You may click on the footnote symbol to jump to the note, then click again on that footnote symbol and you will jump back to the same place in the text.
From The Annals of Roger de Hoveden, Comprising the History of England and of Other Countries of Europe from A.D. 732 to A.D. 1201, Translated from the Latin with Notes and Illustrations by Henry T. Riley, Esq., Volume I, London: H.G. Bohn, 1853; pp. 31-40.
Three years after this, Brithric, king of Wessex also departed this life, after he had most gloriously reigned over that nation seventeen years, having in ignorance taken some poison, which his wife Eadburga, the daughter of king Offa, had prepared for a certain young man; in consequence of which, they both died, as I have mentioned more at large above. At this time a great battle was fought in Northumbria, at Wellehare,1 in which perished Alric, the son of Herbert, and many others with him. The extreme perplexity that would result, necessarily prevents me from entering into a full description of the circumstances, fluctuations, and results of the wars; for the nation of the English was naturally hardy and proud, and in consequence incessantly engaged in intestine warfare.
Egbert2 therefore, in the year of grace 800, or, according to some, 802, being the eighth in order of ten most valiant kings, whom I have elsewhere remarked, as pre-eminently distinguished for their singular merits, on the death of Brithric succeeded to the throne, and reigned thirty-seven years and seven months over the kingdom of Wessex. At a youthful age, his predecessor Brithric, and Offa, king of Mercia, had banished him from this country. He was in exile three years at the court of the king of France, but behaved himself nobly and discreetly. On the death of the above-named king, he returned and gained the kingdom. On the same day, earl Ethelmund returned from Wicum,3 and, coming to Kinemeresforde,4 met earl Wistan with the men of Wiltshire, and there they fought, and both earls being slain, the Wiltshire men gained the victory.
In the fourth year after this, died Ethelred, archbishop of Canterbury, and was succeeded by Wilfred, and two years after, Cuthred, king of Kent, departed this life.
In the following year, Hardulph, king of Northumbria, was expelled from his kingdom.
In the fourteenth year of his reign, Egbert overran the territories of the Britons5 from east to west, and there was no one who could even attempt to make resistance to his prowess.
In the year after this, Charles, king of the Franks and emperor of the Romans, departed this life; and in the following year, Saint Leo, the pope, having died, Stephen succeeded him, who in his turn was succeeded by Paschal.
Shortly after this, Kenwulph, king of Mercia, departed this life, and was succeeded by Ceolwulph; but in the third year after this, he lost his kingdom, and Beornwulph gained possession of it.
In the fourteenth6 year of his reign, Egbert fought a battle with Beornwulph, king of Mercia, at Ellendune,7 by reason of which, an old saying mentions that, “The river Ellendune was red with gore, choked up with carnage, and stinking with putrefaction.” After a very great slaughter there of both nations, Egbert was the melancholy conqueror. After this, pursuing his successes, he sent his son Ethelwulph, who afterwards became king, and bishop Alcstan,8 and earl Walhard, with a great army, into Kent; on which they drove Balred, the king, beyond the Thames. King Egbert then received the people of Surrey, and Kent, and Sussex under his subjection, of whom his kinsman, Pren, had formerly been unjustly deprived. In this year also, the king of East Anglia, together with his people, acknowledged king Egbert as his protector; and after this, in the same year, the East Angles slew Bernulph, king of the Mercians, who was succeeded by Ludecen.
In the same year there was a very great battle between the Britons9 and the people of Devonshire, at Gavelford,10 where many thousands of men were slain on both sides.
In the following year, Ludecen, king of Mercia, and five earls, were slain.
In the twenty-seventh year of his reign, Egbert expelled Wilaf, king of Mercia, who had succeeded king Ludecen, and possessed himself of the kingdom. As he had now gained possession of all the kingdom on the south side of the Humber, he led an army to Dore11 against the Northumbrians; on which, submissively offering concord and obedience to the great king, they were peacefully reduced to subjection.
In the following year, king Egbert led an army into North Wales, and subjected it by force of arms.
In the succeeding year, Wilfred, archbishop of Canterbury, died, and was succeeded by Ceolnoth.
In the thirty-eighth12 year of king Egbert, an army of Danes returned to England; and shortly after, they were vanquished at Danemute,13 and put to flight. Shortly after this, they ravaged Sepey,14 on which king Egbert with his forces fought against them, they having come thither with thirty-five very large vessels. In the following year he fought against them at Carra,15 and there the Danes gained the victory, and two bishops, Herefred16 and Wilfred,17 with two dukes, Dudda and Osmod, were slain.
In the following year, a naval force of the Danes came into West Wales, on which the Welsh united with the Danes and made an attack upon king Egbert. The king, however, enjoying success, gloriously repulsed them, and, valiant as they were, bravely routed them at Hengistendune.18
In the year after this, Egbert, the great king and monarch of Britain, departed this life, after having made his sons heirs to the kingdoms of which he was in possession, appointing Ethelwulph king of Wessex, and Ethelstan king of Kent, Sussex, and Essex. But as we have now come to the
A. D.
842.34monarchies of England, and to the frightful plague which afflicted us in the descents of the Danes, the book may be made appropriately devoted to a new subject.
At the beginning19 of my history, I have mentioned that Britain was afflicted with five plagues; the fourth of which, namely, that caused by the Danes, I shall treat of in the present book, and the more so, as this was far more dreadful and caused far more bloodshed than the others. For the Romans kept Britain under their subjection during only a short period, and ruled it gloriously by the laws of the conquerors. Again, the Picts and the Scots made frequent irruptions into Britain on the northern side, but, still, they did not attack it in every quarter, and on being sometimes repulsed with loss, they not unfrequently paused in their invasions. Again, the Saxons, using all their endeavours, gradually gained the land by warfare: when gained, they kept possession of it; when in their possession, they built upon it; when built upon, they ruled it with their laws. The Normans also, who speedily and in a very short time subdued this country, granted to the conquered their lives, their liberty, and the ancient laws of the realm, upon which matters I shall enlarge at the proper time.
On the other hand, the Danes continually and perseveringly harassed the land, and in their incursions shewed a desire not to keep possession of it, but rather to lay it waste, and to destroy everything, not to obtain rule. If at any time they were overcome, no benefit resulted therefrom, for on a sudden a fleet and a still greater army would make its appearance in another quarter; and it was a matter for astonishment how, when the kings of the English would march to fight with them on the eastern side, before they approached the troops of the enemy, a messenger would come in haste and say, “O king, whither are you going? An innumerable fleet of the pagans on the southern side has taken possession of the coasts of England, and, depopulating cities and towns, has ravaged every place with fire and sword;” on the same day another would come running and saying, “O king, whither are you flying? A terrible army has landed on the western side of England; if you do not quickly turn and make head against them, they will think that you have taken to flight, and will
A. D.
842.
AFFLIC-
TIONS
OF
THE
ENGLISH.35
pursue you with flames and carnage.” On the same day or the succeeding one, another messenger would come running and out of breath, and say, “Whither, ye nobles, are you going? The Danes, leaving their northern regions, have already burnt your houses, already carried off your property, tossed your children on the points of their spears, and committed violence on the wives of some, while those of others they have carried away with them.”
Thus then, both king and people, being distracted by so many evil rumours and sinister reports, were relaxed both in hands and heart, and pined away with consternation of mind. Consequently, not even when they were victorious, did they experience any joy, as usually is the case, nor did they entertain any assured hopes of safety. The following is the reason why the justice of God raged so fiercely, and his wrath was so greatly inflamed against them.
In the primitive church of the English, religion shone forth with most brilliant lustre, inasmuch as kings and queens, nobles and princes, as well as bishops of churches, being inflamed with ardent desire for a heavenly kingdom, sought either the walls of the monastery or voluntary exile, as I have already shown. But in process of time all traces of virtue waxed so faint in them, that they would allow no nation to be their equal for treachery and wickedness, a thing which is especially notorious in the history of the kings of Northumberland; for just as their impiety has been described in my account of the actions of the kings, in the same way did men of every rank and station persist in a course of deceit and treachery, and nothing was esteemed disgraceful except piety, while innocence was considered most deserving of a violent death. In consequence, the Lord Almighty sent down upon them, like swarms of bees, most bloodthirsty nations, who spared neither age nor sex, such as the Danes and the Goths, the Norwegians and the Swedes, the Vandals and the Frisians; who, from the beginning of the reign of king Ethelwulph down to the time of the arrival of the Normans and of king William, that is to say, for a period of three hundred and thirty years, dreadfully afflicted this country, and laid it waste with desolation far and wide. Sometimes also, in consequence of the nearness of Britain, as the avengers and scourges of God for the misdeeds of the people, they invaded the country of France; but, having made
A. D.
847.36
these observations, it is time to return to the thread of my narrative.
In the first year of his reign, Ethelwulph made head against these enemies in one part of his kingdom; and, as multitudes of the pagans increased on every side, he sent earl Wulfred, with a part of his army, to attack some Danes, who, with thirty-three ships, had effected a landing at Hampton;20 on there meeting with them, after an immense slaughter of the enemy, gained a glorious victory. King Ethelwulph also sent earl Ethelhelm, with the levies of Wessex, to attack another army at Port;21 an engagement taking place, after an obstinate battle the earl was slain, and the Danes were victorious.
In the following year, earl Herbert fought against them at Merseware,22 and the Danes being the conquerors, his own men were put to flight, and he was slain. In the same year, an army of the pagans marched through the eastern parts of England, namely, Lindesey, East Anglia, and Kent, and slew an innumerable multitude with the sword.
In the next year after this, coming further inland, the army of the Danes slew an immense number of people in the neighbourhood of Canterbury, Rochester, and London.
In the fifth year of his reign, Ethelwulph, with a part of his army, fought against the crews of thirty-five ships at Carre,23 and the Danes were victorious. For, although the
A. D.
858.
VIC-
TORIES
OVER
THE
DANES.37
number of the ships was but small, still the number of men on board of them was considerable.
In the fifth year after this, the venerable bishop Alstan and duke Ernulph with the men of Somerset, and duke Osred with the men of Dorset, fought against an army of Danes at Pendredesmuthe,24 and by the aid of God, slew many of them, and obtained the glory of a triumph.
In the sixteenth year of his reign, Ethelwulph and his son Ethelbald, having collected all their forces, fought with a large army of the barbarians, who had come with two hundred and fifty25 ships to Thames-mouth, and had destroyed those cities, famous and renowned for ages, London and Canterbury, and put to flight Bretwulph, king of the Mercians, together with his army; who never afterwards enjoyed success, and dying in the following year, was succeeded by Burrhed. After this, the Danes growing still bolder, all their forces were collected in Surrey, and they met the king’s troops at Akelea.26 In consequence, a battle was fought between these two great armies, so mighty and so severely contested, that no person had ever before heard of such a battle being fought in England. You might behold warriors sweeping onward on either side, just like a field of standing corn, rivers of blood flowing and rolling along in their streams the heads and limbs of the slain; but it would be an act of excessive and over-nice fastidiousness to attempt to describe individual exploits. In short, God granted the fortune of war to the faithful, and those who put their trust in him, but to his enemies and contemners defeat and indescribable confusion. King Ethelwulph therefore, being conqueror in this mighty battle, gained a glorious triumph.
In the same year, Ethelstan, king of Kent, and duke Ealred27 fought a naval battle against the Danes at Sandwich, and having made a great slaughter of the enemy, captured nine of their ships, on which the rest took to flight. Earl Cheorl, also, with the men of Devonshire, fought against the pagans at Wienor,28 and having killed a great number of them, was victorious. Consequently, this year was one of good fortune to the
A. D.
884.38
English nation. This, however, was the first year in which the army of the pagans remained throughout the whole of the winter, which they did in the isle of Teneit.29
In the eighteenth year of his reign, Ethelwulph materially assisted Burrhed, king of the Mercians, in subjugating the people of North Wales, and gave him his daughter in marriage. He had four sons, who were all kings in succession, namely, Ethelbald, Ethelbert, Ethelred, and Alfred. This Alfred his father sent, when he was a child five years old, in the year above-mentioned, to Rome, to the court of pope Leo; the same pope afterwards pronounced his blessing on him as king, and treated him as his own son. This year, duke Ealhere, with the men of Kent, and Huda, with the men of Surrey, fought against an army of the heathens in Teneit, and a great multitude on either side was slain, or perished by shipwreck, and both the above-named dukes lost their lives.
Ethelwulph, the illustrious king of Essex, in the nineteenth year of his reign, set apart a a tenth of all the lands in his realm, and bestowed it upon the church, for the love of God, and for his own salvation. Afterwards, he went to Rome in great state, and took with him his son Alfred, whom he loved more than the others. There he remained one year, and on his return thence, took the daughter of Charles the Bald, king of France, to wife, and brought her with him into this country; after having lived with her two years, he died, and was buried at Winchester. He had at first been bishop of that city, but on the death of his father, Egbert, being compelled by necessity, he was made king, and, having married a noble wife, became father of the four sons above-named. About this period, the pagans passed the whole winter at Sepey, that is to say, “the island of sheep.”
The above-named king, on his decease, left to his son, Ethelbald, his hereditary kingdom of Wessex, and to Ethelbert, another son, the kingdom of Kent, with Sussex and Wessex. Both the brothers being young men of excellent natural disposition, held their kingdoms without the slightest molestation as long as they lived.
Ethelbald, the king of Wessex, after he had reigned peacefully for five years, was cut off by a premature death.
A. D.
900.
THE
KINGS
OF
WESSEX.39
All England bewailed the youthful age of Ethelbald, and there was great mourning for him; he was buried at Sherburne, and England was afterwards sensible what a loss she had experienced in him.
Ethelbert, the brother of the above-mentioned king, reigned after him in Wessex, having been previously king of Kent. In his days a naval force came, and having attacked Winchester, destroyed it; thus “fell the ancient city that for many a year had borne the sway.”
Ethelbert, dying ten years after, was succeeded by Ethelred, who, after reigning six years, was succeeded by king Alfred, whose reign lasted twenty-eight years. His genealogy, together with his actions and the events of his time, are described below.
CERDIC reigned five years.
KENRIC, his son, reigned twenty-six years.
CHENLING, his son, reigned thirty-one years.
CHELRIC reigned six years.
CHELWULPH reigned fourteen years.
KINIGLIS, who was a Christian, reigned one year. He was baptized by Saint Birinus.
KENWALD, his son, reigned thirty-one years.
SEXBURGA, the queen, reigned one year.
ESCWIN reigned two years.
KENTWIN reigned nine years.
CEDWALLA reigned two years; and died at Rome, while wearing the white garments.30
INA reigned thirty-six years, and afterwards died at Rome.
ADELARD reigned thirteen years.
CHUTRED reigned sixteen years.
SIGEBERT, a cruel man, reigned one year, and was expelled.
KINEWULPH reigned twenty-six years, and was afterwards slain.
BRITHRIC reigned sixteen years. In his reign the Danes first came to England.
EGBERT reigned thirty-five years. He was monarch of all England.
ETHELWULPH reigned eighteen years.
ETHELBALD reigned five years.
ETHELBERT reigned six years.
ETHELRED, his brother, reigned five years.
ALFRED the Learned reigned twenty-nine years.
EDWARD reigned twenty-four years.
ATHELSTAN, his brother, reigned sixteen years.
EDMUND reigned six years and one day.
EDRED reigned nine years and one day.
EDWIN reigned three years and nine months.
EDGAR the Just reigned sixteen years.
EDWARD the Martyr reigned four years.
ETHELRED, his brother, reigned thirty-eight years.
EDMUND Ironside reigned nine months.
CANUTE, the Dane, reigned nineteen years.
HAROLD, his son, reigned five years.
HARDICANUTE reigned two years.
EDWARD the Just reigned twenty-four years.
HAROLD reigned nine months.
WILLIAM the Bastard reigned twenty-one years.
WILLIAM RUFUS reigned thirteen years.
HENRY, the Lion of Justice, reigned thirty-five years and three months.
1 This is probably an error for Wellham, or Wylam, in Northumberland. Lambarde says, “In the beginning of the reign of King Egbert, one of the great monarchs of this realm, there was a great battle fought at a place in the north country, called then Welham, which I take to be now called Wyllom in Coupland.”
2 He now resumes the narrative where broken off in p. 20.
3 The country of the Wiccii, who inhabited Worcestershire and Gloucestershire.
4 Kempsford. Lambarde suggests that this may be Comberford, near Calne.
5 The people of North Wales.
6 This should be “twenty-fourth.”
7 Supposed to have been near Winchester, though Highworth, in Wiltshire, and Hillingdon, in Middlesex, have been suggested.
8 Of Sherborne.
9 The Welsh.
10 Camelford, in Cornwall.
11 Lambarde suggests, that it may possibly be Darton, or Darfield, in Yorkshire.
12 This should be “thirty-fifth.”
13 A various reading gives Donemuth. Lambarde thinks that this place stood at the confluence of the rivers Don and Trent, not far from the town of Kingston-upon-Hull.
14 The isle of Sheppey, at the mouth of the Thames.
15 Charmouth.
16 He appears to have been bishop of Winchester.
17 He was bishop of either Sherburne or Selsey.
18 Lambarde says, “I take this to be the same place that is at this day called Henkston Doune, in Cornwall; for the fall is easy from Hengistdune to Hengstdune, and so to Hengston; and it is most apparent that it was either in Cornwall, or not far off.
19 He has not previously made any such remark: this and some other passages would lead us to infer that some portion of the work is lost.
20 Southampton.
21 The isle of Portland.
22 Instead of naming the place, the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle says: “This year Herebert, the ealdorman, was slain by the heathen, and many with him, among the Marshmen.” In Ethelwerd’s Chronicle the place is called Merswarum, and Romney Marsh is supposed to be intended under that name. Lambarde has the following quaint note on this passage: ”Henry Huntingdon, in the Fifth Book of his History, speaking of the conflicts had with the Danes under the reign of Ædelwulfe, reports, amongst other things, that Herebert, an earl, fought with them, at a place which he called Marseware, and was slain. Matthew Westminster repeateth the same, and instead of Marseware, setteth down ‘apud Marsunarum.’ So that both these, and so many others as have followed them, take the name Mersewar for a place, and not for a number of persons. In which, through ignorance of the Saxon tongue, they have foully erred; for the Saxon books say that Herebert was slain, ‘and with him many of the Mercians, or men of Mercia.’ So that the history describeth of what country they were that were slain, but not in what place the slaughter was committed.’
23 Charmouth.
24 The mouth of the river Parret, in Somersetshire.
25 Another reading is 315; but the other historians make the number 350.
26 Ockley.
27 The Anglo-Saxon Chronicle and Ethelwerd’s Chronicle call him Elchere; he is also so called in p. 42.
28 Wembury, near Plymouth.
29 Thanet. The Anglo-Saxon Chronicle mentions the isle of Sheppey here, and makes it some years later.
30 The white or initiatory garments of the novice, or intended monk.