Well a few weeks ago I had the honour of publishing the first article on this Blog: The Battle of Maldon - The Truth? [Part One], and since then I see you've been taken on a journey through The Renaissance, studying Baroque art and Christmas foods! I left you having wrapped up studying the most significant primary sources that record the Battle of Maldon and trying to glean what actually happened and what the significance of the pieces remembering the battle in the way they did actually means. Today, I will finish this little project with a study of the later sources, published a hundred of so years after the events – looking back at Maldon, understanding the full implications of the Danegeld and having no personal connection with the people who fought and died for England. What do they say? Let’s find out.
Three later chronicles mention the Battle of Maldon and its events, all of which were written in the 1100s. These are the Chronicon Ex Chronicis by John of Worcester, Historia Anglorum by Henry of Huntingdon and Historia Regum attributed to Symeon of Durham. All three chronicles are similar. Chronicon Ex Chronicis and Historia Regum particularly share the same phrases. They also echo what the Vita Sancti Oswaldi wrote one hundred years earlier. It is more than probable the Chronicon Ex Chronicis used Byrhtferth’s work (Author of the Vita) as inspiration[1], whilst it is recognised that Historia Regum relied on the Chronicon Ex Chronicis for its information[2]. There are more differences in Historia Anglorum from the other two chronicles. This could be attributed to Henry of Huntingdon being an historian[3] and using other sources to create his narrative, including Bede’s Historia Ecclesiastica[4], Paul the Deacon’s Historia Romana, and the Anglo-Saxon Chronicles[5]. Historical writers would commonly conflate sources to depict the most probable version of events[6] - just as I am trying to do now with this little project, trying to find the most accurate truth. All three sources agree on two points, one Byrhtnoth died, and the other, 991 was the year the Danegeld was first given to the Vikings on the advice of ‘Sigeric’[7][8][9]. It is of great importance all three chronicles chose to record the Danegeld and probably reflects they were writing with hindsight knowing the effects of the Danegeld[10]. Rather than describing the Battle of Maldon as a heroic battle (like The Battle of Maldon poem) they portray it as more of a ‘resounding defeat for the English’[11]. These later chronicles, though derived from the contemporary sources, include an outsider’s perspectives of the consequences of the defeat at Maldon. They’re pretty bitter about it.
The final two later sources are both cartulary-chronicles, the Liber Eliensis written at Ely Abbey, and the Ramsey Chronicle written at Ramsey Abbey – both in the 1100s. The Liber Eliensis is the longest historical record of the Battle of Maldon[12] (if we classify the poem as art, if not the Liber is the second longest source!). The Ramsey Chronicle likely used the Liber Eliensis as an outline[13]. They describe him as a good, honourable Church-man[14] and favourable towards the Church which is unsurprising for a Church chronicle. This is supported by its use of biblical references[15]. In the Liber Eliensis Byrhtnoth is depicted as a ‘outstanding’[16] man. The Ramsey Chronicle likewise approves of Byrhtnoth noting he was ‘greatly esteemed’[17]. Byrhtnoth bequeathed money, land and wealth to Ely Abbey[18], and it is not unlikely his child, Leofflaed, continued to do the same into at least the eleventh century[19]. It is therefore not surprising the Liber Eliensis presents Byrhtnoth in a positive light. It had vested interest in A) Keeping the ‘sponsorship’ of Byrhtnoth’s relatives and B) were probably in many ways grateful for all that Byrhtnoth had given to them when he was alive and, on his death - neither of these are motive for depicted him a failure. Similarly, Ramsey Abbey, at one time, also benefitted from Byrhtnoth’s bequests. Both Chronicles are proven to have errors. The Liber Eliensis records Byrhtnoth as the Earl of Northumbria[20] and the battle lasted for ‘fourteen days’[21], whilst the Ramsey Chronicle records Wulfisge as the abbot of the Northumbrian house in 991[22] – all of which are known to be untrue. If Byrhtnoth was Earl of Northumbria how the heck was he down south in Essex with his army fighting a raiding army…? If you’re curious into understanding why some thoughts on these errors check out Donalds Scragg’s The Battle of Maldon (as I mentioned in the last post!) – he has some really interesting thoughts on these mistakes! These errors may have been introduced due to misinterpretation of sources[23], or personal motive of the Abbeys overriding historical fact – like propaganda[24]. The Liber Eliensis could be seen as trying to keep Byrhtnoth’s remaining family on side (evidence his grandson Thurstan made bequests to Ely[25]) as Byrhtnoth, his death, and the regaining of his body are all key to the story of Ely[26]. The Liber Eliensis and the Ramsey Chronicle could be described as works of fiction feeding the legendary story of Maldon[27], influenced by their Christian filter as well as their need for financial gain.
Right then. To draw some kind of conclusion: what truth can we glean from these sources about The Battle of Maldon and its events? Well if I’m honest, not much solid fact. Historians have battered around plenty of ideas and come up with well supported theories for the events. I make no such claim that I am a good enough researcher yet that I can draw any bold assumptions. But what I will say is, chances are it happened in 991. The Ealdorman Byrthnoth did die, although was it by decapitation? Did it take three men to kill him or one? Did they partially sever his arm? This, I can partly answer: when they found and reburied his body it was found without a head… so unless someone lost his skull I can say there is a good chance he was beheaded! But the rest, I am unsure about. Was he a good, strong man who fought for England? I hope so. The Romantic in me wants to see Byrthnoth as this great military leader who on this day was just overpowered by a stronger Viking Force. I want to see him as the hero. Is he responsible for the Danegeld and does he deserve the stick he gets for it? No, I don’t think so. The military defeat, yes, put England is a difficult place, but I think that as the later Chronicles mention it was the decision after Maldon (the decision is attributed to Archbishop Sigeric as mentioned above) that was destructive, it wasn’t Byrthnoth’s fault. Or at least I like to think it wasn’t.
Each of contemporary sources discussed in Part One has its own unique flavour depending on whether it is a poetic art form, a factual record or a religious biography and do not necessarily hold any authority over the later sources. Perhaps, surprisingly, the later sources are not as objective as first assumed. Partly they were influenced by the particular contemporary sources they use as their guide. They were also influenced by their individual contexts. Furthermore, the later sources discuss the Danegeld and the consequences of the events at Maldon. They are not more objective in their discussions, but have better historical perspective. The very existence of the contemporary sources makes sure the Battle of Maldon is not lost to history, and the repetitions in the later sources emphasise what a national event the battle must have been. The differences among the sources are less to do with chronology, and more to do with errors, misinterpretations, any financial or political agenda, or, religious or factual filter.
An Under-rated Battle? I think so. The Truth? When I figure it out, I’ll tell ya.
- Emily Storey Walker
Mistress of the Hounds and Horses
[1] Eric John, ‘War and Society in the Tenth Century: The Maldon Campaign’ in Transactions of the Royal Historical Society 27 (1997): 184.
[2] Alan Kennedy, ‘Byrhtnoth’s Obits and Twelfth-Century Accounts of the Battle of Maldon’ in The Battle of Maldon, ed. Scragg, 71.
[3] Diana Greenway, The History of the English People 1000-1154 (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1996), xiv.
[4] Catherine A. M. Clarke, ‘Writing Civil War in Henry of Huntingdon’s Historia Anglorum’ in Anglo Norman Studies 31: Proceedings of the Battle Conference (2009): 34.
[5] Pauline Stafford. ‘The Anglo-Saxon Chronicles, Identity and the Making of England’ in The Haskins Society Journal 19 (2007): 30.
[6] Rees Davies, ‘Reviewed Work: Henry, Archdeacon of Huntingdon: ‘Historia Anglorum’ (‘History of the English People’) by Diana Greenway’’ in Medium Ævum 66.2 (1997): 320.
[7] John of Worcester, Chronicon Ex Chronicis, 62.
[8] Symeon of Durham, Historia Regum, translated by Kennedy, ‘Byrhtnoth’s Obits’ in The Battle of Maldon, AD 991 ed. Donald Scragg (Oxford: Basil Blackwell), 70.
[9] Henry of Huntingdon, Historia Anglorum, translated by Kennedy, in The Battle of Maldon, AD 991 ed. Donald Scragg (Oxford: Basil Blackwell), 63.
[10] Kennedy, ‘Byrhtnoth’s Obits’, 63.
[11] Ibid., 71.
[12] North, ‘Getting to know the General’, 2-3.
[13] Kennedy, ‘Byrhtnoth’s Obits’ 75.
[14] Ibid., 69.
[15] Kennedy, ‘Byrhtnoth’s Obits’, 75.
[16] Liber Eliensis, translated by Janet Fairweather in Liber Eliensis: a history of the Isle of Ely from the seventh century to the twelfth (Woodbridge: Boydell Press, 2005), 160.
[17] Ramsey Chronicle, translated by Kennedy, ‘Byrhtnoth’s Obits’ in The Battle of Maldon, AD 991, ed. Donald Scragg (Oxford: Basil Blackwell), 69.
[18] North, ‘Getting to know the General’, 3.
[19] Pauline Stafford, ‘Kinship and Women in the World of Maldon: Byrhtnoth and his Family’, in The Battle of Maldon: Fiction and Fact, ed. Janet Cooper (London: The Hambledon Press, 1993), 231.
[20] Hill, ‘The “Liber Eliensis”’, 3.
[21] Liber Eliensis, 68.
[22] Kennedy, ‘Byrhtnoth’s Obits’, 75.
[23] Hill, ‘The “Liber Eliensis”’, 3.
[24] Ibid., 3.
[25] Dorothy Whitelock, Anglo-Saxon Wills (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2011): 81.
[26] Campbell, ‘England, c.991’, 2.
[27] Kennedy, ‘Byrhtnoth’s Obits’, 75.
Comments