Anglo-Saxons

Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anglo-Saxons

In the early 8th century, the earliest detailed account of Anglo-Saxon origins was given by Bede (d. 735), suggesting that they were long divided into smaller regional kingdoms, each with differing accounts of their continental origins. As a collective term, the compound term Anglo-Saxon, commonly used by modern historians for the period before 1066, first appears in Bede's time, but it was probably not widely used until modern times.[4] Bede was one of the first writers to prefer "Angles" (or English) as the collective term, and this eventually became dominant. Bede, like other authors, also continued to use the collective term "Saxons", especially when referring to the earliest periods of settlement. Roman and British writers of the 3rd to 6th century described those earliest Saxons as North Sea raiders, and mercenaries. Later sources, such as Bede, believed these early raiders came from the region they called "Old Saxony", in what is now northern Germany, which in their own time had become well known as a region resisting the spread of Christianity and Frankish rule. According to this account, the English (Angle) migrants came from a country between those "Old Saxons" and the Jutes.
Anglo-Saxon material culture can be seen in architecture, dress styles, illuminated texts, metalwork and other art. Behind the symbolic nature of these cultural emblems, there are strong elements of tribal and lordship ties. The elite declared themselves kings who developed burhs (fortifications and fortified settlements), and identified their roles and peoples in Biblical terms. Above all, as archaeologist Helena Hamerow has observed, "local and extended kin groups remained...the essential unit of production throughout the Anglo-Saxon period."[5]

Ethnonym
In modern times, the term "Anglo-Saxons" is used by scholars to refer collectively to the Old English speaking groups in Britain. As a compound term, it has the advantage of covering the various English-speaking groups on the one hand, and to avoid possible misunderstandings from using the terms "Saxons" or "Angles" (English), both of which terms could be used either as collectives referring to all the Old English speakers, or to specific tribal groups. Although the term "Anglo Saxon" was not used as a common term until modern times, it is not a modern invention because it was also used in some specific contexts already between the 8th and 10th centuries.
Before the 8th century, the most common collective term for the Old-English speakers was "Saxons", which was a word originally associated since the 4th century not with a specific country or nation, but with raiders in North Sea coastal areas of Britain and Gaul. An especially early reference to the Angli is the 6th-century Byzantine historian Procopius, which he apparently heard through Frankish diplomats. He never mentions the Saxons, but he states that a large island called Brittia, which was not far from the Rhine delta. He had heard it was settled by three nations, the Angili, Frissones (Frisians), and Brittones, who were each ruled by their own king. Each nation was so prolific that Brittia sent large numbers of individuals every year to the Franks, who planted them in unpopulated regions of their territory.
By the 8th century the Frisians and Saxons living on the continent (both of whom Procopius never mentions) were seen as two distinct countries, and writers such as Bede and some of his contemporaries including Alcuin, and Saint Boniface, began to refer to the overall group in Britain as the "English" people (Latin Angli, gens Anglorum or Old English Angelcynn). In Bede's work the term "Saxon" is also used to refer sometimes to the Old English language, and also to refer to the early pagan Anglo-Saxons before the arrival of Christian missionaries among the Anglo-Saxons of Kent in 597.[6] The term "Saxon", on the other hand, was at this time increasingly used by mainland writers to designate specific northern neighbours of the Frankish kingdom of Austrasia. Bede therefore called these the "Old Saxons" (antiqui saxones), and he believed that there was no longer any country of Angles in Germany, as it had become empty due to emigration.
Similarly, a non-Anglo-Saxon contemporary of Bede, Paul the Deacon, referred variously to either the English (Angli), or Anglo-Saxons (Latin plural genitives Saxonum Anglorum, or Anglorum Saxonum), which helped him distinguish them from the European Saxons who he also discussed. In England itself this compound term also came to be used in some specific situations, both in Latin and Old English. Alfred the Great, himself a West Saxon, was for example Anglosaxonum Rex in the late 880s, probably indicating that he was literally a king over both English (for example Mercian) and Saxon kingdoms. However, the term "English" continued to be used as a common collective term, and indeed became dominant. The increased use of these new collective terms, "English" or "Anglo-Saxon", represents the strengthening of the idea of a single unifying cultural unity among the Anglo-Saxons themselves, who had previously invested in identities which differentiated various regional groups.[6]
In contrast, Irish and Welsh speakers long continued to refer to Anglo-Saxons as Saxons. The word Saeson is the modern Welsh word for "English people"; the equivalent word in Scottish Gaelic is Sasannach and in the Irish language, Sasanach.[7] Catherine Hills suggests that it is no accident "that the English call themselves by the name sanctified by the Church, as that of a people chosen by God, whereas their enemies use the name originally applied to piratical raiders".[8]

History

Anglo-Saxon origins (4th–6th centuries)

The migrations according to Bede, who wrote some 300 years after the arrival of Anglo-Saxon fashions in Britain. Archaeological and genetic evidence confirms that settlers in England came from these areas
Although it involved immigrant communities from northern Europe, the culture of the Anglo-Saxons was not transplanted from there, but rather developed in Britain.[9] In 400, the Roman province of Britannia had long been part of the Roman Empire. Although the empire had been dismembered several times during the previous centuries, often because of usurpations beginning in Britain (such as those of Magnus Maximus, and Constantine III), there was an overall continuity and interconnectedness with both Roman and Germanic regions on the continent. Already before 400 Roman sources used the term Saxons to refer to coastal raiders who had been causing problems especially on the coasts of the North Sea. In what is now south-eastern England the Romans established a military commander who was assigned to oversee a chain of coastal forts which they called the Saxon shore.[10] These third century raiders are not called Saxons in contemporary sources, but a few generations later Eutropius, claimed that Saxon and Frankish raiders were attacking the North Sea coast near Boulogne-sur-Mer in about 285, when Carausius was posted there to defend against them. A more contemporary source, the "8th" Latin Panegyric, made in 297, refers to the now rebellious barbarian forces of Carausius and Allectus based around London in the 290s as being mainly "Frankish", and also mentions local British people in this period who "imitated the barbarian in their mode of dress and flowing red hair".[11] The homeland of these early raiders was also not clearly defined in such sources but they were apparently from regions near the Lower Rhine, where the Romans had also lost control to barbarians including Franks, but also Chamavi and Frisii. (This is considered by Dutch historians to be the last recorded mention of the Frisii, whose country became depopulated in the 4th century.[12])
Even when the empire was in control of Britain, the administration in Britain (and other parts of the empire) began to recruit Germanic soldiers from the Rhine river regions and beyond in what is now Germany and the Netherlands more heavily, and these are likely to have become more important in Britain after the withdrawal of field armies during internal Roman power struggles.[13] In the 360s and 370s there was a major invasion of Saxons into Britain, coordinated with tribes from Ireland and Scotland, and they were able to take control of large parts of Britain. Roman officer Count Theodosius led a successful campaign to recover control, both in Britain, including a naval battle in the Orkneys, and possibly also in the Rhine delta.[14] A few years later in 383 Magnus Maximus began his push for imperial power in Britain, and according to later writers such as Gildas he took the best Roman forces with him, leaving Britain exposed once again to the Irish and Scottish tribes. According to the Chronica Gallica of 452 Britain was ravaged by Saxon invaders in 409 or 410. This was only a few years after Constantine III was declared Roman emperor in Britain, and during the period that he was still leading British Roman forces in rebellion on the continent. The rebellion was soon quashed, the Romano-British citizens reportedly expelled Constantine's imperial officials during this period, but they never again received new Roman officials or military forces.[15] Writing in the mid-sixth century, Procopius states that after the death of Constantine III in 411, "the Romans never succeeded in recovering Britain, but it remained from that time under tyrants."[16]
The Romano-Britons nevertheless called upon the empire to help them fend off attacks from not only the Saxons, but also the Picts and Scoti. A hagiography of Saint Germanus of Auxerre claims that he helped command a defence against an invasion of Picts and Saxons in 429. By about 430 the archaeological record in Britain begins to indicate a relatively rapid melt-down of Roman material culture, and its replacement by Anglo-Saxon material culture. At some time between 445 and 454 Gildas, one of the only writers in this period, reported that the Britons also wrote to the Roman military leader Aëtius in Gaul, begging for assistance, with no success. In desperation, an unnamed "proud tyrant" at some point invited Saxons as foederati soldiers to Britain to help defend it from the Picts and Scots. Gildas did not report the year, and later writers (and modern historians) developed different estimates of when this occurred. Possibly referring to this same event, the Chronica Gallica of 452 records for the year 441: "The British provinces, which to this time had suffered various defeats and misfortunes, are reduced to Saxon rule". Bede, writing centuries later, reasoned that this happened in 450–455, and he named the "proud tyrant" as Vortigern. However, the date could have been significantly earlier, and Bede's understanding of these events has been questioned.[17] The Historia Brittonum, written in the 9th century, gives two different years, but the writer apparently believed it happened in 428.[18] Another 9th century source, the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle is largely based on Bede but says this Saxon arrival happened in 449.[19] The archaeological evidence suggests an earlier timescale. In particular, the work of Catherine Hills and Sam Lucy on the evidence of Spong Hill has moved the chronology for the settlement earlier than 450, with a significant number of items now in phases before Bede's date.[20] Historian Guy Halsall has even speculated that Gildas was badly misread by Bede and all subsequent historians, and that the invitation of the foederati was part of a military reorganization in the time of Magnus Maximus in the late 4th century.
Bede, whose report of this period is partly based on Gildas, believed that the call was answered by kings from three powerful tribes from Germania, Angles, Saxons, and Jutes. The Saxons came from Old Saxony on the North Sea coast of Germany, and settled in Wessex, Sussex and Essex. Jutland, the peninsula containing part of Denmark, was the homeland of the Jutes who settled in Kent and the Isle of Wight. The Angles (or English) were from 'Anglia', a country which Bede understood to have now been emptied, and which lay between the homelands of the Saxons and Jutes.[21] Anglia is usually interpreted as the old Schleswig-Holstein Province (straddling the modern Danish-German border), and containing the modern Angeln. Although this represents a turning point the continental ancestors of the Anglo-Saxons were probably quite diverse, and they arrived over a longer period. In another passage, Bede named pagan peoples still living in Germany (Germania) in the eighth century "from whom the Angles or Saxons, who now inhabit Britain, are known to have derived their origin; for which reason they are still corruptly called Garmans by the neighbouring nation of the Britons": the Frisians, the Rugini, the Danes, the "Huns" (Avars in this period), the "old Saxons", and the "Boructuari" who are presumed to be inhabitants of the old lands of the Bructeri, near the Lippe river.[22][23]: 123–124

The approximate extent of Anglo-Saxon expansion into the former Roman province of Britannia, by c.600
Gildas reported that a war broke out between the Saxons and the local population, who joined forces under a person named Ambrosius Aurelianus. Historian Nick Higham calls it the "War of the Saxon Federates". Unlike Bede and later writers who followed him, for whom this war turned into a very long war between two nations which was eventually won by the descendants of the Saxons, Gildas reported that by the time he was born this war ended successfully for the Britons after the siege at 'Mons Badonicus'. (The price of peace, Higham argues, must have been a better treaty for the Saxons, giving them the ability to receive tribute from people across the lowlands of Britain.[24]) Gildas himself did not mention the defeated Saxons as an ongoing problem, but instead he noted that the Britons had become divided into many small "tyrannies". His interest was in criticizing the Romano-British ruling class, whereas archaeological evidence shows that Anglo-Saxon culture had long become dominant over much of Britain. Historians who accept Bede's understanding interpret Gildas as ignoring a large part of Britain, and writing about Romano-British kingdoms which had been limited to the north and west. Other historians have argued that in the 5th century many Romano-British people must have adopted the new culture which we now call Anglo-Saxon, even when they did not have Germanic ancestry or rulers.
Unfortunately, there are very few written sources apart from Gildas until the conversion of the Anglo-Saxons to Christianity which began in the late 6th century. One eastern contemporary of Gildas, Procopius, reported a story which was apparently relayed to him by Frankish diplomats, that an island called Brittia which faced the Rhine was divided, between three peoples, the Britons, Anglii, and Frisians. Bede and later sources portrayed the royal family of Kent as a direct descendants of the original group of "Saxons" mentioned by Gildas, although they apparently believed they were actually Jutish. Unfortunately the king lists and genealogies produced by Bede and later writers are not considered reliable for these early centuries.
A 2022 genetic study used modern and ancient DNA samples from England and neighbouring countries to study the question of physical Anglo-Saxon migration and concluded that there was large-scale immigration of both men and women into Eastern England, from a "north continental" population matching early medieval people from the area stretching from northern Netherlands through northern Germany to Denmark. This began already in the Roman era, and then increased rapidly in the 5th century. The burial evidence showed that the locals and immigrants were being buried together using the same new customs, and that they were having mixed children. The authors estimate the effective contributions to modern English ancestry are between 25% and 47% "north continental", 11% and 57% from British Iron Age ancestors, and 14% and 43% was attributed to a more stretched-out migration into southern England, from nearby populations such as modern Belgium and France. There were significant regional variations in north continental ancestry ― lower in the west, and highest in Sussex, the East Midlands and East Anglia.[25]
Linguistic evidence from the names of kings in Anglo-Saxon royal genealogies suggests that Britons played a part in the foundation of several Anglo-Saxon kingdoms.[26] In the kingdom of Wessex, early kings Cerdic, Cædwalla and probably Ceawlin bear British names.[26][27] In Mercia, Penda, Pybba and Creoda, members of the royal family in the 6th and early 7th century, appear to have names derived from Old Welsh.[28] A royal genealogy from the minor kingdom of Lindsey gives the name Cædbæd, probably derived from British *Catuboduos, for one of its early sixth century kings.[29]

Christianity and the early kingdoms

King Æthelstan presenting a gospel book to (the long-dead) St Cuthbert (934); Corpus Christi College, Cambridge MS 183, fol. 1v
From the time of the Christian conversions the first well-attested English kings and kingdoms appear in the written record. This situation with a small number of kingdoms competing for dominance is traditionally called the Heptarchy, which indicates a period of seven kingdoms. There were however more than seven kingdoms, and their interactions were quite complex.
In 595 Augustine landed on the Isle of Thanet and proceeded to King Æthelberht's main town of Canterbury. He had been sent by Pope Gregory the Great to lead the Gregorian mission to Britain to Christianise the Kingdom of Kent from their native Anglo-Saxon paganism. Kent was probably chosen because Æthelberht had married a Christian princess, Bertha, daughter of Charibert I the king of Paris, who was expected to exert some influence over her husband.
Æthelberht in Kent was later seen by Bede as the third king to have imperium over the English south of the Humber, having replaced Ceawlin of Wessex (died about 593), and before this generation there are only semi-mythical accounts of earlier kings.
Æthelberht's law for Kent, the earliest written code in any Germanic language, instituted a complex system of fines. Kent was rich, with strong trade ties to the continent, and Æthelberht may have instituted royal control over trade. For the first time following the Anglo-Saxon invasion, coins began circulating in Kent during his reign. His son-in-law Sæberht of Essex also converted to Christianity.
After Æthelberht's death in about 616/618, the most powerful king was Rædwald of East Anglia, who also gave Christianity a foothold in his kingdom, and helped to install Edwin of Northumbria, who replaced Æthelfrith to become the second king over the two kingdoms north of the Humber, Bernicia and Deira. After Rædwald died, Cadwallon ap Cadfan, the king of Gwynedd, in alliance with king Penda of Mercia, killed Edwin in battle at Hatfield Chase. Æthelfrith's son Oswald subsequently became the third king of Northumbria. Although not included in Bede's list of rulers with imperium, Penda defeated and killed Oswald in 642 and was the dominant king of the English until he was himself killed in battle against Oswald's brother Oswiu in 655. Oswiu remained the dominant king of England until he died in 670.
In 635, Aidan, an Irish monk from Iona, chose the Isle of Lindisfarne to establish a monastery which was close to King Oswald's main fortress of Bamburgh. He had been at the monastery in Iona when Oswald asked to be sent a mission to Christianise the Kingdom of Northumbria from their native Anglo-Saxon paganism. Oswald had probably chosen Iona because after his father had been killed he had fled into south-west Scotland and had encountered Christianity, and had returned determined to make Northumbria Christian. Aidan achieved great success in spreading the Christian faith in the north, and since Aidan could not speak English and Oswald had learned Irish during his exile, Oswald acted as Aidan's interpreter when the latter was preaching.[30] Later, Northumberland's patron saint, Saint Cuthbert, was an abbot of the monastery, and then Bishop of Lindisfarne. An anonymous life of Cuthbert written at Lindisfarne is the oldest extant piece of English historical writing,[a] and in his memory a gospel (known as the St Cuthbert Gospel) was placed in his coffin. The decorated leather bookbinding is the oldest intact European binding.[32]
In 664, the Synod of Whitby was convened and established Roman practice as opposed to Irish practice (in style of tonsure and dates of Easter) as the norm in Northumbria, and thus "brought the Northumbrian church into the mainstream of Roman culture."[33] The episcopal seat of Northumbria was transferred from Lindisfarne to York. Wilfrid, chief advocate for the Roman position, later became Bishop of Northumbria, while Colmán and the Ionan supporters, who did not change their practices, withdrew to Iona. Wilfred also influenced kings to the south who were under the dominance of Oswiu, such as the son of Penda, Wulfhere of Mercia (died 675), who converted to Christianity and eventually recovered control over Mercia, and eventually expanded his dominance over most of England, beginning a long period of Mercian supremacy.

Middle Anglo-Saxon history (660–899)
By 660, the political map of Lowland Britain had developed with smaller territories coalescing into kingdoms, and from this time larger kingdoms started dominating the smaller kingdoms. The development of kingdoms, with a particular king being recognised as an overlord, developed out of an early loose structure that, Higham believes, is linked back to the original feodus.[34] The traditional name for this period is the Heptarchy, which has not been used by scholars since the early 20th century[35] as it gives the impression of a single political structure and does not afford the "opportunity to treat the history of any one kingdom as a whole".[36] Simon Keynes suggests that the 8th and 9th century was a period of economic and social flourishing which created stability both below the Thames and above the Humber.[36]

Mercian supremacy (626–821)

A political map of Britain circa 650 (the names are in modern English)
Middle-lowland Britain was known as the place of the Mierce, the border or frontier folk, in Latin Mercia. Mercia was a diverse area of tribal groups, as shown by the Tribal Hidage; the peoples were a mixture of Brittonic speaking peoples and "Anglo-Saxon" pioneers and their early leaders had Brittonic names, such as Penda.[37] Although Penda does not appear in Bede's list of great overlords, it would appear from what Bede says elsewhere that he was dominant over the southern kingdoms. At the time of the battle of the river Winwæd, thirty duces regii (royal generals) fought on his behalf. Although there are many gaps in the evidence, it is clear that the seventh-century Mercian kings were formidable rulers who were able to exercise a wide-ranging overlordship from their Midland base.
Mercian military success was the basis of their power; it succeeded against not only 106 kings and kingdoms by winning set-piece battles,[38] but by ruthlessly ravaging any area foolish enough to withhold tribute. There are a number of casual references scattered throughout the Bede's history to this aspect of Mercian military policy. Penda is found ravaging Northumbria as far north as Bamburgh and only a miraculous intervention from Aidan prevents the complete destruction of the settlement.[39] In 676 Æthelred conducted a similar ravaging in Kent and caused such damage in the Rochester diocese that two successive bishops gave up their position because of lack of funds.[40] In these accounts there is a rare glimpse of the realities of early Anglo-Saxon overlordship and how a widespread overlordship could be established in a relatively short period. By the middle of the 8th century, other kingdoms of southern Britain were also affected by Mercian expansionism. The East Saxons seem to have lost control of London, Middlesex and Hertfordshire to Æthelbald, although the East Saxon homelands do not seem to have been affected, and the East Saxon dynasty continued into the ninth century.[41] The Mercian influence and reputation reached its peak when, in the late 8th century, the most powerful European ruler of the age, the Frankish king Charlemagne, recognised the Mercian King Offa's power and accordingly treated him with respect, even if this could have been just flattery.[42]

Learning and monasticism (660–793)
Map of Britain in 802. By this date, historians today rarely distinguish between Angles, Saxons and Jutes.
Michael Drout calls this period the "Golden Age", when learning flourished with a renaissance in classical knowledge. The growth and popularity of monasticism was not an entirely internal development, with influence from the continent shaping Anglo-Saxon monastic life.[43] In 669 Theodore, a Greek-speaking monk originally from Tarsus in Asia Minor, arrived in Britain to become the eighth Archbishop of Canterbury. He was joined the following year by his colleague Hadrian, a Latin-speaking African by origin and former abbot of a monastery in Campania (near Naples).[44] One of their first tasks at Canterbury was the establishment of a school; and according to Bede (writing some sixty years later), they soon "attracted a crowd of students into whose minds they daily poured the streams of wholesome learning".[45] As evidence of their teaching, Bede reports that some of their students, who survived to his own day, were as fluent in Greek and Latin as in their native language. Bede does not mention Aldhelm in this connection; but we know from a letter addressed by Aldhelm to Hadrian that he too must be numbered among their students.[46]
Aldhelm wrote in elaborate and grandiloquent and very difficult Latin, which became the dominant style for centuries. Michael Drout states "Aldhelm wrote Latin hexameters better than anyone before in England (and possibly better than anyone since, or at least up until John Milton). His work showed that scholars in England, at the very edge of Europe, could be as learned and sophisticated as any writers in Europe."[47] During this period, the wealth and power of the monasteries increased as elite families, possibly out of power, turned to monastic life.[48]
Anglo-Saxon monasticism developed the unusual institution of the "double monastery": a house of monks and a house of nuns, living next to each other, sharing a church but never mixing, and living separate lives of celibacy. These double monasteries were presided over by abbesses, who became some of the most powerful and influential women in Europe. Double monasteries which were built on strategic sites near rivers and coasts, accumulated immense wealth and power over multiple generations (their inheritances were not divided) and became centers of art and learning.[49]
While Aldhelm was doing his work in Malmesbury, far from him, up in the North of England, Bede was writing a large quantity of books, gaining a reputation in Europe and showing that the English could write history and theology, and do astronomical computation (for the dates of Easter, among other things).

West Saxon hegemony and the Anglo-Scandinavian Wars (793–878)
The Oseberg ship prow, Viking Ship Museum, Oslo, Norway.
During the 9th century, Wessex rose in power, from the foundations laid by King Egbert in the first quarter of the century to the achievements of King Alfred the Great in its closing decades. The outlines of the story are told in the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle, though the annals represent a West Saxon point of view.[50] On the day of Egbert's succession to the kingdom of Wessex, in 802, a Mercian ealdorman from the province of the Hwicce had crossed the border at Kempsford, with the intention of mounting a raid into northern Wiltshire; the Mercian force was met by the local ealdorman, "and the people of Wiltshire had the victory".[51] In 829, Egbert went on, the chronicler reports, to conquer "the kingdom of the Mercians and everything south of the Humber".[52] It was at this point that the chronicler chooses to attach Egbert's name to Bede's list of seven overlords, adding that "he was the eighth king who was Bretwalda".[53] Simon Keynes suggests Egbert's foundation of a 'bipartite' kingdom is crucial as it stretched across southern England, and it created a working alliance between the West Saxon dynasty and the rulers of the Mercians.[54] In 860, the eastern and western parts of the southern kingdom were united by agreement between the surviving sons of King Æthelwulf, though the union was not maintained without some opposition from within the dynasty; and in the late 870s King Alfred gained the submission of the Mercians under their ruler Æthelred, who in other circumstances might have been styled a king, but who under the Alfredian regime was regarded as the 'ealdorman' of his people.

Anglo-Saxon-Viking coin weight. Material is lead and weighs approx 36 g. Embedded with a sceat dating to 720–750 AD and minted in Kent. It is edged with a dotted triangle pattern. Origin is the northern Danelaw region, and it dates from the late 8th to 9th century.
The wealth of the monasteries and the success of Anglo-Saxon society attracted the attention of people from mainland Europe, mostly Danes and Norwegians. Because of the plundering raids that followed, the raiders attracted the name Viking – from the Old Norse víkingr meaning an expedition – which soon became used for the raiding activity or piracy reported in western Europe.[55] In 793, Lindisfarne was raided and while this was not the first raid of its type it was the most prominent. In 794, Jarrow, the monastery where Bede wrote, was attacked; in 795 Iona in Scotland was attacked; and in 804 the nunnery at Lyminge in Kent was granted refuge inside the walls of Canterbury. Sometime around 800, a Reeve from Portland in Wessex was killed when he mistook some raiders for ordinary traders.
Viking raids continued until in 850, then the Chronicle says: "The heathen for the first time remained over the winter". The fleet does not appear to have stayed long in England, but it started a trend which others subsequently followed. In particular, the army which arrived in 865 remained over many winters, and part of it later settled what became known as the Danelaw. This was the "Great Army", a term used by the Chronicle in England and by Adrevald of Fleury on the Continent. The invaders were able to exploit the feuds between and within the various kingdoms and to appoint puppet kings, such as Ceolwulf in Mercia in 873 and perhaps others in Northumbria in 867 and East Anglia in 870.[52] The third phase was an era of settlement; however, the "Great Army" went wherever it could find the richest pickings, crossing the English Channel when faced with resolute opposition, as in England in 878, or with famine, as on the Continent in 892.[52] By this stage, the Vikings were assuming ever increasing importance as catalysts of social and political change. They constituted the common enemy, making the English more conscious of a national identity which overrode deeper distinctions; they could be perceived as an instrument of divine punishment for the people's sins, raising awareness of a collective Christian identity; and by 'conquering' the kingdoms of the East Angles, the Northumbrians and the Mercians, they created a vacuum in the leadership of the English people.[56]
Danish settlement continued in Mercia in 877 and East Anglia in 879–80 and 896. The rest of the army meanwhile continued to harry and plunder on both sides of the Channel, with new recruits evidently arriving to swell its ranks, for it clearly continued to be a formidable fighting force.[52] At first, Alfred responded by the offer of repeated tribute payments. However, after a decisive victory at Edington in 878, Alfred offered vigorous opposition. He established a chain of fortresses across the south of England, reorganised the army, "so that always half its men were at home, and half out on service, except for those men who were to garrison the burhs",[57][52] and in 896 ordered a new type of craft to be built which could oppose the Viking longships in shallow coastal waters. When the Vikings returned from the Continent in 892, they found they could no longer roam the country at will, for wherever they went they were opposed by a local army. After four years, the Scandinavians therefore split up, some to settle in Northumbria and East Anglia, the remainder to try their luck again on the Continent.[52]

King Alfred and the rebuilding (878–899)
A royal gift, the Alfred Jewel
More important to Alfred than his military and political victories were his religion, his love of learning, and his spread of writing throughout England. Keynes suggests Alfred's work laid the foundations for what really made England unique in all of medieval Europe from around 800 until 1066.[58]
Thinking about how learning and culture had fallen since the last century, King Alfred wrote:

...So completely had wisdom fallen off in England that there were very few on this side of the Humber who could understand their rituals in English, or indeed could translate a letter from Latin into English; and I believe that there were not many beyond the Humber. There were so few of them that I indeed cannot think of a single one south of the Thames when I became king. (Preface: "Gregory the Great's Pastoral Care")[59]
Alfred knew that literature and learning, both in English and in Latin, were very important, but the state of learning was not good when Alfred came to the throne. Alfred saw kingship as a priestly office, a shepherd for his people.[60] One book that was particularly valuable to him was Gregory the Great's Cura Pastoralis (Pastoral Care). This is a priest's guide on how to care for people. Alfred took this book as his own guide on how to be a good king to his people; hence, a good king to Alfred increases literacy. Alfred translated this book himself and explains in the preface:

...When I had learned it I translated it into English, just as I had understood it, and as I could most meaningfully render it. And I will send one to each bishopric in my kingdom, and in each will be an æstel worth fifty mancuses. And I command in God's name that no man may take the æstel from the book nor the book from the church. It is unknown how long there may be such learned bishops as, thanks to God, are nearly everywhere. (Preface: "Gregory the Great's Pastoral Care")[59]
What is presumed to be one of these "æstel" (the word only appears in this one text) is the gold, rock crystal and enamel Alfred Jewel, discovered in 1693, which is assumed to have been fitted with a small rod and used as a pointer when reading. Alfred provided functional patronage, linked to a social programme of vernacular literacy in England, which was unprecedented.[61]

Therefore it seems better to me, if it seems so to you, that we also translate certain books ...and bring it about ...if we have the peace, that all the youth of free men who now are in England, those who have the means that they may apply themselves to it, be set to learning, while they may not be set to any other use, until the time when they can well read English writings. (Preface: "Gregory the Great's Pastoral Care")[59]
This began a growth in charters, law, theology and learning. Alfred thus laid the foundation for the great accomplishments of the tenth century and did much to make the vernacular more important than Latin in Anglo-Saxon culture.

I desired to live worthily as long as I lived, and to leave after my life, to the men who should come after me, the memory of me in good works. (Preface: "The Consolation of Philosophy by Boethius")[59]
Late Anglo-Saxon history (899–1066)
A framework for the momentous events of the 10th and 11th centuries is provided by the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle. However charters, law-codes and coins supply detailed information on various aspects of royal government, and the surviving works of Anglo-Latin and vernacular literature, as well as the numerous manuscripts written in the 10th century, testify in their different ways to the vitality of ecclesiastical culture. Yet as Keynes suggests "it does not follow that the 10th century is better understood than more sparsely documented periods".[62]

Reform and formation of England (899–978)
Silver brooch imitating a coin of Edward the Elder, c. 920, found in Rome, Italy. British Museum.
During the course of the 10th century, the West Saxon kings extended their power first over Mercia, then into the southern Danelaw, and finally over Northumbria, thereby imposing a semblance of political unity on peoples, who nonetheless would remain conscious of their respective customs and their separate pasts. The prestige, and indeed the pretensions, of the monarchy increased, the institutions of government strengthened, and kings and their agents sought in various ways to establish social order.[63] This process started with Edward the Elder – who with his sister, Æthelflæd, Lady of the Mercians, initially, charters reveal, encouraged people to purchase estates from the Danes, thereby to reassert some degree of English influence in territory which had fallen under Danish control. David Dumville suggests that Edward may have extended this policy by rewarding his supporters with grants of land in the territories newly conquered from the Danes and that any charters issued in respect of such grants have not survived.[64] When Athelflæd died, Mercia was absorbed by Wessex. From that point on there was no contest for the throne, so the house of Wessex became the ruling house of England.[63]
Edward the Elder was succeeded by his son Æthelstan, whom Keynes calls the "towering figure in the landscape of the tenth century".[65] His victory over a coalition of his enemies – Constantine, King of the Scots; Owain ap Dyfnwal, King of the Cumbrians; and Olaf Guthfrithson, King of Dublin – at the battle of Brunanburh, celebrated by a poem in the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle, opened the way for him to be hailed as the first king of England.[66] Æthelstan's legislation shows how the king drove his officials to do their respective duties. He was uncompromising in his insistence on respect for the law. However this legislation also reveals the persistent difficulties which confronted the king and his councillors in bringing a troublesome people under some form of control. His claim to be "king of the English" was by no means widely recognised.[67] The situation was complex: the Hiberno-Norse rulers of Dublin still coveted their interests in the Danish kingdom of York; terms had to be made with the Scots, who had the capacity not merely to interfere in Northumbrian affairs, but also to block a line of communication between Dublin and York; and the inhabitants of northern Northumbria were considered a law unto themselves. It was only after twenty years of crucial developments following Æthelstan's death in 939 that a unified kingdom of England began to assume its familiar shape. However, the major political problem for Edmund and Eadred, who succeeded Æthelstan, remained the difficulty of subjugating the north.[68] In 959 Edgar is said to have "succeeded to the kingdom both in Wessex and in Mercia and in Northumbria, and he was then 16 years old" (ASC, version 'B', 'C'), and is called "the Peacemaker".[68] By the early 970s, after a decade of Edgar's 'peace', it may have seemed that the kingdom of England was indeed made whole. In his formal address to the gathering at Winchester the king urged his bishops, abbots and abbesses "to be of one mind as regards monastic usage . . . lest differing ways of observing the customs of one Rule and one country should bring their holy conversation into disrepute".[69]
Athelstan's court had been an intellectual incubator. In that court were two young men named Dunstan and Æthelwold who were made priests, supposedly at the insistence of Athelstan, right at the end of his reign in 939.[70] Between 970 and 973 a council was held, under the aegis of Edgar, where a set of rules was devised that would be applicable throughout England. This put all the monks and nuns in England under one set of detailed customs for the first time. In 973, Edgar received a special second, 'imperial coronation' at Bath, and from this point England was ruled by Edgar under the strong influence of Dunstan, Athelwold, and Oswald, the Bishop of Worcester.

Æthelred and the return of the Scandinavians (978–1016)
The reign of King Æthelred the Unready witnessed the resumption of Viking raids on England, putting the country and its leadership under strains as severe as they were long sustained. Raids began on a relatively small scale in the 980s but became far more serious in the 990s, and brought the people to their knees in 1009–12, when a large part of the country was devastated by the army of Thorkell the Tall. It remained for Swein Forkbeard, king of Denmark, to conquer the kingdom of England in 1013–14, and (after Æthelred's restoration) for his son Cnut to achieve the same in 1015–16. The tale of these years incorporated in the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle must be read in its own right,[71] and set beside other material which reflects in one way or another on the conduct of government and warfare during Æthelred's reign.[72] It is this evidence which is the basis for Keynes's view that the king lacked the strength, judgement and resolve to give adequate leadership to his people in a time of grave national crisis; who soon found out that he could rely on little but the treachery of his military commanders; and who, throughout his reign, tasted nothing but the ignominy of defeat. The raids exposed tensions and weaknesses which went deep into the fabric of the late Anglo-Saxon state, and it is apparent that events proceeded against a background more complex than the chronicler probably knew. It seems, for example, that the death of Bishop Æthelwold in 984 had precipitated further reaction against certain ecclesiastical interests; that by 993 the king had come to regret the error of his ways, leading to a period when the internal affairs of the kingdom appear to have prospered.[73]

Cnut's 'Quatrefoil' type penny with the legend "CNUT REX ANGLORU[M]" (Cnut, King of the English), struck in London by the moneyer Edwin.
The increasingly difficult times brought on by the Viking attacks are reflected in both Ælfric's and Wulfstan's works, but most notably in Wulfstan's fierce rhetoric in the Sermo Lupi ad Anglos, dated to 1014.[74] Malcolm Godden suggests that ordinary people saw the return of the Vikings as the imminent "expectation of the apocalypse", and this was given voice in Ælfric and Wulfstan writings,[75] which is similar to that of Gildas and Bede. Raids were taken as signs of God punishing his people; Ælfric refers to people adopting the customs of the Danish and exhorts people not to abandon the native customs on behalf of the Danish ones, and then requests a "brother Edward" to try to put an end to a "shameful habit" of drinking and eating in the outhouse, which some of the countrywomen practised at beer parties.[76]
In April 1016, Æthelred died of illness, leaving his son and successor Edmund Ironside to defend the country. The final struggles were complicated by internal dissension, and especially by the treacherous acts of Ealdorman Eadric of Mercia, who opportunistically changed sides to Cnut's party. After the defeat of the English in the Battle of Assandun in October 1016, Edmund and Cnut agreed to divide the kingdom so that Edmund would rule Wessex and Cnut Mercia, but Edmund died soon after his defeat in November 1016, making it possible for Cnut to seize power over all England.[77]

Conquest of England: Danes, Norwegians and Normans (1016–1066)
In the 11th century, there were three conquests: one by Cnut on October 18, 1016; the second was an unsuccessful attempt of Battle of Stamford Bridge in September, 1066; and the third was conducted by William of Normandy in October, 1066 at Hastings. The consequences of each conquest changed the Anglo-Saxon culture. Politically and chronologically, the texts of this period are not Anglo-Saxon; linguistically, those written in English (as opposed to Latin or French, the other official written languages of the period) moved away from the late West Saxon standard that is called "Old English". Yet neither are they "Middle English"; moreover, as Treharne explains, for around three-quarters of this period, "there is barely any 'original' writing in English at all". These factors have led to a gap in scholarship, implying a discontinuity either side of the Norman Conquest, however this assumption is being challenged.[78]
At first sight, there would seem little to debate. Cnut appeared to have adopted wholeheartedly the traditional role of Anglo-Saxon kingship.[79] However, an examination of the laws, homilies, wills, and charters dating from this period suggests that as a result of widespread aristocratic death and the fact that Cnut did not systematically introduce a new landholding class, major and permanent alterations occurred in the Saxon social and political structures.[80] Eric John remarks that for Cnut "the simple difficulty of exercising so wide and so unstable an empire made it necessary to practise a delegation of authority against every tradition of English kingship".[81] The disappearance of the aristocratic families which had traditionally played an active role in the governance of the realm, coupled with Cnut's choice of thegnly advisors, put an end to the balanced relationship between monarchy and aristocracy so carefully forged by the West Saxon Kings.
Edward became king in 1042, and given his upbringing might have been considered a Norman by those who lived across the English Channel. Following Cnut's reforms, excessive power was concentrated in the hands of the rival houses of Leofric of Mercia and Godwine of Wessex. Problems also came for Edward from the resentment caused by the king's introduction of Norman friends. A crisis arose in 1051 when Godwine defied the king's order to punish the men of Dover, who had resisted an attempt by Eustace of Boulogne to quarter his men on them by force.[82] The support of Earl Leofric and Earl Siward enabled Edward to secure the outlawry of Godwine and his sons; and William of Normandy paid Edward a visit during which Edward may have promised William succession to the English throne, although this Norman claim may have been mere propaganda. Godwine and his sons came back the following year with a strong force, and the magnates were not prepared to engage them in civil war but forced the king to make terms. Some unpopular Normans were driven out, including Archbishop Robert, whose archbishopric was given to Stigand; this act supplied an excuse for the Papal support of William's cause.[82]

Depiction of the Battle of Hastings (1066) on the Bayeux Tapestry
The fall of England and the Norman Conquest is a multi-generational, multi-family succession problem caused in great part by Athelred's incompetence. By the time William of Normandy, sensing an opportunity, landed his invading force in 1066, the elite of Anglo-Saxon England had changed, although much of the culture and society had stayed the same.

Ða com Wyllelm eorl of Normandige into Pefnesea on Sancte Michæles mæsseæfen, sona þæs hi fere wæron, worhton castel æt Hæstingaport. Þis wearð þa Harolde cynge gecydd, he gaderade þa mycelne here, com him togenes æt þære haran apuldran, Wyllelm him com ongean on unwær, ær þis folc gefylced wære. Ac se kyng þeah him swiðe heardlice wið feaht mid þam mannum þe him gelæstan woldon, þær wearð micel wæl geslægen on ægðre healfe. Ðær wearð ofslægen Harold kyng, Leofwine eorl his broðor, Gyrð eorl his broðor, fela godra manna, þa Frencyscan ahton wælstowe geweald.
Then came William, the Earl of Normandy, into Pevensey on the evening of St Michael's mass, and soon as his men were ready, they built a fortress at Hasting's port. This was told to King Harold, and he gathered then a great army and came towards them at the Hoary Apple Tree, and William came upon him unawares before his folk were ready. But the king nevertheless withstood him very strongly with fighting with those men who would follow him, and there was a great slaughter on either side. Then Harald the King was slain, and Leofwine the Earl, his brother, and Gyrth, and many good men, and the Frenchmen held the place of slaughter.[83]
After the Norman Conquest
Following the Norman conquest, many of the Anglo-Saxon nobility were either exiled or had joined the ranks of the peasantry.[84] It has been estimated that only about 8% of the land was under Anglo-Saxon control by 1087.[85] In 1086, only four major Anglo-Saxon landholders still held their lands. However, the survival of Anglo-Saxon heiresses was significantly greater. Many of the next generation of the nobility had English mothers and learned to speak English at home.[86] Some Anglo-Saxon nobles fled to Scotland, Ireland, and Scandinavia.[87][88] The Byzantine Empire became a popular destination for many Anglo-Saxon soldiers, as it was in need of mercenaries.[89] The Anglo-Saxons became the predominant element in the elite Varangian Guard, hitherto a largely North Germanic unit, from which the emperor's bodyguard was drawn and continued to serve the empire until the early 15th century.[90] However, the population of England at home remained largely Anglo-Saxon; for them, little changed immediately except that their Anglo-Saxon lord was replaced by a Norman lord.[91]
The chronicler Orderic Vitalis, who was the product of an Anglo-Norman marriage, writes: "And so the English groaned aloud for their lost liberty and plotted ceaselessly to find some way of shaking off a yoke that was so intolerable and unaccustomed".[92] The inhabitants of the North and Scotland never warmed to the Normans following the Harrying of the North (1069–1070), where William, according to the Anglo Saxon Chronicle utterly "ravaged and laid waste that shire".[93]
Many Anglo-Saxon people needed to learn Norman French to communicate with their rulers, but it is clear that among themselves they kept speaking Old English, which meant that England was in an interesting tri-lingual situation: Anglo-Saxon for the common people, Latin for the Church, and Norman French for the administrators, the nobility, and the law courts. In this time, and because of the cultural shock of the Conquest, Anglo-Saxon began to change very rapidly, and by 1200 or so, it was no longer Anglo-Saxon English, but early Middle English.[94] But this language had deep roots in Anglo-Saxon, which was being spoken much later than 1066. Research has shown that a form of Anglo-Saxon was still being spoken, and not merely among uneducated peasants, into the thirteenth century in the West Midlands.[95] This was J.R.R. Tolkien's major scholarly discovery when he studied a group of texts written in early Middle English called the Katherine Group.[96] Tolkien noticed that a subtle distinction preserved in these texts indicated that Old English had continued to be spoken far longer than anyone had supposed.[95]
Old English had been a central mark of the Anglo-Saxon cultural identity. With the passing of time, however, and particularly following the Norman conquest of England, this language changed significantly, and although some people (for example the scribe known as the Tremulous Hand of Worcester) could still read Old English into the thirteenth century, it fell out of use and the texts became useless. The Exeter Book, for example, seems to have been used to press gold leaf and at one point had a pot of fish-based glue sitting on top of it. For Michael Drout this symbolises the end of the Anglo-Saxons.[97]
After 1066, it took more than three centuries for English to replace French as the language of government. The 1362 parliament opened with a speech in English and in the early 15th century, Henry V became the first monarch, since before the 1066 conquest, to use English in his written instructions.[98]

Life and society
The larger narrative, seen in the history of Anglo-Saxon England, is the continued mixing and integration of various disparate elements into one Anglo-Saxon people.[citation needed] The outcome of this mixing and integration was a continuous re-interpretation by the Anglo-Saxons of their society and worldview, which Heinreich Härke calls a "complex and ethnically mixed society".[99]

Kingship and kingdoms