England during the Danish Invasion

I just finished reading Bernard Cornwell's outstanding historical fiction The Last Kingdom, which is set during the Danish invasion and occupation of England (or Englaland as it was called by the Englesc). It is a very good read, and one can't help but be inspired to know more about this fascinating time. Many questions come to my mind, but one thought keeps me wondering. What was England like under the Danelaw, and is there still cultural remnants left over in England from that time? It certainly must have been a time of sweeping change for the inhabitants then. Why was Wessex able to resist? Was the leadership of Alfred the Great the largest factor?

Thanks in advance to all who may care to enlighten us.

Certainly there are still cultural remnants. My village was on the western boundary of Danelaw and has a distinctly Danish name, as do many of the others surrounding it (the "-by" ending is common in England and Scandinavia to this day).

I believe Danelaw was establshed after Danes and Wessex had fought each other to a standstill, but you're probably better informed than I am on that front now :2thumbsup:

by meaning town in danish. It was given to the Danes in 876-80 and was 'returned' in 920, while it still remained as a special cultural place. It included areas of: northumbria, east anglia and parts of mercia.

There is more to the Danish influence over England than the events of 9th and 10th centuries. The Danes under Cnut conquered England in the early 11th century and the aftermath of that conquest set in motion the rise and the fall of Harold Godwinson, Stamford Bridge, Hasting, the Norman conquest and all that followed. If you think our politics are complex,....check out England between 1016 and 1066.:book:

Any book covering the events of should cover the early part of century as well but I would suggest the following three books:

"Harold, The Last Anglo-Saxon King", by Ian W Walker
"1066, The Year of Three Battles", by Frank McLynn
"The Battle of Hastings", by Jim Bradbury

Cheers.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pontifex Rex

There is more to the Danish influence over England than the events of 9th and 10th centuries. The Danes under Cnut conquered England in the early 11th century and the aftermath of that conquest set in motion the rise and the fall of Harold Godwinson, Stamford Bridge, Hasting, the Norman conquest and all that followed. If you think our politics are complex,....check out England between 1016 and 1066.:book:

Any book covering the events of should cover the early part of century as well but I would suggest the following three books:

"Harold, The Last Anglo-Saxon King", by Ian W Walker
"1066, The Year of Three Battles", by Frank McLynn
"The Battle of Hastings", by Jim Bradbury

Cheers.

---

Indeed I shall look into these tomes of the later conquest by the Normans, who were really just displaced Danes after all. I guess what I am trying to glean from this thread is more along the lines of what happened after the peace between the Danes and Alfred. Were these Norseman, despite the establishment of the Danelaw, assimilated into English culture, or were the English in the areas that they ruled forced to adopt Danish ways? It seems to me that there just weren't enough Danes to establish a truly effective Government of their own. They must have utilised the existing English systems by ruling through those English ealdorman that swore fealty to the Danish warlords. This is what the historical characters in the story I read seemed to do. It was not always sucessful, and places such as Northumbria and York seethed with rebellions that had to be put down severly by the invaders.

Thanks for the good book tips. I'll try to obtain copies of them soon.

Regards,

Quote:

---

Why was Wessex able to resist? Was the leadership of Alfred the Great the largest factor?

---

They were aware of the threat, had ample warning, and most importantly were (by this time) both the wealthiest and most powerful Kingdom of the heptarchy. I don't think Alfred was the largest factor at all. I don't dispute that he was "Great", I just think that the kingdom could have done as much (or more, though we'll never know) without him.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rotorgun

Indeed I shall look into these tomes of the later conquest by the Normans, who were really just displaced Danes after all. I guess what I am trying to glean from this thread is more along the lines of what happened after the peace between the Danes and Alfred. Were these Norseman, despite the establishment of the Danelaw, assimilated into English culture, or were the English in the areas that they ruled forced to adopt Danish ways? It seems to me that there just weren't enough Danes to establish a truly effective Government of their own. They must have utilised the existing English systems by ruling through those English ealdorman that swore fealty to the Danish warlords. This is what the historical characters in the story I read seemed to do. It was not always sucessful, and places such as Northumbria and York seethed with rebellions that had to be put down severly by the invaders.

Thanks for the good book tips. I'll try to obtain copies of them soon.

Regards,

---

The Danes under Cnut used english law yes. They left most organs of Anglo-Saxon governace intacted. The biggest change they made was creating a class of herditary nobility to rule over groups of shires. They were called Earls. This is all based on my recolection of the TV series Monarchy by David Starkey, produced by channel4. Based on his book "The Monarchy of England". It's a 20 episdoe series and the first 4 cover Saxon England.

The archaeology shows that the immigrant Danes mostly moved onto land not being used by the Angles, with the villages existing peacefully side-by-side and retaining their own burial customs for a while. There also seems to have been a rapid mutual adoption of cultural artifacts and settlement patterns. This wouldn't have been too alien to either group because they were descended from similar ethnic roots on the continent. In fact, this sea-borne influx can be viewed as a single, protracted process lasting from the 5thC right through to 1066. It's difficult to grasp in our modern over-crowded times but back then there was plenty of land in Britain and very few people.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Red Peasant

The archaeology shows that the immigrant Danes mostly moved onto land not being used by the Angles, with the villages existing peacefully side-by-side and retaining their own burial customs for a while.

---

Interesting. Going a little off-topic - does your knowledge of archaeology lead you to believe the earlier Anglo-Saxon invasion was much more violent, like a mass wave of ethnic cleansing of the native Britons?

Try reading 1066: The Hidden Meaning of the Bayeux Tapestry (or something close to it)...very interesting stuff, even covers a little of France.

I found this jewel while searching for more information about life under the Danelaw. The link is about the many words adapted from the Old Norse spoken by the Norwegians into common English words used today.

http://www.viking.no/e/england/e-viking_english.htm

It is an interseting read.

PS: My personal favorite so far is Balderdash listed in the objects section of words. I like the Danish meaning of the word-balder-noise, clatter; das-slap, clap.

The Anglo-Saxon invasion of Britain was pretty much a folk migration. Given the mores on treatment of civilians by conquering armies at the Migration Period in general odds are after all the perfectly normal raiding, pillage, murder, flight etc. that accompanied military exploits in general and succesful invasions in particular, there simply weren't all that many Romano-Brits left in the conquered (and duly rapidly settled) areas in the first place. The ones still around were no doubt quite fervently accommodating of their new neighbours and overlords, and the two populations likely got mixed up fairly soon as now tended to happen with these things.

What originally motivated the Scandinavians to "go Viking" and later settle abroad was the blunt fact decent farmland was slowly but surely running out back home. Younger sons who didn't inherit the farm or whatever were increasingly finding they simply had to go elsewhere to make a living, whether by trade, pillage, emigration or any combination thereof, and of course successes encouraged further such enterprises. The Danelaw and other Scandinavian settlements in the British Isles (Dublin and many other Irish coastal centers were practically Viking, and founded by them) was no different. First the Vikings just raided. Then they took to occasionally wintering in Britain. Then they started building bases to launch further raids inland from. Eventually they dispensed with the complications and just set up shop - whether the land they settled on was originally virtually uninhabited or had been largely abandoned due to the incessant Viking raids over the years being naturally quite irrelevant, not that they were likely to mind a few locals plowing their fields next door either. And, of course, the more permanent their presence became the more established and routine their relations with the locals had to become; the Anglo-Saxon kingdomlets were no longer merely targets for raids, partners for trade or paymasters for mercenaries, but strong neighbours with whom some kinds of accords had to be reached for mutual benefit.

As for Wessex, I've read one of its major aces in the hole was a certain enthusiasm for fortress-building. Not only were all towns and important locales furnished with decent walls and (for the time and place) fairly sophisticated defense works; the countryside was also dotted with small garrison forts in strategic places. The Vikings found this tangle of strongpoints and garrisons difficult to raid and move in, which of course was the whole point - parallel developements on the continent, designed to frustrate Moorish, Viking and Hungarian marauders, were around the same time laying the base for what would become Medieval Europe's characteristic crust of feudal fortress networks.

I agree with you Watchman concerning the reasons why the Danes, Norwegians, and the Swedes to "go a viking". History agrees with you as well. Here is an excerpt from the Time-Life book Barbarian Europe, by Gerald Simons:

What propelled the Scandinavians onto the stage of history with such sudden and destructive force? The causes are as obscure as the deriviation of the name "Viking" itself (signifying one who goes adventuring by sea, in medieval Scandinavian languages). Most scolares agree that one important factor was overpopulation.(Chapter 6, page 125)

Undoubtedly overpopulation was not the sole cause of the Viking phenomena. As the Northmen's trade increased, they must have been animated by a growing taste for wealth as well as by their inherent and irresistible urge to go adventuring. Apparently, too, a combination of customs added a volatile element to the expanding pool of surplus manpower. Many Scandinavian chieftains practiced polygamy and adhered to a rule of inheritance by primogeniture. Their numerous young sons, disinherited, made up a large and dangerous warrior elite who were obliged to make their own way by any means, be it conquests at home or piracy abroad. Presumably this group supplied most of the leaders for the Vikings' cescent upon Europe. (Chapter 6, page 126)

As for what the Danish invaders who settled in northern England, and indeed, France and the Low Countries as well, brought to the table afterwards, I quote again from Gerald Simon's work:

....the Northmen worked a constructive economic revolution. The whole western European seaboard -the coasts of Baltic Sea plus the Atlantic front from Norway to Spain-was united by Viking ships into a single thoroughfare for commerce, a sea route that would soon supersede the Mediterranean in importance to the West. (Chapter 6, page 134)

This goes without mentioning the huge impact those stalwart descendants of the Vikings, known to history as the Normans, would have on England and Europe in the 10th and 11th centuries. But that is another discussion.
:viking:
Regards,