms, and his struggles with the Norse (which in the show are not true to history).
However, his claim to being the first King of England is again moot, like Offa. Aethelwulf inherited much of the Wessex supremacy, as Mercia had weakened greatly by the 9th century. The same is true of Northumbria, and kingdoms existent in the 7th and 8th centuries such as Kent, Essex, and Sussex, had been absorbed by that time into Wessex. Ecgberht himself was from Kent, prior to being Wessex’s king. Akin to Offa, Ecgberht just had suzerainty over the other English kingdoms, and was not the singular king of the entirety of the Anglo-Saxon peoples.
Aethelwulf had several sons who succeeded him as King, including Aethelred I, and Alfred the Great.
Alfred the Great
King Alfred the Great surely is one of the finest sovereigns in European history, and possibly in world history.
Medievals often defined grand kingship in three prime areas. The first was piety. A good king, as appointed ultimately by God, had to be the fount of faith in the kingdom, and uphold the church and God’s will in both appointing him and ensuring the well being of his kingdom. Whilst there were bishops, archbishops, and clerics, the king had to be the main temporal power and thus the one most able to be a pious example. Second was being strong in battle. It was a violent time, and there was (as today) an ever present need for national defence. Kings had to be battle ready at all times, and as feudal heads, needed to ensure the kingdom was battle ready, and could ably lead his troops in battle. As king, he was in essence chief warrior. He also had to ensure a strong administration, by enacting just laws, and enabling a strong economy where people could trade. Any successful state, even today, needs good laws and a strong economy.
King Alfred surely met all three criteria, and then some.
But the first King of England? Again, it’s moot.
He did re-style himself as the King of the Anglo-Saxons. Which meant that he was king of all Anglo-Saxons not under Norse rule (as those in the Danelaw). This commenced the project of the Kingdom of the English, or England, at the least.
However, his ruled extended at maximum to most of the old Wessex (minus Essex, which was in Guthrum’s East Anglia), and half of Mercia. He ruled the western half, whilst the Eastern half was in both Guthrum’s kingdom, and in the Norse Five Boroughs (Leicester, Derby, Nottingham, Stamford, and Lincoln). King Alfred never ruled Northumbria, or the Earldom of Bamburgh in the far north of what was to become England.
Alfred’s dream of a united England was commenced by his daughter, Lady Athelflead, and his son, King Edward the Elder, who managed to reconquer all lands south of the Humber. The Norse-controlled areas accepted King Edward’s over-lordship, and they submitted to him as their lord and king.
Regarding the lands north of the Humber, this leads to the final candidate, and my choice (along with most students/academics in medieval English history):
King Athelstan
Athelstan was the son of King Edward the Elder, and thus Alfred the Great’s grandson. He was born during Alfred’s lifetime, and he may have remembered him as a young boy or toddler as he was 4 or 5 years old when Alfred died.
As a young man, he would have spent time in the court of both his father and aunt, with the latter being the Lady of Mercia, and succeeding in this position following the death of her husband Lord Athelred of Mercia. He probably observed first hand the reconquest of the Danelaw, and thus gained experience in combat, tactics and strategy.
After his father died, he faced some issue in securing the throne, but once he did, he completed the family dream as it were, and was the first southern-English based king to rule what is now Northern England.
King Athelstan secured a treaty with the King of Jorvik (modern day York), and once the latter died he took over Jorvik, and later secured the submission of the Earldom of Bamburgh. Bamburgh was a large entity, north of Jorvik, which covered roughly current-day Lothian, Northumberland, Tyne and Wear, and Durham. It was never conquered by the Norse, and corresponded with the old Anglian kingdom of Bernicia.
By this point, in 927 AD, and three years after succeeding his father as King of the Anglo-Saxons, Athelstan now held direct control over all areas once settled and ruled by Anglo-Saxons. In further gaining suzerainty over the King of Deuherbath (the noted Hywel Dya) , the King of Scots, and the King of Strathclyde, Athelstan declared himself King of the English. In this time, it should be noted that kings styled themselves as a king of his people, rather than king of a country. It was only until the high to late medieval period that this changed. The Normans and early Plantagenets both styled themselves as Kings of the English, with the French kings called themselves King of the Franks rather than King of France.
Athelstan further established a unified control of this new kingdom of the English, by instituting new laws, establishing mints across the country, and ensuring all laws and writs held his title of King of the English.
He held direct and uncontested rule over all Anglo-Saxon lands. Those inhabited by Celts, for that matter, were different. Germanic/English influence was his, and his alone.
So for me, as one can surely gather, King Athelstan clinches it.
But there are additional points in his favour, namely:
– Loyalty of all nobles to him and no other sub-kings
His father, King Edward, had various Norse jarls, as well as English ealdormen and thegns, who pledged allegiance to him. Athelstan too had this, but from across the country. There may have been Norse jarls in East Anglia who pledged to Edward. But more Norse in Jorvik did such to Athelstan. There may also have been ethnic English thegns in Jorvik and Bamburgh who did likewise, as Jorvik whilst having largely Norse kings from the 860s AD, was a broad mix of both ethnic Norse and Anglo-Saxons. It’s why there are place names of both English and Norse origin in Yorkshire today (Beverley, Ripon, Sheffield, and Selby, Holbeck, and Thirsk).
– England’s borders
His successors, his half-brothers Kings Edmund and Eadred, both sustained the borders of his kingdom, and also other aspects of his rule.
They both styled themselves as King of the English, and followed in his wake in putting down any revolt or dispute in their own rule as sole king of the English.
Edmund managed to put down the revolt of the Five Boroughs after Athelstan died in 939 AD. Eadred also had a noted conflict with Eric Bloodaxe, a former King of Norway, which resulted in the final incorporation of Jorvik into England.
After the defeat of Bloodaxe in 952 AD, there was no question about England being a singular entity, and that there was only one king over the kingdom. Northumbria, Wessex, Mercia, and East Anglia, were retained as earldoms, but these were loyal nobles to the king, and little more. They helped the king maintain rule and adminstration, and helped solidify English unification.
So Athelstan established both the reality, borders, administration, and tangible concept of a singular English kingdom, which his successors sort to restore and maintain. By the time of Edgar the Peaceful, Athelred the Unready, and Cnut the Great, there was no question that England was a unified and single kingdom. All English, whether from Mercia, East Anglia, or Wessex, had regional ties, but considered themselves English and part of a defined and overarching national kingdom.
This eventuality didn’t exist under Offa, Ecgberht, or Alfred the Great.
Portrait of William the Conqueror in current-day Normandy
The erroneous point of William the Conqueror is interesting, but it’s ultimately false. It’s understandable why people may think this. The Normans, whilst retaining much of the Anglo-Saxon administration and legal custom, did alter many institutions and instil their own values of kingship. However, there already was an English kingdom long before William was ever born, let alone ruled, or won at Hastings. He only imparted a Norman influence over the unified England, and certainly didn’t create it.
As a history buff, the misconceptions that people commonly hold amuse me.
One of them, as an Anglo-Saxonist, is that the Anglo-Saxons were an insignificant people. How could they have contributed anything, if they lost a battle to the Normans? Surely the Normans should take all of the glory, right? Right?
Well…wrong.
Yes, the Normans influenced a lot.
But their influence was largely a modification of Anglo-Saxon ways and means.
The Anglo-Saxons, for many reasons, are a very underrated and underappreciated people, which is unjust in my mind as the true foundational nation of England, and possibly the United Kingdom as we know it today. There are many points, despite Norman and Angevin reforms, which have lasted until today or at the very least shaped Norman and Angevin modes of governance:
Linguistics
Despite the Norman French influence, English is intrinsically Germanic in grammar, syntax, and spelling. Many of our root words, such as man, woman, house, child, etc. are Anglo-Saxons. Even words such as skirt, knife, cake, etc. are from Old Norse, which became integrated into English by means of the 9th/11th century Norse invasions. The bedrock of our everyday language is thus forged by the Anglo-Saxons, and augmented by the Norse, within the Anglo-Saxon period.
Genetics
The genetics, according to recent surveys, of the contemporary English still reflects that of the Anglo-Saxon period. The similarities of the English genome, as it were, are akin to that of Germany and the Netherlands. This is telling, considering the origin of the Angles, Saxons, and Jutes. The picture is not complete though, as areas with high rates of Norse placenames (such as Yorkshire, Lincolnshire, Nottinghamshire, etc.) show these traits. And as the Norse and Anglo-Saxons ultimately came from the same region (Jutland/Scandinavia), one cannot differentiate to any fine degree. Nonetheless, the Danelaw areas, as well as the Kingdom of Jorvik centred on what is now York, were essentially hybrid Anglo-Norse societies, which had led to much intermixing of the native English and incoming Norse peoples.
Either way, the genetic stock of contemporary England is very much Germanic, and ultimately Anglo-Saxon, in form.
Towns/cities
London (in its current form), Birmingham, Manchester, Sheffield, Norwich, Nottingham, Leicester, Stoke on Trent, Coventry, etc. all as major cities in England have their roots in the period. They were established as the capital (in London’s case), or as major ecclesiastical centres (Norwich), in the Anglo-Saxon period.
The Anglo-Saxons, from Offa, to Alfred the great, Athelstan, and Edgar, all took their time to plan communities, and arrange for laws on communal governance and trading. This formed a basis for the Norman introduction of classical medieval record-keeping, and administration.
Laws
Our system of writs dates back to this period. Moreover, the concept of consensual governance has its origins here. Kings used to have ruling councils (Witan) which made laws via consent of the senior nobles (thegns/ealdormen), bishops, and archbishops.
Writs and charters were also used to ensure the veracity and authenticity of land grants, especially from kings to thegns and ealdormen. These were often witnessed and signed by the King’s Witan, or senior clergymen, and again provided basis for the Norman developments to come later.
Relationships between England and the other countries of the British Isles
England has long been the dominant country in the British Isles. The first King of England, Athelstan, gained the submission of the Kings of Wales and King of Scots at his proclamation as King of the English in 927 AD/CE. This arrangement even preceded Athelstan, as kings of Mercia and Wessex often had overlordship over Welsh kings.
English dominance was established, both politically and culturally, by the Anglo-Saxons.
William the Conqueror, and his sons who succeeded him as King (William II “Rufus” and Henry I “Beauclerc”) secured the overlordship of the Kings of Scots also. However, this was a direct continuence from the Anglo-Saxon model.
England as the dominant factor in the British Isles led to the eventual creation of the United Kingdom, as well as England (or an English King and/or ruler) ruling over the other countries in the islands on several occasions. Edward I “Longshanks” managed to subdue Wales, but didn’t quite succeeed in conquering Scotland. However, Lord Protector Oliver Cromwell ruled over England, Scotland, and Ireland essentially as one state (The Protectorate), and had achieved this after military victory over the Scots.
So 1000 years of dominance and dominion had been secured, essentially at the “founding” point of England as a kingdom.
The English character
England has long prided itself on being a forward-thinking, dominant, and assertive country. Due to its foundation amidst conquest and overlordship, this was locked in during the Anglo-Saxon period. The Anglo-Saxons themselves were not just a warlike people. They also valued learning, piety, scholarship, and living off the fruits of the land.
Our literary traditions date back to this time, and not just to works such as Beowulf, but to the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle, the works of art in shrines and churches, and also to the works of the Venerable Bede.
Traditions of kingship/governance
English kings were expected to care for the universal welfare. They also encouraged localised governance (counties/hundreds/wapentakes), and ensured strong administration.
The aforecited Witan was an assemblage of the “good and the great” in England, and thus acknowledged that the King had to secure the support of his nobles who provided him with the taxes and the troops to fight wars. This was, in essence, securing the buy-in from those whom he needed to secure his rule.
The notion that the king should be strong in war, ensure sound administration of his kingdom, and be a model of piety, was forged in this era. This was personified in great sovereigns such as Athelstan, Edgar the Peaceful, and Edward the Confessor, and even in non-Anglo-Saxon monarchs such as Cnut the Great.
A strong administration was required to ensure that coinage systems were efficient, and that various hundred courts, and shire reeve duties, could be handled effectually.
So we can see, the nuts of bolts of England as we know it today were forged by the Anglo-Saxons. They were the true bedrock of England, and the United Kingdom, as we know it.
The Normans would not have had a viable, wealthy, and successful, state to conquer without the Anglo-Saxons.
Moreover, which Norman king of England was:
A recognised saint to this day by both the Catholic and Anglican churches?
Has the epithet “the Great”?
Gained power via peace and not war?
Well there was no “William the Confessor”, “William the Great”, nor “Henry the Peaceful”, were there?
How did William know that King Edward granted the throne to Harold before he died? Wouldn’t this override the supposed fealty Harold swore to him?
And what proof is there that the Confessor gave the throne to him?
Both points largely overrode the English constitution at the time. And yes, England did have a constitution at that time. Any polity must have one, at least basic rules/laws defining its operation.
The English king at that time had duties akin to many other medieval monarchs. Defend the kingdom from threats, ensure sound administration through fore planning and economic growth, and be a guide to the people in piety and Christian righteousness.
The succession details, after a king had died for instance, were not as clear cut as in the later medieval period, or today. Today, it is legally the eldest legitimate child (and not son, this law was recently changed). In Anglo-Saxon, and to be fair Norman times too, it was the most able to rule that succeeded a deceased king. That’s it. This often meant the eldest son. When King Edward the Elder died, he was succeeded by Athelstan as King of the Anglo-Saxons. King Athelstan died in 939 AD/CE as the first King of the English (King of England), and had no children. Due to this, his eldest half-brother, Edmund, succeeded him. Edmund had two children, future kings Edwy and Edgar the Peaceful, but they were small at the time of his death, and thus Edmund’s younger brother, Eadred, succeeded him.
It was specifically the Witan, the Anglo-Saxon ruling council of senior nobles and ecclesiastics, chose the king on this basis. A ruling king had neither right nor prerogative to do this on his own volition.
So these points, in my opinion at the least, are pretty scant and confused.
It’s really a case of “he said, he said”, with no side having true proof in this regard.
The Tapestry is designed to condemn the English, and even rationalise harsh treatment, as King Harold had betrayed them and thus “brought it on all of them”. So considering the central point, that Harold is not known to have betrayed William via a holy oath to him, is tenuous at best, who is to say the Tapestry should be seen as “truth”?
From the Witan’s standpoint, they had no choice but to appoint Harold as king. He was ethnically English (his mother was Norse, though by that time Norse and English had both become English, two hundred years after the Norse invasions, and decades after King Cnut the Great’s reign). As an ethnic Anglo-Saxon, he knew his people’s mannerisms, culture, laws and norms.
The coronation of King Harold
He also was a senior noble, as Earl of Wessex, and as Earl he had the emotional attachment of being ruler of England’s formative kingdom, as it were. King Alfred the Great after all was King of Wessex initially, and it was his initiative that led to his children’s’ (Lady Athelflead and King Edward the Elder) reconquering of the Danelaw, and King Athelstan’s initial amalgamation of the Kingdom of the English.
He also was a proven warrior, fighting in Normandy with Duke William, and against the Welsh. He was the perfect candidate, considering Edgar the Atheling, the Confessor’s great-nephew, was 15, and thus deemed too young and inexperienced to be king. Edgar was the grandson of King Edmund Ironside, an elder half-brother of the Confessor who died in 1016 amidst Cnut’s conquest, and the great-grandson of King Athelred II “the Unready”.
Choosing William, a Frankish duke of Norse descent who held a weak claim, or King Harald Hardrada, a Norseman with an equally shaky claim, was not logical. Harold Godwinson was the able and apt choice, and the Witan were wise enough to know this.
It was Normans who made the Bayeux Tapestry
Bishop Odo, a cousin of King William, commissioned the Tapestry towards the end of William’s reign/life. As aforementioned it was a grand rationalisation for the Conquest. He utilised English seamstresses to do this, as the English had a long history of embroidery, but then Bishop Odo was a Norman. William was Duke of the Normans. And they were relatively close family, possibly cousins twice removed.
Bishop Odo (left) with Duke William (middle)
So the objectivity of this has to be questioned, for these reasons alone.
We do see that persons of the same ethnicity or royal house writing memoirs or accounts. Tacitus and Cassius Dio both wrote early Roman Imperial history, being appointed by Roman Emperors themselves. But then we know from various other records, and archaeological digs, that Roman history as per the accounts is fairly accurate. The Anglo-Saxon Chronicle, written by English, akin to the Roman writers is fairly accurate also, based on similar means.
Though the Tapestry is inherently rooted in false points, the fact it was made by the same people as William, and not just his subjects but his family, must question its objectivity.
Papal support
William claimed he had Papal support, via a Papal Bull or edict, giving him approval to invade England. So if the Pope ordered it, and the Pope then as now is the guardian of God’s will on Earth, then it had to be true. Right?
Not necessarily. Any human institution can be corrupt. And the basis for the Bull was pretty sketchy. William did state that Harold swore fealty in the eyes of God, on holy relics. But how come William is the only person to state this is true? Why was there no public record of this? And considering the consequences, why did Harold deny this ever took place? Surely a holy oath of this magnitude, securing the kingdom of England which was administratively more advanced than other kingdoms in Europe at that time, would have a firm record of some form. Maybe a chronicle entry, or a communique to the Pope or a major Archbishop in Francia. Or an actual painting or a book composed of this.
Did Harold really swear on holy relics to William?
Nothing like this survives, and whilst the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle states in 1052 that Duke William met with King Edward the Confessor, there is no evidence that he promised him the crown. As aforecited, a sitting King alone had no power to do this, and the Witan were the only power who could appoint kings or arrange succession.
So what really happened in 1066? We know the effects, naturally. The effects range from linguistic, cultural, architectural, and political. Though there is a lot of contention on the exact details, which we may never really know in its fullest.
My own suspicion is that the truth is somewhere in the middle between the three viewpoints. Edward the Confessor had no real power to appoint a successor, and couldn’t go behind the Witan’s back and appoint Duke William. Harold was the best placed to succeed him in England, whilst Harald Hardrada wished to resume some semblance of Cnut the Great’s North Sea Empire.
So was the Bayeux Tapestry doctored, or even fabricated? Who knows? It would not surprise me, given who commissioned it, and the need for a rationalisation of the Conquest.
Historia Nobis 