American Public University System

The Anglo-Saxon World and its Transformation

An Essay

Submitted to the

Department of Military and History Studies

HIST 534 Spring 2013

By

Elizabeth Terrell Graham

4228470

1

September 21, 2013

The Norman invasion of England in 1066 is considered to be

one of the pivotal moments in history that resonated across the

European landscape. The epic struggle between the native forces

led by the heroic Harold Godwinson and the mighty forces of the

William Duke of Normandy is impressed upon the minds of people

world-wide. It speaks to the importance of that great battle that

almost a millennium later the Latin words Nos a Gulielmo victi victoris

patriam liberavium inscribed on a World War II memorial in Bayeux is

a potent and recognizable reminder of the close relationship

between Normandy and England. What, however, were the actual

implications of that fateful day on the field of Hastings? There

is a popular belief some have that just as the Romans wiped out

the indigenous Briton way of life, so too did the Normans trounce

any Anglo-Saxon heritage for which England was, and still is, so

well-known.

2

The historical community is still in debate over the

transformation of England from its Germanic heritage to the

incoming, continental way of life leading one to believe it is

not such a clear-cut case. In some regards it is arguable little

actually changed despite a veneer of French supremacy overlaid

immediately after the invasion. William of Normandy might have

dominated England, sometimes brutally so, during his reign and

put in place an aristocracy of French origin and interests; can

it be argued, however, that any of the older English values were

reasserted soon after the initial shock? There is much, however,

that also suggests the identity of England had already been in

flux and the Channel winds simply brought one more invasion to

add to the unique cultural melting pot that was England. In

trying to answer this question it is first important to have an

understanding of what it meant to be Anglo-Saxon, or English.

The period before Duke William’s incursion is often referred

to as being Anglo-Saxon, but that ethnic and political division

remains under debate as to whether this is the correct way to

regard the peoples of the England before 1066. The modern term 3

‘Anglo-Saxon’ is used to distinguish a cultural, perhaps ethnic,

grouping of people living in the south and east of Britain in a

period around 500-1000 A.D. Indeed there are a few documents

extant from the eighth century using words Angli Saxones, Engelsaxo,

and Anglorum Saxonia but these are notably sources from outside of

England regarding the general population and not distinguishing

between any political groupings. Within that territory, however,

by around the same eighth century period the native inhabitants

were referring to themselves as Angli, and Anglici with some mixture

of the Roman term ‘Saxon’ being used to distinguish kingdoms, not

ethnic groups, in the southern territory such as the West

Saxons.1 Furthermore, evidence from gravesites suggests there

were Germans in England while still a Roman province in the

fourth century having been brought over by the Empire to help

fill out the military ranks just as other barbaric populations

had been incorporated into the Continental Roman armies.

Certainly by the time of Alfred of Wessex there was a culmination

of the tendency to group these tribes together into one political1 Susan Reynolds, “What Do We Mean by “Anglo-Saxon” and “Anglo-

Saxons”? Journal of British Studies 24, no. 4 (October 1985): 397-399.4

unit. What had been a patchwork of West, South and East Saxons,

kingdoms of Anglian origin and Roman-British natives was slowly

coalescing into something relatively resembling a distinct group

of people.2 The primary confusion and source of frustration, it

becomes apparent, is a result of how the individual kings wished

to describe themselves or how chroniclers chose to delineate any

divisions of the period.

There is little doubt, however, that sometime after the

Romans had left English shores there was a gradual incursion of

Germanic peoples but they “probably formed much less tidy

entities than is traditionally supposed” regardless of the fact

that “the change of language and religion was greater than in

other Roman territories.”3 The native Christian Britons with

their Celtic tongue and lifestyle – including a rich artistic

legacy particularly exemplified in works like the Book of Kells

and Lindisfarne Gospels – were slowly subsumed or pushed to the

fringes by the incoming pagan Germans. Indeed, some traces of

2 P.H. Sawyer, From Roman Britain to Norman England, 2nd ed., London:Routledge, 1998: 1-2.

3 Reynolds, 401. 5

this push can perhaps still be recognized in the ancestry of

language and customs Wales, Cornwall and Cumbria. In the search

to understand the changes that occurred after 1066 it is perhaps

simpler for the purposes of this paper to think of the Anglo-

Saxons as more English, since that seemed to be the main goal of

unifying leaders like Alfred, his ancestors and his immediate

descendants – to be king of all the English. And when Canute

invaded from Denmark, he was seen as an outsider who sought to

rule the English, not the Anglo-Saxons.

The history of the petty kingdoms that rose up in the

aftermath of the Roman occupation is convoluted at best,

especially during the fifth to seventh centuries; despite there

being some chroniclers like Gildas in the sixth century upholding

a reputation of record-keeping in monasteries that had begun

during the Roman occupation. The meaning of kingship in this

time-period also proves to be somewhat difficult to pin down: an

overlord was one who could command tribute from his people but

rarely stayed in power for very long over defeated territories

and very rarely were kingdoms ever inherited without debate from 6

another claimant.4 What would be a later medieval and more

recognizable form of kingship would evolve at a later date. And

in spite of the fact that the earliest known, written law code

known comes down from a king Æthelbert of Kent in the seventh

century5 the historical understanding of life in England does not

become very clear until the eighth and ninth century,

particularly for the southern kingdoms of Kent and Wessex due to

more extensive charters and the efforts of some leaders

encouraging literacy and an interest in recording their own

histories for posterity. From such, historians are now more aware

of a king Æthelbald in the early eighth century whose control

extended over a vast territory in southern England and a leader

who was committed to patronage of the Church. Sorting out these

kings from often contradictory chronicles can be complicated but

a clearer pictures begins to emerge when one steps back and

considers the identities of the various Germanic tribes as they

began to emerge politically. The records may be able to point at 4 Barbara Yorke, Kings and Kingdoms of Early Anglo-Saxon England (London: Routledge,

1997): 161.5 Ibid., 17.

7

some racial divisions but from the modern vantage point the

“origins are beyond hope of unravelling,” try as one might.6

Above all, the general character of kingship in early England was

based on a relationship of kin and with one’s warriors. These

war-bands were aristocratic in nature even though at times of

expediency they could be enlarged by other classes. The kings

lived in royal villas much as the great landowners of the Roman

aristocracy had, though nothing has been excavated to match the

splendor of villas like that of Fishbourne. His lifestyle was

aided by servants and supplied by the products from his royal

estates, or feorm. Interestingly, the kings appear “to have

acquired some rights and resources that derived from the time

Britain was under Roman rule” such as the management of roads,

provision of markets and collection of tolls in ports and on

highways.7

It is possible, at least, to delineate some of the dominant

kingdoms of the Germans as they colonized England and known as

6 Eric John, Reassessing Anglo-Saxon England (Manchester: ManchesterUniversity Press, 1996), 5.

7 Sawyer, 181-183. 8

the heptarchy: Kent, Mercia, East Anglia, Northumbria, and South,

East, and West Sussex have all made a mark on the historical

record. The assortment of kingdoms, which were often an

amalgamation of lesser kingdoms and sub-kingdoms can be

overwhelming; in regards to their relationship with the incoming

tribes of German settlers it quickly becomes apparent they remain

overshadowed in the records by their more powerful competitors

and very often become pawns in a larger power struggle. The

kingdom of Kent has the most detailed surviving record picked up

by such chronicles as the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle, Ecclesiastical History of the

English People, and Historia Brittonum. The latter chronicle is

purported to be written by a Nennius in the ninth century and is

notable because it attempts to link the British people with the

great mythic hero Aeneas through his descendant Brutus8; while

other reports, suggest that the kingdom was founded by the

brothers Hengist and Horsa – descendants of the god Woden – after

they were invited into Britain by Vortigern that opened the door

8 Nennius, Historia Brittonum, Medieval Sourcebook, accessed September 4, 2013, http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/basis/nennius-full.asp; III, 7-10.

9

to the Angles, Saxons and Jutes.9 Although these chronicles were

written down after the fact and it is hard to know what the

Germanic people must have thought of their own origins, it shows

that at least by the eighth century the ancient practice of the

hero-foundation story, like that of the Roman Romulus and Remus,

was alive and well in England.

The archeological record is instrumental in assisting

historians reconcile some of the early chronicles and supports

the idea the Jutes did settle in Kent, but more to the point

there was an overall push in the south of England by these

incoming groups initially leaving the north and west to the

native Christian British.10 Grave goods also suggest that these

people either brought with them or very quickly established a

quick connection with the Frankish kingdoms on the continent:

sixth century burials show a decided preference for clothing,

jewelry and weaponry from Francia. The names of the Kentish kings

9 Anglo-Saxon Chronicle, Online Medieval and Classical Library,accessed August 25, 2013, http://omacl.org/Anglo/part1.html; 1, 449.

10 John, Anglo-Saxon, 6. 10

in the historical record such as King Eormenric further

underscore the closeness of the two communities because the

‘Eormen’ part is not a typical Angle or Saxon component but one

that is found in the royal family of Francia.11 Kent was a

relatively strong Germanic state and often attempted to win for

themselves more land and the right to demand more tribute as that

was very often the basis of ultimate power in this period. In

their expansionist efforts the Kentish kings would trample over

their close neighbor, the East Saxons, who would eventually end

up adopting some of the same cultural and political aspects of

Francia via Kent. As Kent developed currency after the Frankish

tradition, so too did the East Saxons begin minting their own

coins. Despite the struggle with their bellicose neighbor the

royal house of the East Saxons remained one of the few original

Germanic lineages; which is perhaps indicative of the resiliency

of the Anglo-Saxon nature.12 Even though the East Saxons are

recognized as one of the more substantial kingdoms, it is

11 Yorke, Kings, 34.12 Ibid., 46-48, 57.

11

possibly better known for its interactions for the larger powers

of Kent, Mercia and later Wessex.

Perhaps most famous for the exquisite Sutton Hoo burial

mound in their territory, the East Anglians are also thought to

have the honor of being the first independent Anglo-Saxons to

arrive in the fifth century. Their own heritage, however, bears

some resemblance to Scandinavian culture as the burial at Sutton

Hoo itself parallels those of the Vendels in Sweden. Eventually,

however, the East Anglians must have also been attracted to the

wealth of Francia because the archaeological evidence suggest

trade with Neustria and the Frisians from the Rhineland and

perhaps caused a redirection of their interests away from their

original Scandinavian links.13 Rich in material goods as these

early kingdoms were, the Northumbrians have claim to perhaps an

even greater legacy in their chroniclers. One of the most famous

early English chroniclers has to be the monk Bede who wrote his

Ecclesiastical History of the English People in the eighth century from his

monastery, already renowned for its education, in Jarrow. His

13 Idib., 66.12

chronicle is held to be most concerned with the aspects of how

the pagans became Christians and so set their people on the true

path. In addition to Bede and the other church-trained

chroniclers, the famous West Saxon king Alfred the Great also

carried on in this tradition by initiating the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle

during his reign. It is through these chronicles that historians

have attempted to gain some understanding of Germanic kingship as

it developed in England.

In the earliest period, the importance of loyalty to a king

was reinforced by rewarding battle heroics with gifts, feasting

and general day-to-day support of his men. The sumptuousness of

the Sutton Hoo burial suggests, too, that this might have been

somewhat of an ostentatious society in love with splendid and

regal displays of wealth. Perhaps the office of king gave a man

no more power than the ability to exact payments from his

subjects and little actual legislative authority.14 In some of

the southern Germanic tribes a system of dual leadership seemed

to exist, often with a king reigning over his own territory with

14 Ibid., 16-17, 158.13

access to his own military but recognizing the authority of an

overlord. This practice appears in the histories of Kent, Essex,

and East Anglia whereas in Wessex the situation is more

accurately explained as sub-kingship rather than joint leaders.

It is possible that Kent and not Wessex is more responsible for

transmitting many of the Germanic political practices into

England as it is through their strong ties with Francia. The

system of wergild, development of minting coins and the idea of a

written law code – like those of Æthelbert, Ine, and Alfred – all

appear to have a decided Frankish atmosphere about them. In

Wessex, however, the idea of wergild and its implications were

somewhat different: in Kent, only one level of nobility is

recognized, while in Wessex there are two which had an impact on

the repercussions associated with crime.

Political development in Northumbria takes a slightly

different route that seems to have developed out of the two royal

houses of Deira and Bernicia, though this was not a case of dual-

kingship but of recognizing the legitimacy of those who could

rule over a wide area that was often divided between southern and14

northern counterparts. Interestingly, it would appear from the

archaeological record that there was still a sizeable Celtic

presence in Northumbria, but from records it becomes clearer that

the power-base was English.15 The English in the north and south,

however, both appear to have limited their rulers to a select

group of people.16 The most important takeaway from this,

however, is these Germanic tribes were not an egalitarian

society: they had a defined social structure, though this did not

prevent chaos and violence from erupting in the fight to the top.

And alongside their continental cousins, the Germanic kings in

England were also attempting to forge an idea of kingship that

would bring about more power than just that of tribute and

command of a military. Those like Æthelbert, Alfred and Offa took

it upon themselves to put a new weight behind the title. The

powerful and ambitious Offa of Mercia looked towards the

coronation practices of the Carolingians for inspiration in an

effort to establish one dynasty that could inherit power while

also finding ways to claim rule over territories that had once 15 John, Reassessing, 7.16 Yorke, Kings, 69, 88.

15

been Mercia’s superior. The Mercian kings had previously been

hampered by the fact that they were often forced to delegate

authority to the nobility allowing others to often become more

powerful than the king17 but by the eighth century Offa began

consolidating power once again, mostly through the use of

bookland, or chartered gifts of property.

English kingship might take much from their Frankish

counterparts on the continent but they were also very much

influenced by the Church and its position in society from the

earliest Roman-British incarnation. The importance of the Church

to an English king’s authority is evidenced by the consecration

ceremonies devised and implanted by the Church leaders. This is

most clearly preserved in the coronation ceremony of Edgar in 973

at Bath. Indeed, the ceremony was so much a part of English

kingship by the Norman invasion that it had stayed more or less

the same up until King Charles I’s coronation in 1625 suggesting

the Normans saw it was expedient to adopt for their own purposes.

The importance of the holy anointing, or unction, became such a

17 Ibid., 125-126.16

central role in the ceremony and was of particular religious

importance to any Christian king and his bishops because it

showed to one and all that the consecrated man was chosen by God

for his duties. Furthermore, the bishops of England expected or

were expected to be present for witnessing charters and their

attendance and secular court meetings began to give an emphasis

to any leader’s rule. Indeed the presence of bishops from one

kingdom, like Mercia, attending the meeting of a Kentish ruler

sent clear implications that Kent had the moral authority of the

Church standing behind it and supporting its leadership. Some

could suggest that the Church priests being present at so many

charter-witnessing events was in part to look after its own

interests and to ensure they were being preserved in any legal

maneuvering.18 Christianity quickly came to have a central role

in Anglo-Saxon society and politics. It helped to unify a

discordant group of argumentative people and kept England

connected to the wider world. The movement of missionaries and

highly-educated churchmen provided a much wider network from

18 Sawyer, Norman England, 184-188.17

which any Christian kingdom could benefit. The Irish missionaries

had been particularly influential in the early British and

English church; so much so that Pope Gregory is said to have

advised St. Augustine in the sixth century to make certain

compromises to the Anglo-Saxon church’s nature that was later

adopted by further church hierarchy receiving its instructions

from Rome. Indeed, the curious institution of double monasteries

that was popular in England and in some Frankish territories was

troublesome to the papacy and those closest to it but it remained

a part of English custom for a few centuries.19 These double

monasteries were an early feature of the English Church that

allowed men and women to be a part of a single institution while

only sharing select collective spaces. Indeed, women were even

allowed to be heads of such establishments such as Hilda of

Whitby who played host to the Synod of Whitby. These monasteries

provided education not only for its aspiring and current members

but also provided knowledge and an early home to many of

daughters of the noble Anglo-Saxon families. It is by no means

19 Yorke, Kings, 39. 18

unusual to see several daughters of noble English becoming

abbesses of great monasteries like Ely and Whitby just as in

later Norman times where noble daughters would have filled the

cloisters.

Following the Synod of Whitby in the eighth century it was

understood that for churches in England to remain sustainable

institutions that could provide a home to enlightened study they

needed to have some solid basis of wealth that could not be

impinged upon at a later date. The influential Bishop Wilfrid of

York urged the Northumbrian kings to begin making large grants of

land to the church. This seems cut and dry but was only

affordable to kings who were successful at conquering new

territories that could then be granted to their military

supporters. Once donated to a church, the lands could not be

taken back – they were to be held for the life of the

institution, not the life of the leader who had granted it.20

Bede, showing a worldly awareness and interest, began to

recognize that the nobility had found a quick and easy way to

20 Ibid., 91.19

manipulate the system and were “turning their families into

pseudo-monasteries to enjoy the privileges of ius perpetuum,

perpetual possession, for themselves and their descendants.”21

This had the dual effect of leaving little land for a king to

distribute among his younger, less established warriors and since

recipients for the bookland were not liable to provide military

service it put a further strain on the king’s recruiting

abilities. In the interests of consolidating power both Æthelbald

and Offa of Mercia set about curtailing this practice to the

detriment of central power: respectively, the church was first

reminded of its mutual interests and responsibilities in defense

of the realm while later being required to provide lands to

warriors who could serve in the fyrd.22

Again, the idea of a pseudo-democratic society among the

Germanic tribes is somewhat of a myth. While it is true there is

evidence early on of kings working closely with a group of nobles

– traced through names of nobles witnessing charters – there

21 John, Reassessing, 13.22 Ibid., 52-53.

20

still existed an idea of ultimately authority. How superiority

was exercised and to what ends varies among the individual

kingdoms and led to a vast number of exiles, murders and forcible

depositions. Right below the king in the political and social

hierarchy usually stood the ealdormen, selected from the wider

body of thegns, who in turn had claim to a particular level of

wergild and owned an estate of at least five hinds of land. Part

of an ealdorman’s responsibility included the governing of the

scir, or shire: under Cerdic in Wessex these ealdormen grew to be

very wealthy and powerful and had the rights to do away with

their property on their death as they saw fit as donations to

church and children are both recorded.23 The office of ealdormen

is strikingly similar to the history of the Carolingian mayor of

the palace in regards to the close confidence and association

between the king and his senior men. No king could make any

grants of land without the consent of his men, both religious and

secular. Land grants were considered to be inalienable and

therefore became the sole prerogative of a king which would later

23 Ibid., 10-11.21

give them an avenue by which they could consolidate their power:

they held the keys to land tenure and therefore wealth.24 The

power of each king was constantly in flux as he lost or gained

territories to his neighbors and the development of a political

hierarchy and the meaning of kingship remained transitional, even

beyond the Norman Conquest. Collecting royal dues, be it monetary

or otherwise, was the first responsibility of the ealdorman,

later to be called an earl after the Danish invasion. They were

also required to lead the military forces out of each shire and

also presided over the shire courts, or meeting of local

landowners. These shire courts were also where royal

announcements were to be shared with those in the countryside

twice a year. Within these courts there could very often be a

high degree of local customs that took precedence and proved

troublesome to Edgar when he tried to impose his own penalty for

theft in a unified manner across his kingdom. The divisions of

later earldoms very often followed the same lines that were set

during these early years of shires like those in Kent and Sussex,

24 Sawyer, Norman England, 188.22

as well as the smaller kingdoms of Wessex. For further

accountability, the shires were then divided into hundreds, which

proved essential to tax collecting and by the tenth century were

expected to meet every four weeks to ensure law and order was

being kept.25

To govern their realm the kings were first and foremost

warriors but they were guided in political matters by their

witan, or king’s council. It would be nice to think that this was

an open and elected group of men who had direct access to their

king but it was actually a much closed society admitting only the

wealthiest and most prominent; the ealdormen, thegns and bishops.

Indeed, it was the use of witenagemot in some sources was later

interpreted “to give Anglo-Saxon politics a democratic flavor

they did not possess.”26 The ability of one man to effect control

is always in doubt and relies to a great extent on his personal

character and ability to manipulate and work with his closest

men. The chronicles are difficult to navigate not simply because

25 Ibid., 195-198.26 Ibid., 16.

23

of their age and available knowledge but because the period was

chaotic and power was constantly changing hands. By the end of

the seventh century the peoples of England were beginning to be

aware of the exhaustive state of minor principalities constantly

fending off more powerful leaders while the greater kingdoms

fought each other. There then began a slow march towards

consolidation as many of the lesser kings recognized the benefit

of uniting “while there was still a chance of doing so on

negotiated terms.” Interestingly, these petty kingdoms did not

disappear entirely from record and instead had much of their

original territory preserved while gaining a new protected

political status as an earldom.27

The seven major kingdoms of Anglo-Saxon England were

beginning to realize the power inherent in unification: by the

eighth century the term bretwalda, or brytenwealda, begins to denote

a ruler of Britain, and in the tenth century political power was

finally centralized in the kingdom of Wessex.28 As mentioned

27 Yorke, Kings, 161.28 John, Reassessing, 18, 83.

24

earlier, Æthelbald and Offa of Mercia seem particularly conscious

of the benefits of expanded rights through political

manipulation. As competent rulers, they issued and recognized

charters, granted permissions for toll collections; Offa also

presided over a synod in 781 attended by bishops from Kent,

Sussex, Wessex, East Anglia, as well as the Merican bishops of

Lichfield, Worcester, Hereford and London.29 As with the powerful

leaders on the continent, those in England who were able to

effect reasonable control were having to grow into well-rounded

men. These early English rulers cannot be considered Renaissance

men as yet, but they were in no way mired in the waywardness that

has popularly personified this period. Through such means as

intervening in the politics of other kingdoms they slowly found

ways to assume prestige over another authority. So powerful did

Offa become that he was recognized by Charlemagne as the sole

ruler of southern England during his lifetime.30 Despite these

great heights to which Mercia ascended, the accomplishments of

Offa were somewhat ephemeral and much of his empire was broken up29 Sawyer, Norman England, 100-102. 30 John, Reassessing, 54-55.

25

after his death. Offa does get the lasting credit, however, of

importing the Carolingian practice of papal consecration of

designated heirs while a king still lived to England, as

Charlemagne had done with his two sons in 781.31 Though Offa’s

territorial and political coups might not have lasted much beyond

his own lifetime, some of his actions left are greater legacy to

be picked up by arguably the most famous of all Anglo-Saxon

kingdoms, Wessex.

The noble house in Wessex claims descent from Cerdic who

lived during the sixth century when there is evidence of Germanic

tribes living in the Avon and Upper Thames valleys, as well as

the Salisbury Plain with the capital traditionally held to be at

Winchester. Much of their early history is not unique from any of

the heptarchs as it was spent in successive battles for territory

primarily between Mercia and Kent whose borders Wessex shared.

The kingdom, however, begins to really assert its role in English

power-politics by the early ninth century with the leadership of

Ecgberht. Before him, however, there was a king Ine in the eighth

31 Ibid., 59.26

century who brought the idea of a written law code into his

kingdom and perhaps more importantly to the birth of a unified

kingdom is that he was able to make significant inroads into

Kentish territory. The law, however, was apparently written

haphazardly and not entirely practical but it is an important

step towards centralization of power. Æthelbert’s laws might have

followed Roman inspiration through Frankish influence but they

were written in vernacular instead of Latin and concerned “with

elaborate tariff compensations for injuries of various kinds”

instead of being interested in property rights as was Roman

law.32 Furthermore, by this time, the king and leaders had

learned the valuable lesson that control over the powerful sees

like Glastonbury, Canterbury and Winchester and so became a part

of their contentious relationship with their neighbors. Indeed,

there is some that suggest Glastonbury and Sherborne were

originally British sees but received a hefty amount of Wessex

patronage and interest showing that the incoming tribes were

willing, in some regards, to adapt themselves to the local

32 Sawyer, Norman England, 189. 27

established way of life.33 Ecgberht and his descendants, however,

were very aware that while a generous relationship with the

Church could be influential and help strengthen their rule they

were still very careful to receive an acknowledgement they were

lords over such religious institutions, especially in the newly-

conquered territories.34 In another politically-astute move,

Ecgberht also made his son Æthelwulf sub-king of Kent before 838

and firmly establishing that Wessex and its territories would be

ruled by one dynasty.35 But just as Wessex was attempting to

complete its movements against Mercia and Kent and most, if not

all of southern England, the Vikings really stepped up their

invasions and threatened to change the course of all English

history and eliminate the Anglo-Saxon kingdoms. There is a

believable hypothesis that the threats of the Vikings forced a

new unity on the disparate kingdoms and eventually a common

heritage on a people already recognizing themselves as English

and not Scandinavian.36 Even though the pressure put on by the 33 Yorke, Kings, 136 - 138.34 Ibid., 149.35 Sawyer, Norman England, 121.36 Reynolds, 410.

28

Vikings was fierce it is possible to imagine that the descendants

of Ecgberht saw the possible advantages if they could be the

defenders of England from the Vikings. In 851, Æthelwulf and his

son Æthelbald confronted an army that, according to the Anglo-

Saxon Chronicle, arrived in three hundred fifty ships. But south of

London they “made the greatest slaughter of the heathen army that

we have ever heard reported to this present day.”37

It was with Alfred, however, that the English were able to

inflict the most damage on the Viking incursions for the time and

once his kingdom was relatively secure, Alfred fostered a renewed

learning environment for the priesthood and was quick to import

some of the leading minds of the day to his court, such as

Grimbald who is thought to have had some influence on Alfred’s

laws.38 And much of his fame comes not only from his great

successes against the Viking army – including a newly organized

English navy and system of fortified towns, or burhs – but

because he is believed to have been so well-read himself,

37 Anglo-Saxon Chronicle, II: 851.38 John, Reassessing, 89.

29

completing some translations into the vernacular of great Latin

works. Furthermore, Alfred is given the credit for rewriting the

law code for his kingdom that took much from the Carolingian

kings: swearing fealty, or oath-taking started to become a

central matter of English politics with this new body of

legislation. Furthermore, Alfred and his men were diligent to

acknowledge the previous legislative initiatives of Offa and Ine;

without such, “we should not know of the existence of Offa’s or

Ine’s legislation.”39 In one single rule, he was able to effect

much that set about transforming English politics and shaping the

nation that he could pass on to his established heirs, in the

continental mode: it is important to remember, however, that even

though Alfred’s descendants would attempt to gain ultimate

authority over Northumbria but that domination remained shaky and

unreliable. Edgar, a most capable king and military leader, was

unable to institute the system of hundreds and shires in

Northumbria, nor were other English kings able to assert the

network of burhs that had been so influential and effective in

39 John, Reassessing, 79.30

the south. For the most part, their society remained dominated by

the older customs of solving disputes through wergild as well as

free markets and keeping an allegiance to the Irish church.40

Even William of Normandy would quickly learn that in the north he

was dealing with a people of a different mindset from those he

encountered in the south, for the north had been much under the

influence of the Vikings for some years.

The Normans were interested in England for many reasons not

limited to their effective tax collecting that established a

wealthy elite and monarchy and were not seeking to exterminate

such a situation that had made England such rich a prize. Before

1066 the contact between Normandy and England had been fairly

substantial considering the unpopular Æthelred had been married

to the Duke of Normandy’s daughter, Emma. Their alliance was made

in an attempt to block some of the Viking invasions that had so

plagued Æthelred’s reign but ultimately proved ineffective. Their

son Edward, later coined the Confessor, spent much of his youth

in the Norman court before being recalled to take the English

40 Sawyer, Norman England, 201-203. 31

throne after a quick succession of his half-brothers had failed

to hold the English throne. When Edward returned to England, he

brought along a large retinue of Norman barons and priests and

bequeathed them with many high honors. As such “after 1046 there

were never fewer than three foreign bishops holding English

sees.”41 London had been for many years a powerful trading center

and so played host to its continental neighbors frequently. The

perceived oppression of the English people might, in a large

part, be from the wide-scale displacement of English nobility in

favor of the Normans who came with William and the fact that some

historians see William’s actions as treating England as his cash-

cow to enrich his Norman empire. In other words, England was a

jewel in the Norman crown, rather than the other way, despite

England having an arguably better-functioning government and tax

system. Furthermore the harrying of the north, while extremely

brutal, was not an unwarranted attack on an alien people: William

had grown to see England as his and the people within that

country as his subjects. It is not a justification of the more

41 Ibid., 250. 32

heinous aspects of that fateful events, rather an insight into

the total struggle between the invading Normans and the pockets

of resistance, more Danish than Anglo-Saxon, that kept emerging

in the countryside.

Despite some of the preferential treatment by William to his

followers, he was still keen to maintain the English system of

government, keeping the shire and hundreds. He also preserved and

only slightly modified the currency and mints. Indeed, even the

quick execution of the Domesday Book is in large part attributed

to the efficiency of the administration and clerks already in

place. The personnel might have changed dramatically in some

cases, but the institutions were little altered. This also had

the effect of the English language being replaced by French,

which has been taken by some to represent the totality of

England’s oppression but could also reflect on one of the

inevitable shifts that are bound to occur between conquerors and

conquered. However, while William discarded his early attempts to

learn English, his sons are believed to have received some

rudimentary education in that language and would only be a few 33

generations later when English would reassert itself with an

infusion of French.42 One of the most recognizable changes to

England is the land was divided up among a very small class of

people, whereas before the landscape had been dotted with more

small land-holdings: land wealth was further concentrated into

the hands of a very few. Even son, in the cities like London, the

English “survived both as the majority of the population and also

a significant element in the urban elite” and up into the twelfth

century, most of the London aldermen were Englishmen.43 The

Normans brought with them their massively impressive architecture

but were willing to accept and appreciate the excellence of

English artists. Indeed, even that most iconic image of the

Norman invasion – the Bayeux Tapestry – was English wool-work and

believed to have been English design. The Normans were also

enamored of the English propensity to decorate almost any

available surface with some intricate sculpting work. The blend

of styles, well reflected at Durham Cathedral, was a distinct

development and transition from the simple beauty of the 42 Ibid., 252-255.43 Ibid., 259.

34

continental Norman style. Perhaps, without being to insincere, it

can be said that the artistic representations in places like

Durham was a reflection of the Norman settlement in England:

while the architecture was dominated by Norman style, just as the

native people were, English flair had not gone totally missing.44

There is much to say about the change of course the English

and even European history took after 1066 but to argue that

England was violently uprooted from its Anglo-Saxon democracy is

a misapprehension of a very dynamic situation. Indeed, the Anglo-

Saxon alive in the popular imagination arguably saw its last days

with the invasion of Canute in 1016. Even before that, however,

England under the Anglo-Saxon kings had been interested in and

valued the knowledge and practices they could adopt from their

continental contacts. If the machinery of government was better

developed in England than that could have been because it had

been so many more years in development than that in Normandy. And

if their art and architecture appears more vibrant, it does not

necessarily mean the Normans were unable or unwilling to learn.

44 Ibid., 261.35

England was not the only one to come under the roving eye of the

Normans, and in their many expansions through Sicily and during

the Crusades, the Normans showed themselves to be capable leaders

and adaptable to these various societies. The vision of a

freedom-loving egalitarian Teutonic society disregards so much of

actual Anglo-Saxon life as to misrepresent the transition from

one ruler to another completely. Like the Normans, the Anglo-

Saxons had their noble classes and distinct royal lineages they

fought to establish and maintain. The English and Normans had the

same church and each had an appreciation for the fine arts and

the skill to produce great Cathedrals and works of art. If one

were to look for Anglo-Saxon heritage in the new Anglo-Norman

world it would take but a short time to recognize the ancient

divisions of shires, the coronation ceremony language, efficient

tax-collecting and even perhaps the assembly of noblemen who

helped guide a king through conciliar agreement.

36

Bibliography

Barlow, Frank. The Norman Conquest and Beyond. London: The Hambledon Press, 1983.

Blair, Peter Hunter. An Introduction to Anglo-Saxon England, 3rd ed. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2003.

Carpenter, David. The Struggle for Mastery. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2003.

Davies, R. R., ed. The British Isles 1100-1500: Comparisons, Contrasts and Connections. Edinburg: John Donald Publishers, 1988.

Haskins, Charles Homer. Norman Institutions. Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1918.

Higham, N.J. The Death of Anglo-Saxon England. Gloucestershire: Sutton Publishing Limited, 1997.

Higham, N.J. An English Empire: Bede and the Early Anglo-Saxon Kings. Manchester: Manchester University Press, 1995.

Hudson, John. Land, Law, and Lordship in Anglo-Norman England. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1994.

Huscroft, Richard. The Norman Conquest: A New Introduction. Harlow, United Kingdom: Pearson Education Limited: 2009.

John, Eric. Reassessing Anglo-Saxon England. Manchester: Manchester University Press, 1996.

37

Maddicott, J.R. The Origins of the English Parliament, 924-1327. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2010.

Sawyer, P.H. From Roman Britain to Norman England, 2nd ed. London: Routledge, 1978.

Walker, David. The Normans in Britain. Oxford: Blackwell Publishers, 1995.

Williams, Ann. The English and the Norman Conquest. Woodbridge, Suffolk: The Boydell Press, 1995.

Yorke, Barbara. Kings and Kingdoms of Early Anglo-Saxon England. London: Routledge, 1997.

38