Guests and Fish – The Famed Hospitality of the Anglo-Saxons

The fires are blazing, the table is laden, and the lord, the ring giver, is surrounded by his comitatus and household. He welcomes all those into his hall who wish to enter. They feast and share news, drinking and warming themselves from the ruddy heat of the flames. But is that really how it would have been, over a thousand years ago? It’s wonderful to consider such a scene and imagine its reality. The good ol’ Anglo-Saxons – it seems they really understood the concept of ‘Eat, Drink and Be Merry.’ However, I recently read an article by Alban Gautier that made me question this preconceived notion of Anglo-Saxon hospitality. Simply put, Gautier points out that the guest, by his nature, was (and I suppose to an extent, still is) something to be regarded with suspicion; so much so that strict rules bound the ideas of guesting and feasting into obligations for both parties.  My gran told me that ‘guests and fish begin to smell bad after three days;’ a quote she stole from Benjamin Franklin, and one he evidently stole from the Anglo-Saxons.

The nature of the guest is a particularly interesting facet of Gautier’s argument. Suspicion of the guest has been rife for thousands of years – Gautier makes reference to Homeric societies that required the guest to be ‘tamed’ through being washed and dressed in new clothes before the host would receive him. Similarly, Beowulf in the famous eponymous poem lays down his weapons in an ‘airlock’ antechamber before being presented to Hrothgar, and entering the encapsulated world of the hall. This way, Beowulf and his warrior band are neutralised both literally and metaphorically, and thus are safe to be allowed into Heorot.

Once inside, the reality of a free and open table is restricted by tight rules and codes of conduct. Hierarchy is the name of the game, and the guest had to prove himself worthy of assimilating into the microcosm. Beowulf proves himself with his heroic actions against Grendel and his Mother, and thus earns the trust and respect from Hrothgar. The lord asks him to become a permanent member of the hall. The warrior has earned his place through displays of valour, and only then is he fully welcomed and assimilated into the group. This is a strikingly different view to the seminal writing of John Thrupp, who in 1862 wrote that ‘all comers, high, low, rich and poor’ were welcome to feast at the kings table. They may have been welcome for a time, but after three days or so, they would have been encouraged on their way. And would they have actually sat at the king’s table? I doubt it.

This is because of the integral notions of obligation and reciprocity; words that interestingly apply to both hospitality and hostage taking. When a guest enters the hall, the host becomes responsible for him and his actions. Similarly, the guest becomes indebted to the host – a circle of obligation that keeps the whole thing stable. All in all, this means that a guest won’t stay for long, and if he does, he must officially enter into the hierarchy, such as in Beowulf. This means that strangers and wanderers become rooted within a group, and thus are no longer a threat as an outsider. To take this idea of obligation further, Gautier comments on William of Malmesbury’s The Life of Wulfstan, wherein the prior breaks Lent to cater for a group of visiting clergymen. This is because he is obliged by strict custom and hierarchy to accommodate for his high status visitors. Despite Bede’s (questionable) story of Bishop Aiden, who freely gave his horse to the peasant who asked him for alms, it is highly unlikely that Wulfstan would have broken Lent to cater for ‘all comers…rich and poor,’ ‘poor’ being the operative word. So despite hospitality being a central and strictly regulated compulsion extended to all areas of society, hierarchy still affected and ruled its heart.

All in all, the subject is broad and exciting, and this post barely even scratches the surface of what hospitality meant to the Anglo-Saxons. But it’s clear to see that the preconceived notions of free and open feasting are rather different from the reality, wherein strict rules and hierarchy formed the basis of a pre-market society. This developed into renders that enriched the king’s revenue, and then the development of wics outweighed the reliance on a ‘system of practical and social interdependencies.’ Alban Gautier’s article is really interesting, and far more comprehensive than this short post, so I recommend that everyone gives it a read!

Sources

Bede, Sherley-Price, L. (ed.), A History of the English Church and People, (London, 1968), pp. 164-5.

Gautier, A., ‘Hospitality in pre-viking Anglo-Saxon England’, Early Medieval Europe, 17 (2009), pp. 23-44.

Hines, J., ‘Society, Community and Identity,’ in Charles-Edwards, T. (ed.), After Rome; Short Oxford History of the British Isles, (Oxford, 2003) pp 69-70.

Lavelle, R., ‘The Use and Abuse of Hostages in Later Anglo-Saxon England’, Early Medieval Europe, 14 (2006), pp. 269–96.

Conversion in Northern Europe in the Early Middle Ages.

When thinking about the process of conversion the circumstances which resulted in a change from one religion to another must be explored. For this case, the conversion process to Christianity in northern Europe in the early middle ages is the example that will be considered.

One of the main circumstances that allowed for a successful conversion to take place was the initial conversion of the king. The power that the king wielded allowed for resources to be harnessed to aid the spread the spread of Christianity and also meant that he could influence his retainers and fellow rulers to convert as well. This is apparent in the example of King Ethelberht of Kent, who used the bonds of loyalty present in Anglo-Saxon society to influence the baptisms of King Sigeberht of Essex and King Raedwald of East Anglia. In this period, the role of the king included that of a sacral one, which meant that he wielded influence over the religion of his kingdom. This could either be by introducing it relatively peacefully, such as in the case of Iceland, whereby, according to the Islendingbók, an agreement was reached between chieftains at the Althing – the parliament assembly – which resulted in Christianity becoming the formal religion of the country. Alternatively, it could also happen by more forceful means, such as in the case of the military conquests what were imposed by the Frankish armies in Frisia and Saxony. Here, war and conversion were intimately linked, with bishops accompanying the armies that were sent out, and then settling in communities in the areas which had been conquered and establishing monasteries there. As well as by war, the marriage of kings to already Christian princesses was another way in which kings could influence the conversion process. Ethelberht of Kent again provides a useful example of this. As part of his marriage to Bertha of Frankia, the princess was allowed to bring her chaplain Liudhard with her, which resulted in more favourable circumstances for conversion.

The king also played an important role in providing protection for the new church when it was introduced in these new areas as a new religion. In the First Saxon Capitulary in 782, provision is made for the protection of priests and missionaries. In another capitulary, further provisions for the protection of the ecclesiae are made, with people who treated priests with hostility being liable to having to pay double compensation. Furthermore, such legislation allowed for the tenets of the Christian faith to gradually be implemented further. Examples of this include moves made by King Earconbert of Kent, who introduced measures to eliminate idols in his kingdom. Financial backing and providing land also played another important role in allowing for the successful conversion of the people of northern Europe. This was because land was vital for allowing for the completion of monasteries, which in turn had a pivotal role in the allowing for conversion on a local by helping to integrate the new religion into the existing community. This was the case with Frankish kings such as Pippin, Carloman and Charlemagne. However, at the same time it must be remembered that the conversion of the Bretwalda did not necessarily mean that leaders on a local level could also in turn convert and encourage their populace to convert in return. This was the case with Haakon Sigurdsson, jarl of Lade, who remained a pagan despite the conversion of the Danish King, Harald Bluetooth, to the Christian faith.

Another factor important to consider in the successfulness of conversion is by the way that the power of the new Christian God over the existing pagan ones was portrayed. This often came about as part of victory in battle, with the kings promising to covert if they were given success in battle; for example, in the case of Edwin of Northumbria, who pledged to convert if he was given victory against the West Saxon army. The link between conversion and kings in battle is also apparent in the case of King Olaf ‘the holy’ Haraldson in the Battle of Stiklestad. In the case of the Norwegian king, his death in battle and subsequent sainthood had the effect of helping to unite the country and consolidate the position of Christianity. Demonstrations of power to validate the supposed superiority of Christianity were another factor that arguably influenced the successfulness of the conversion process in northern Europe. Battles between pagan figures such as the druids and the saints were a common way in which this was expressed; for example, the confrontation between St Patrick and a court druid named Lucetmael for control of the weather. Other examples of demonstration of power include came about through the medium of miracles, of which there are various examples. Types of miracles that were generally used included ones dealing with healing through the saints themselves, such as in the case of St Comgall, who healed a man’s blindness by dripping his saliva into his eyes.

The successfulness of conversion in northern Europe in the early middle ages was also arguably due to syncretic connections made between certain elements in the pagan religion and ones in the Christian one. This meant that the role performed by local gods and goddesses was replaced by the use of saints in order to meet the needs of the people who the missionaries were trying to convert. Being able to pray to the saints to intercede with God the Father on their behalf gave the indigenous pagan population of northern Europe a more personal and intimate connection with the Christian God. Moreover, pagan sites of worship were often adapted for Christian use. A good example of this can be found in the form of St Patrick claiming a previous pagan well in Corcu Theimne for the Church which had previously been a site of importance for local gods in the area. Measures such as these helped to make the conversion to Christianity and more fluid and easy process.

All of the issues that have been looked at here help to give an understanding of how successful conversion in northern Europe in the early middle ages came about. However, it must also be remembered that the process of conversion itself was often a lengthy processes, with a transitional period being apparent between the two religions. It is useful to think about the conversion processes in terms of several stages, often involving the experiences of the king. This includes the initial acceptance of the gospel, the decision to announce this publically, before baptism and the entry into the community of Christians.

Interview with Professor Emerita Barbara Yorke, part 4(Final part)

Do you think a historical truth exists? –It’s all sort of multi layered, isn’t it, cause obviously something did happen, it’s hard to, though some people might try to, argue away something like the Second World War, and you can see a series of events that led up to it, but when you then begin to ask why did that happen, that is obviously more difficult. I think that there is something that really has happened, but trying to understand everything is more difficult. For with accidents or something and five witnesses come forward, then they all have slightly different stories depending on their idea of what happened and where they were standing at the time, or their preconceptions if they see a female driver, then men might say; it must be the women driving’s fault, she was hesitating, etc., etc., and thereby people will make those sort of assumptions and built them into how they have interpreted what’s going on, and so than you have to try and reconstruct what have happened, and that is sort of what historians are doing in a way. They are laying out the facts they can be sure of, and then taking different views and interpretations sometimes people at the time, sometimes later, trying to understand why they happened, and from that point of view people contemporaries might think they understand what is going on, but they don’t always, for there are things like baggage they bring with them which influence their understanding of it.  Or that they haven’t gotten the bigger picture, as they think they might, so they can’t see the outcomes like people later can do. So in that sense Historical is something that needs to be tested, undoubtedly something have happened, and you can’t deny that.

If you had a time machine and you could take one trip, either for research or for fun, where would you go, and why? –It would be absolutely fascinating to go somewhere like 8^th century Britain, and do a quick tour around and see if its anything like what one think it would be, and to see people using the items doing things, and see what life was like, and see different monasteries and houses and things like that, I mean that would be absolutely fascinating to do, to see; have we got it right? Or are there all sorts of aspects of life that just haven’t been recorded which we can’t see, so there is all sorts of things like that which would have been wonderful to see,  and King Alfred himself is he an big impressive warrior or just a weedy scholar type, you know is he anything like what one think, and if it is just this small band of people who have produced this picture of Alfred as this scholarly king, when he in the fact only are rolling around on the sofas with his men, drinking, hunting and enjoying himself and saying;’ it would be quite useful if you did this job for me on my personality’, and maybe he turns out in the lines of a traditional Anglo-Saxon kings, just to see what he was really like.

If you could find the one object, text or anything, that you know have existed, or wish that could exist, what would it be? – well, something like a major text from Mercia would be nice, written from a Mercian perspective like the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle, or Bede’s Ecclesiastical History just based in Mercia, or something from that area that would open things up. It is difficult with one object, really, maybe another History, written on the same things as Bede but just from a Mercian perspective, or a Life of Offa the Great or something like that, to put along Alfred’s text, which would be extremely interesting.

We would like to thank Barbara Yorke for taking the time to this interview, and we hope that you, our reader, like us in the blog group have gotten to know this distinguished historian better.

Interview with Professor Emirita Barbara Yorke, part 3

Do you personally trust Asser or Bede’s works? – Well you can’t view them as you would modern people, you can’t expect them to be modern historians, and you need to think what their interests are and that is the interesting thing to try to get into the mind of someone else. Bede has a huge mind, so he is quite difficult to get into, and it’s a very theological mind, that’s what he has been trained as, so his way of looking at things is naturally dictated by that, so, truth or trust is a difficult thing to say, but any writer is revealing things about themselves and the times they are living in just by writing. So they are saying things on one level, but behind that are assumptions and trying to get what’s behind what they say is almost more interesting than what they are revealing. So I think if one wants to treat them as a modern history text book that would be wrong, they are not writing in that sort of way.

Do you think history has a future? – oh, it has to, I mean the more things that happen the more history is being created, so it is never going to go away.

I mean as in the discipline, considering the debates that have been with the postmodern attacks etc.  – I think it has, I think it’s too important to ignore, particularly in Europe where history is so deeply rooted, and it is all around us, and it is tied in with everyone’s national identity, it I also tied into the businesses of attractions and tourism so I think it is firmly bedded in the economy. Well I do think it if frightening the way it has been cut back in schools and that people haven’t got that idea of the depth of history that is all around us, for having that knowledge adds hugely to traveling around the country and seeing new places.  I think there is a huge interest out there, especially if you go to lectures in local societies or adult learners, there is a huge interest, for it is sometimes something people grow into, even though they might not have the interest at an earlier age, they can acquire it later in life.

What is your best advice to a student of either history or archaeology who struggles with their work and motivation? – that’s a really difficult question, or I am not very good at motivation, for most people need to able to motivate themselves, it is the most difficult thing to do as a teacher to try and motivate others, and it is one of the most frustrating things as a teacher is that you can’t get people to see what is interesting and to get them going and if one knew how to do it, one would be a huge success. I think one has to accept that you are not going to like everything all the time, particularly as an undergraduate, and concentrate on things you really do like, and always choose courses because they are interesting, not because they are at the best time, or something like that. That can sometimes be a problem, because I am only going to do something that falls between the mid-day period on Tuesdays and Wednesdays, or something like that, cause then you might find yourself doing something you don’t like, and you will not be so well motivated if you do that. It is something that is hard, which often means that if you do get on top of it, you have done a real achievement, and a real leap forward, so it might often be a good sign if some things are hard. So you have to have ambitions, but also leave yourself enough time to do essays, so you can say ‘I am confused now’, and put it to the side, and sleep on it, and then when you wake up the next morning it is all much clearer, that is at least how it works with me and writing, that things sort themselves over night, so you need to allow a certain amount of time to do it. And I suppose to motivate themselves they got to have their bigger goals in mind, though it might be a bit of a struggle, but if you don’t do this you might not get such a good degree, and but if you do, you can get a better degree and a much bigger choice of things you can do in life. And so, whereas the rest of your life doesn’t seem so important when you are young, and that it is such a long way off, and you might by the time you are thirty think why bother, but by the time you are forty you are having a rather different view, and think; ‘Oh my God, I wish I knew, what I know now, and that I would have worked harder when I was twenty so that I wouldn’t be doing this boring job now, but that I could have followed my desire to go on to be a dot, dot, dot, whatever it is you want to do’. So trying to keep that bigger picture in mind and keep yourself at things, even if it is something you are not so interested in, it is usually not wasted in the long run, and sometimes you might come back and find that it is much more interesting later on, even though you didn’t see the point of it earlier. Sometimes you might find that you are working in that particularly area for some reason and it becomes a lot more interesting. It is the same with all knowledge; you have to have the base before you can go on to the more interesting stuff.  If you don’t know how historiography works then you’ll never have that to build upon, and become more interesting.

How has history shaped your life? Or where has it taken you, i.e. where in the world? – Where in the world? Well it certainly has taken me to places which have been good, like you get to go to conferences and things like that, so… that’s good it allows you to travel to places you didn’t think of traveling to, not that I have travelled that much, but I have in Europe and North America,  but not really outside there. Ehmmm, where it have taken me as a person? Yeah… well I suppose the fact of having a bit of expertise in a particular area allows you to go to a conference and someone can come up to you and say that: ‘Thank you so much for your book, it got me interested in that subject’. It is a really nice thing for somebody to say to you, and you think perhaps you have done a little bit of good. It is quite nice to think that you have had an impact in other people’s lives; it is a nice thing to do.

Here ends part III of the interview, but part IV will follow shortly; in part IV which also is the final part Professor Yorke is sharing her thoughts on a Historical truth, and what she would do if she had a time machine.

Interview with Professor Emerita Barbara Yorke, Part 2

You have recently been on television in a programme about the importance of books and the royal line in Anglo-Saxon England. How did you find the programme both as a historian and as a viewer? – I haven’t seen it, I have seen the second one, but not the first one cause I was away at the time, but we have recorded it, I did sneak a look at some of it on Iplayer where I could have it very, very small where I didn’t have to see myself blown up just to check that it was alright. The second programme I thought worked very well, Janina is a presenter who used to do some teaching here at the University, she is an art historian and I think she did it very well. The one I saw last time had some really stunning manuscripts, so I am looking forward to going to the exhibition, so yeah, I am all in favour of that sort of programmes that got sort of a high production value, and it makes what can see as a dreaded subject quite accessible to people, so I think people should contribute to things like this. Else we risk history becoming too narrow and specialized, so we need to get it out there and get people interested, and demanding that their children are taught history and that sort of thing.

What do you think has been the greatest challenge you have faced throughout your career in history and archaeology? – that is one of the more difficult questions, but if you are doing both teaching and research that is quite challenging, because you get pulled in different directions, and you get one load of things to do in respect to teaching and another you are also expected to publish. And keeping up with both areas are quite difficult, since you might be teaching a much broader area than your research, so there is a huge amount being produced, so when I first started here, I was teaching archaeology as well, and there wasn’t much published on Anglo-Saxon archaeology, so it was relatively easy to cover it when you had the background in it, but as the years has gone by there have been so much work in Anglo Saxon Archaeology I could not possibly keep up with that,  and all the historical side I am covering as well, so I did drop some things, which now other lectures are teaching, which made things a bit easier, there are quite a lot of demands upon you when you are working in a university, you have to be a bit firm with yourself not to try to meet all those demands, and say you are going to stop now and say you are not going to do that anymore. Though it is hard to know when to stop, do you come into University from 9 to 5 and that’s it? or? You know you have to go home eventually; I have always tried not to work on the weekend and so on.

To what extent would you say that for the period in which you have specialised in, one needs to understand both archaeology and history to be able to create a fuller picture of the past? – Obviously it is needed, but its quit difficult to be an expert in both of them, so I get a bit worried when I read archaeology things and they do not include or fit in with the written evidence, and you get people working on the 5^th and 6^th century and extrapolating what the social structure might have been like without it bearing any resemblance to the earliest law codes. And I think that is a bit worrying, I think they’ve got to tie up, so you want to do that. And yes you can specialise on an area or another, but if you want to get the whole picture then you have to look upon both, well you will never get the whole picture for a period like that, but you can make a better text if you look at everything that is available. It is difficult to do, for they don’t always lead in the same direction, but that’s what is interesting and stimulating about it.

Would you say that king Alfred really was ‘the great’? – I think he was an quite exceptional person, you know unusual for his time, not afraid to study books which people often would laugh at, and being the boy who only wanted to study not to fight. However, on the other hand he was that sort of fighter as well, and he went out there and he lead the army, and it is very unusual to get someone who does that, but he is a great self-publicist as well, one of the quotes about him is; ‘we know that Alfred is great because he tells us so’.  So there is a bit of that with him, so I think he often gets the credit for things that perhaps should be shared out among a greater range of Anglo Saxon kings, such as his son and brothers.  In a way since he is such a well-known name it sort of snowballs from that, and there are many reasons why his reputation have always been higher than other Anglo Saxon kings. But after all he did choose a different life than what was expected of him, he moves out of the box in a way, for he could have chosen an easy life lying on the sofa taking it easy, but he is rather out there and wanted to find out more and he wanted to study so that’s very stimulating about him, when you look and see all the things that happened in his reign, such as laying the foundations of the Old English state, but it is very hard to see a lot of innovation in his reign. He’s got big ideas, but not always the means to put them into practice.

Part II of the interview ends here, but part III and IV will soon follow, in part III we are will hear what Barbara think of Asser and Bede, and how students might keep their motivation up.

Interview with Professor Emerita Barbara Yorke, Part 1.

It is not often one have the honour of doing interviews with some of the most prominent historians in English history, but on a very quiet afternoon in January 2012, we, Maddie and Karl, were so lucky to have an appointment with Professor Emerita Barbara Yorke, known from her books on the Conversion of Britain, and her interest in the Jubilee of King Alfred celebrated in 1901.

Both of us being students at the University of Winchester knew who Barbara is, seeing that she had been teaching there for many years, until she recently retired in 2011. Due to her recent retirement we found it the right time to approach her about an interview for the blog, and we were very happy when she accepted.  Together with Barbara we approached some questions which we hope can give a good portrait of Professor Yorke.  Dear Barbara, we were wondering where did you study?  –I did a combined-honours degree at the University of Exeter in History and Archaeology, before I went away for a year to do a course in Archive administration at the University of Liverpool, though I did not take to Archives, I did pick up a husband who is an Archivist. Then I went back to Exeter and studied under the supervision of Frank Barlow, who has worked on Edward the Confessor and William Rufus, even though I did not study the same things he still took me on and supervised me through my Post Graduate studies.

How did you find Undergraduate life? Did you find it as you had expected it to be? – I loved it, especially in those days since I grew up in the country, miles from anywhere, so life was a bit restricted on the weekends and so on, so I really loved being in a town with all the people around and it was much more of a rite of passage in those days, than today, with a change between youth and becoming an adult. After all it was quite a big thing going away and mixing with people.

Did you have a history society at the University in those days? – Yes, we did, I ran the archaeology society and a friend of mine ran the history by the time we were in the third year. So yes, I was quite involved in that.

Why did you choose to do History and archaeology? – I wanted to do something that I hadn’t done for my A-level, but were related to my interests, I had always been interested in monuments and things like that, but I didn’t really know much of archaeology, though I liked the idea of something like that, since I was keen not to do what I had done for A-level again.  I had done Tudors and Stuarts for A-level and 19^th and 20^th century for O-level as we had then. I also realised that if I did history and Archaeology I could concentrate on the earlier periods, and do a lot of the medieval history, and I could miss out on a lot of the modern history which I didn’t actually want to do. So… that’s not always the best of reasons for selecting it…

‘Well we think and know that it has gotten you as far as it has, so it must have worked at least’.

What sort of topics are you working on for the moment, without revealing everything, so no-one will steal your great ideas?- Haha…, well I don’t think there would be many people trying to snatch a good idea from me, but I got a number of things going; I am advising on a number of projects, mostly archaeology-based who want a historian to act as an advisor, for instance the Prittlewell Anglo-Saxon burial, which is being written up, and I am doing the history background, whereas other people are doing the archaeological parts of it. We are meeting about it and sharing ideas and then go away and write up each their own part, so I am doing things like that. And then I am writing up a lecture I gave at Manchester, called; the Toller Lecture which I did early last year on King Alfred and his background in traditional English heroic background, and how he relates to that. And then there is something that I am supposed to be working on, which I have told people that I am working on, which I really haven’t done much on yet, which is; the origins of kingdoms in Anglo-Saxon England, why they suddenly appear when they did in the 6^th century, in a way as an extension on the book I have already written on the conversion of Britain, to see if the kingdoms naturally develop or if they were provoked or what stimulated the developments and settlements of the Anglo Saxon societies. And to look at the late Iron Age when the Romans get interested in Britain, and see if some clues to unravelling this mystery might lie there and to look into the stimulation of kingship and settlements under the Roman influence can reflect the development possible in the 6^th century. And if something like that happens due to the growing powers of the Franks, perhaps as well as more of the Roman background as some people think, but I’m also interested in works done on areas like Scandinavia on origins of kingdoms there, and whether there are any kingdoms in places like Norway as early as the fifth or sixth century. If not, then why not, and what do they have instead, and why do kingdoms suddenly appear. So I really want the Anglo-Saxon kings and kingdoms to come out with a broader context and background, both Germanic, European and Roman, to be able to understand better the origins of them as well as why they appear when they did, and compare what happened in Britain in the fifth and sixth century with what happened in the late Iron Age.  So, yes I have wanted to do it for some time, but I haven’t got around to doing it yet, although I might just do some aspects of it, it can still be interesting to see how it all developed.

Is there any topic, if the sources were there, you would have liked to do? – Well I think the origins of kingdoms fall under that, but since there isn’t then that’s why it has to be a kind of comparative approach.

Is that where you would have to draw upon archaeology as well as history? – Yes it would have to build upon archaeological evidence, because that is making the whole period much clearer. And in fact some of the archaeology projects I am involved in are dealing with what is happening in the sixth century. So I’m hoping that being involved with those will encourage me to get on with it.

Have you found this interview interesting so far? More is to come, log back on in a few hours and read the continuation of this interview. Barbara will be talking about King Alfred, challenges as a historian and the need for history and archaeology to work together for the early medieval period.

The Real King Harold

King Harold II, or Harold Godwineson is one of the best known monarchs in British History, mainly because of the infamous events surrounding his succession to the throne, the near constant warfare that plagued his short reign, and his ignominious death on the field of Hastings as the last of the Saxon kings who had ruled in England for 500 years.

Since that time, our knowledge of Harold has been shaped by the works of Norman and Anglo-Norman Historians, writing in the decades and centuries after Hastings. In the last few decades however, modern Historians have begun to re-examine the life and career of Harold, and, through examination of oft ignored English sources, reveal a radically different picture of the Last English King, that goes far beyond the events of that fateful October day in 1066.

Harold the Man

William of Poitiers, a near contemporary Norman source described Harold as “the basest of men, insane, an enemy of justice and good” who “caused the whole English people to be faithless to the Duke”. Whilst Poitiers is perhaps most vociferous in his condemnation of Harold, most of the Norman sources agree on the matter of Harold’s usurpation of the throne, they, they claim rightfully belonged to Duke William of Normandy, and that Harold was guilty of perjury for breaking his oath guaranteeing William the throne. This issue will be examined more later.

English sources, however, tell a different story. Most significant of these is the Vita Eadwardi or ‘life of King Edward’ an anonymous and somewhat partisan Eleventh century account of the Life and reign of Edward the Confessor. Here Harold is described as “wise, patient, merciful, courageous, temperate, and prudent, but ruthless with opponents” Whilst this source does lean heavily in favour of the Godwins, the most powerful family in Pre-Conquest England, its examination of Harold can be backed by some events in Harold’s career.

Harold the warrior

Even in his own day, Harold seems to have been known as a renowned and successful warrior, as well as a courageous fighter. Even the otherwise antagonistic Poitiers remarks upon his courage. Harold proved his skill as a commander in campaigns in Wales, since the 1050s the Welsh princes had been raiding the borderlands between England and Wales, and in 1056 killed the man whom Harold had installed to run the territory, one of his clerks named Leofgar. By 1063, his patience exhausted, Harold launched an invasion of Wales, a combined assault in which his Brother Tostig assisted him. This proved extremely successful and effective, as the Welsh rulers soon sued for peace, and Harold’s most formidable enemy in Wales Prince Llewelyn, was apparently killed by his own men soon after.

During this assault Harold is said to have made use of small, lightly equipped and extremely mobile fighting forces who could move fast, and raid deep into Welsh territory, a tactic that he would utilise again in 1066.

Harold showed himself to be an astute diplomat, however, as well as a warrior. On more than one occasion he was able to prevent hostilities and conflict through negotiation with the enemy or injured party, the redress of their grievances, and concessions wherever possible. He also proved merciful to enemies he had defeated, most notably after the Battle of Stamford bridge, when he spared the Norwegian troops who survived the battle, and allowed them to return home.

Harold and King Edward

From 1053, when he succeeded his father as Earl of Wessex, the evidence suggests that Harold consistently proved to be a loyal and faithful in his service to Edward the Confessor, indeed, in later part of his career he emerges as one of the Kings closest and most trusted subjects, his right hand man, helping to serve his interests, and maintain the security and peace of the Kingdom.

Sometime in the 1050s King Edward appears to have sent Harold on a diplomatic errand to Hungary. The purpose of this was apparently to repatriate Edward’s nephew, Edward the Exile, the son of his Older half Brother Edmund Ironside, and closest relative on his father’s side. Edward had lived in Hungary since he was a child, having fled there in the reign of King Canute, and had even married a Hungarian princess. Historians argue that the Edward intended for his younger namesake Nephew to succeed the throne on his death, and he certainly seems to have been the strongest candidate because of his West Saxon descent. Significantly, it is also asserted that there is no evidence to show Edward ever considered William of Normandy as his heir.

Edward died shortly after his return to England, but left a young son named Edgar, known as Atheling Edgar, who was apparently adopted by King Edward and Queen Edith, and regarded as the new heir and successor the throne in his father’s stead.

The Norman Oath

Possibly the most notorious incident in Harold career took place circa 1064, when Harold went to France, and whilst there, swore fealty to William of Normandy, and allegedly promised to uphold his claim to the throne of England.

William of Poitiers claimed that Harold went to Normandy at the specific behest of King Edward, for the purpose of confirming William’s claim. Others are more ambiguous about the specific circumstances, and one even claims that the oath was Harold’s idea, not the King’s. The general consensus though, that Harold made to oath willingly. Historians today question this, asserting that the oath was made under duress, and even an eleventh century English source suggests that Harold gave way and made the oath because he was in an untenable position and therefore ‘trapped’ by him. Frank Barlow argues that “there was no way Harold could escape from William except by agreeing to his demands… he took an oath of fealty to William… and probably agreed that he would support and advance the Duke claim to the English throne” and Ian Walker asserts “Harold found himself in a position where swearing this oath was the only way to extricate himself from William’s custody”. Barlow goes onto state that Harold could easily have argued that an oath made under such circumstances could not be regarded as legally binding, and Walker suggests the may have sought absolution from it in England.

Harold as King

Harold was crowned King in January 1066, ostensibly after having been named as successor by the late King Edward on his death-bed. Significantly it appears that many in England were in supporter of Harold being made king, especially as Edgar Atheling was too young to reign, and none can be shown to have supported William of Normandy and Harold had apparently ‘acclaimed’ by the royal council.

As is well-known, Harold soon faced opposition, and invasion from the forces of Harald of Norway, alongside his brother Tostig. Contrary to popular opinion, it appears that Harald did not claim the throne on the basis of a promise made by King Edward, but a ‘deal’ made by Harthacnut, the son of Canute. Harald’s forces defeated the armies of the Northern Earls Edwin and Morcar, Harold’s brothers in law, at the Battle of Fulford on September 20th 1066.

Harold, probably informed of the invasion before Fulford assembled a large force, and advanced North with considerable speed. Walker argues that the fact so many rallied to Harold is testament to his widespread support in England. On 25th September Harold won his first battle of the year at Stamford Bridge, a crushing defeat in which both Harald of Norway and Earl Tostig were killed.

Harold at Hastings

Harold had been prepared for in invasion of William of Normandy, as opposed to that of Harald of Norway. To such an extent that he had mustered a force specifically to guard the coast of England that faced Normandy, and even a naval force which could engage the Norman fleet as it crossed the channel. Unfortunately for Harold, and for England, this army had to be disbanded, apparently because their service contracts had expired, before the Normans came.

When the Normans did eventually land, in late September, Harold made his plans of attack. He planned to

“contain the Normans in Sussex and in the peninsula on which Hastings stood, in order to prevent them taking full advantage of their mobility… thus the forces he had gathered rapidly in order to block a Norman break out and … summoned a fleet to destroy their ships and cut off their retreat. Harold intended to deal with William as thoroughly as he had Harald of Norway”

William apparently attacked before Harold had ‘drawn up’ all his troops on Senlac ridge. This was the best defensive position in the area, and being a native of Sussex who knew the area well, it is possible the Harold intended to occupy this position originally.

William used his knights to attack the English line, and there was much close quarter fighting, in which the English defended their position so viciously that “the Breton troops on the Norman left-wing broke…confusion and fear spread through who whole Norman army, fanned by a rumour that Duke William had fallen”

When part of the English force abandoned their position to give chase William was apparently able to regather his forces and slaughter them. There has been much debate over whether this incident was a caused by a lack of discipline, or a direct command, whatever the circumstances it is likely that at least one of Harold’s brother Gyrth, may have perished at this point. Walker states that the battle raged for the several hours after this incident, and so it was not do decisive as has been thought, after which ‘the English appear to have regrouped successfully, perhaps drawing in their flanks to fill the gaps’

In late afternoon William  seems to have launched one final assault “combining archers, infantry and cavalry” it has been suggested that this was because William knew he  would be defeated if Harold could hold out until nightfall. It may well have been at this point that Harold was killed. Whether by an arrow, or Norman knights is debatable. However, it does seem have been at this point that the English ranks finally ‘wavered and broke’. Harold and his brothers now lay dead. William had won the day.

Far removed from the villain of Norman sources the Real King Harold thus emerges as a loyal subject of his King, a skilled and experienced military commander, and, above all a leader who was popular and respected by his people.

Bibliography

Barlow, Frank, The Godwins: Rise and fall of a noble dynasty (Harlow,2002).

Fleming, Robin, Harold II, Oxford Dictionary of National Biography, 10th July 2011, http://www.odnb.com.

Hindley, Geoffrey, A brief history of the Anglo Saxons (London,2006).

Walker, Ian, Harold: The Last Anglo Saxon King (Stroud,1997).

Wincanceaster

To continue with the history of Winchester theme, this blog entry will briefly cover Anglo-Saxon Winchester or Wincanceaster.  I will begin with Winchester at the point of the departure of the Romans and then briefly cover the main areas that show the significance of the Anglo-Saxon capital.

Although many towns and cities became deserted, Winchester wasn’t completely abandoned following the end of the Roman period, though the population went into decline. According to archaeological settlement evidence, when the Saxons immigrated to Winchester in around the mid fifth century, they set up settlement outside the city walls instead of within them. The ceaster element of the city’s name indicates that in old English the Saxons arrived at Winchester that was surrounded by Roman walls. It became clear however that the population didn’t have the resources to attend to the upkeep of the city, since the old Romans drainage system fell into disrepair and the Roman south gate collapsed. The River Itchen also reclaimed large areas of the eastern part of the city meaning parts of the city had now become uninhabitable.

Politically the city continued to survive under Cerdic and his family when his son and grandson Cynric “succeeded to the kingdom” in 519 AD. The king of Wessex from 611 to 641, Cynegils (perhaps Cerdic’s great grandson) converted to Christianity in 635 along with the rest of the West Saxons thus making the city religiously important. Under the reign of Cynegils second son Cenwalh (642-73) a minster church was built that became known as the Old Minster. This made Winchester the very heart of the civilisation of Wessex and of England. Thus Winchester became the capital of Anglo-Saxon England. In 678 the Bishop of Wessex, Bishop Haeddi moved his throne to Winchester and the Old Minster became a Cathedral church. It also became the place where Kings and Bishops were buried.

Despite the advances that the Anglo-Saxons had made in Winchester, nothing could prepare them, and the rest of Britain, for the dangers ahead. The Vikings had swept over Britain, raiding and looting as they went and in the 850s and 860s they attacked Winchester. Under King Alfred the cities defence proved adequate with the defences being restored for the first time since the fourth century. Winchester also became part of the Burghal Hidage defence system from 886. This was a system of thirty towns in all that were fortified boroughs (Winchester being one of the two largest) with an estimated 2,400 men manning the cities defences. Under the reign of Alfred and his son Edward the Elder the Viking threat was faced and pushed back.

One of the most important features of Anglo-Saxon Winchester was the construction of the New Minster and Nun minster under King Alfred and his wife Ealhswith. They were both finished after 900 AD. The New Minster, completed under Edward the Elder, was run by secular clerks whilst the Nun Minster provided an area for worship for holy women within a cloister. The continued building at the Minsters would become the main focus in Winchester up to the Norman Conquest.  The three Minsters (including the Old Minster) thus greatly improved the significance of Winchester as an Anglo-Saxon city and also as England’s capital.

Here concludes the brief summary of Anglo-Saxon Winchester. I hope that this piece has highlighted the importance of the city both religiously and militarily to its own survival. Whilst the capital was moved to London following the Norman Conquest, Winchester will always have a place in the history of England with its past living on.

Sources:

http://www.visitwinchester.co.uk/site/about-winchester/brief-history

Barbara Carpenter Turner., Winchester (1980).

Tom Beaumont James., Winchester; From Prehistory to the Present (1997).