Whilst researching Blood and Destiny (the first book in my series The Shadow of the Raven), I came across a reference which described how, in 871, Alfred (whose brother, Ethelred, was king at that time) led a charge at the Battle of Ashdown while mounted on a pure white stallion. Although an inspiring image, it rather goes against the perceived wisdom which assumes that the Saxons didn’t fight on horseback.

Whilst that seems to be generally accepted, it has been argued by some historians that this might not always have been the case and it does seem logical that a man wealthy enough to own a horse might well have ridden it into battle for whatever tactical advantage he could achieve by doing so.

However, more typically, we are led to believe that whilst the wealthier men and nobles may have ridden to the battlefield, once there they sent their horses to the rear and fought on foot.

There is a certain amount of logic in this. As not many men could afford to own a horse, being one of only a few men mounted would mark out a warrior as a person of wealth and status, making him an obvious target. A horse would also have been easier to hit with an arrow amid the turmoil of battle – bring it down and the rider must surely follow, probably injuring himself and others in the process.

There is also the risk of having frightened and wounded horses running loose on the battlefield which would have posed a significant danger to those fighting on foot, not to mention the distraction and disruption caused if they interfered with the battle tactics and formations.

Horses were certainly expensive to buy and keep, but it may not have been just a question of cost which prevented the Saxons from equipping a mounted contingent. The horses readily available to them were not always ideally suited for battle.

For the most part they would have been derived from small, rugged native beasts such as those from Exmoor or the Fells, though doubtless the native bloodline would have been infused to some extent by that of significantly bigger and stronger animals during the Roman occupation of Britain. The Romans certainly did have cavalry and also access to superior horse stock which must surely have left some genetic impression.

So, if they had access to some suitable horses, why did the Saxons not use them in battle? Well, for one thing, the tried and tested tactics of the shield wall had served them pretty well over many years. Also, most men would have fought using a shield, spear and/or possibly a seax (a sort of long bladed knife with a single edge) which were not weapons which could be effectively wielded whilst mounted – at least, not without special training.

That said, horses may well have had a part to play in getting men and their equipment to the site of a battle or even speedily intercepting raiders and such like. They may also have been used to carry communications between those commanding the Saxon army and those doing the actual fighting. It’s likely that the senior nobles controlled their own men in battle and would have positioned themselves behind the shield wall (they wouldn’t have lasted long if they stood in front of it!).

Meanwhile, as the battle developed, the man in overall command (possibly the King or a very senior Ealdorman) would have logically positioned himself somewhere from where he could survey the whole field. He would have needed to receive feedback from his warriors and be able to quickly relay messages to better deploy them or to summon reinforcements. For that purpose, a mounted rider would have been ideal.

None of this suggests the use of cavalry as we know it. In fact, it’s normally assumed that the Saxons faced a cavalry charge for the first time at the battle of Hastings.

That, of course, ended in a devastating defeat although the outcome cannot be entirely attributed to the use of horses. It has been suggested that, whilst intimidating, by the time the Norman cavalry reached the Saxon lines the horses were all but exhausted from charging uphill. Nonetheless, it must have been a salutary lesson for the Saxons.

As far as the Vikings are concerned, there are a numerous of references to them using horses for both raids and for full-scale invasions.

A lightning attack on horseback, particularly whilst raiding an abbey or a farmstead where they faced poorly defended monks or civilians, would certainly have given them combat efficiency, enabling them to strike fast and then carry off their spoil and plunder before the fyrd (the local militia) arrived.

They also used horses extensively for getting from place to place, but where did they get their horses from? Well, they had some ships which were certainly capable of transporting livestock though I question the logic of them doing so in any great number all the way from their homelands in Scandinavia or Denmark. Not only would the horses have been unpredictable whilst on board in a rough sea, there is also the logistical issue of feeding and watering them during the crossing. Far simpler for them to acquire (or probably steal) what they needed when they arrived.

This is supported by the fact that when the ‘Great Heathen Army’ invaded East Anglia in 865-6, one of the first things they did was to obtain horses – which presumably implies that they didn’t bring their own with them. King Edmund of East Anglia is said to have paid tribute in return for them leaving his realm in peace and it’s quite likely that included supplying a number of the horses they needed.

You might ask why Edmund would have assisted the enemy in this way but it may make a certain amount of sense if you consider that the Vikings would then be encouraged to use them to ride off and pillage elsewhere. In fact, as it turned out, the Vikings had an ambitious invasion plan which centred on wealthier strongholds (notably York) and might well have used horses to raid and forage for the supplies needed to feed such a large number of men whilst they marched north.

As it transpired, aiding the enemy proved to be a grave error on King Edmund’s part for the Vikings returned to East Anglia a few years later (in circa 870) and, after defeating his army, then killed him – he became known as ‘Edmund the Martyr’ for the brutal way in which he died when he refused to renounce Christ.

By contrast, in 892 when the Vikings yet again turned their attention to Wessex, they are recorded as having enough ships for a single crossing ‘with all their horses and war gear’ – although on this occasion they mainly sailed across the Channel from Boulogne so could reasonably have waited for a period of calmer weather in order to make the crossing, thereby ensuring that bringing their horses with them was a viable option.

I think we can therefore assume that horses played an integral part of any Viking attack whether it was a full invasion or a raid. Whether they brought theirs with them or obtained them when they arrived is probably a moot point.

Either way, it seems there was not much room for sentimental attachment to their mounts as in 893, whilst besieged at Buttington on the banks of the Severn, they were reported as having eaten nearly all their horses rather than starve!

So where does this leave us? On balance, I tend to think that significant battles between the Saxons and the Vikings were normally fought on foot, but there are bound to be exceptions. That said, the image of a Lord mounted on his fine horse and with his banners flying as he leads a line of (probably reluctant) foot soldiers to battle is easy enough to envisage.

Certainly, being mounted would have added an element of prestige. In fact, kings at that time tended to travel extensively throughout their realm and an impressive horse would have been part of the image they would wish to project to their subjects if only to underline their status and authority, particularly in such troubled times as those which Alfred endured.

However none of this seems to fit with that image of Alfred as a young warrior charging down the enemy on a pure white stallion. Perhaps he was pursuing the Vikings as they fled the field (Ashdown being a rare Saxon victory at that time) though I’m not sure how cutting down a retreating foe fits with Alfred being seen as a ‘noble Saxon warrior’, not to mention a man who would later be described as ‘the Great’.

But then history is often told by the victor, not the vanquished and any victory in those troubled times was something which the Saxons badly needed – and a glorious charge led by a young Saxon prince would have been just what the doctor ordered.

This blog was first published by Historia – the online magazine for the Historical Writers Association.

Images:

Stylised horse’s head, probably early seventh century: with thanks to the Staffordshire Hoard
Bayeux Tapestry section showing injured and dying horses: Silvia Calderon via Flickr
Fell ponies, Noth Pennines, by simonsimages: via Flickr
Bayeux Tapestry section showing Norman horses charging English foot-soldiers in a shieldwall: Silvia Calderon via Flickr
Pre-1066 illustration of Anglo-Saxon warriors on horseback, Harleian MSS CO3, from Larson, LM (1912), Canute the Great 995 (circ.)–1035 and the Rise of Danish Imperialism During the Viking Age: via Wikimedia
Reconstruction of a panel from the Oseberg Procession Tapestry (original in the Viking Ship Museum, Oslo) showing horses drawing Norse carts: A.Davey via Flickr

In 793, a surprise attack on an otherwise peaceful monastery at Lindisfarne marked the beginning of one of the most turbulent periods in English history. In this series I hope to provide an overview of events to explain what happened and why. Whilst the facts I’ve cited are not all universally accepted, they are gleaned from the research I undertook for my books in The Shadow of the Raven Series

As I mentioned in an earlier blog in this series, The Battle of Ethandune in 878 was probably one of the most important ever fought on English soil because if King Alfred had not triumphed there, virtually the whole of England would have been under Viking rule. So, what do we know about it?

Well, the answer is not very much. We’re not even sure exactly where it took place – some say it was in Somerset but more likely it was close to a place called Edington near Chippenham and is therefore sometimes called ‘The Battle of Edington.’ My own interpretation of events is as follows, though I confess there is an element of speculation in some aspects of this as the facts are scarce. 

Following the humiliating defeat at his Vill in Chippenham, Alfred was determined to win back his kingdom – a seemingly impossible task. Yet he managed to rally his people and, according to reports, when they became aware that he was advancing towards them, the Vikings, still led by Guthrum, took up a position on the ridge at Edington thereby forcing the Saxons to charge uphill. I think this could well include an element of propaganda as, in my view, Alfred is likely to have arrived at Edington first and, as an experienced military commander, would surely have positioned himself on the high ground and thus held the advantage of the field. Remember that Guthrum was ensconced in Chippenham (probably in Alfred’s own Vill) and would not have expected Alfred to have had the ability to raise anything like an army after such a devastating defeat only a few months earlier. When he did become aware of Alfred’s army he would have had little option but to march out to meet it, no doubt confident of victory. It is also suggested that the Vikings outnumbered the Saxons by as much as two or three to one, though any numbers cited in battles at this time must be regarded as conjecture – more likely the men on each side could be counted in their hundreds rather than thousands. So I feel that the suggestion that the Saxons fought uphill was just a way of emphasising what a great victory they achieved and what a great leader they’d found in Alfred. Remember, history is written by the victor not by the vanquished and there are few unbiased contemporary accounts.

To my mind, the greatest mystery of all is how Alfred, having been virtually annihilated in the surprise attack on his Vill at Christmas, managed to raise anything resembling an army so quickly. My novel, Blood & Destiny, offers one possible explanation of how he achieved this but it remains a mystery. It would have helped that the battle was fought at Easter as this would have done much to rouse the deeply religious Saxons given that Alfred, having gone into hiding, was believed by many to have been slain or to have fled abroad. Thus his reappearance at such a critical time must have been seen as some sort of ‘resurrection’ in itself, something which would have helped to stir many loyal Saxons into action even though, after over 80 years of raids and war, many people would probably have craved peace above all else. Also, the Saxons may have felt they had nothing to lose – after all, they were fighting not just for themselves and their families, but for their freedom, their religion and for their whole way of life.

One important aspect of the battle is that Alfred claimed to have had a visitation from St Cuthbert who urged him to avenge the Christian church. St Cuthbert was an important and much revered saint. He had been a bishop at Lindisfarne and the support of such a holy and much loved saint would have encouraged many Saxons to follow Alfred. Bear in mind that the visitation would have seemed believable to many given that St Cuthbert had been disinterred from his grave at Lindisfarne and

moved to Durham to keep his remains safe from Viking hands. If no longer at rest, it would have been easy and heartening for the deeply religious Saxons to think of the goodly saint supporting their cause.

Perhaps the most difficult aspect to grasp is how Alfred managed to defeat the dreaded Vikings. We know very little about the tactics employed that day or how the battle progressed – though my novel does include a detailed account of what I think may have happened. This is based on the fact that typical Saxon battle tactics would have involved a defensive shield wall, with their foes pressed up hard against them locked in desperate hand to hand combat – but on foot, not on horseback as is sometimes depicted.

The outcome was a surprising victory for Alfred, forcing the Vikings to retreat to Chippenham where they held out for ten days before surrendering. Alfred actually showed compassion and wisdom in agreeing the terms of a peace treaty – The Treaty of Wedmore – which ceded control of lands (basically north of Watling Street) to the Vikings provided they left him and his realm in peace. 

There is one postscript to the battle in that recent archaeological evidence suggests that Alfred may not have stood alone at Edington. Coins struck just after the battle depict Alfred and Ceolwulf II of Mercia sitting side by side, suggesting that he enlisted – or perhaps accepted – help from Ceolwulf to fight a common foe. Or did it reflect the alliance between them once victory had been achieved? Ceolwulf died soon afterwards so Alfred, for reasons of his own, may have chosen to ignore his part in such an important victory.

That concludes this series about Alfred and the vikings which I hope you’ve found of interest. I greatly appreciate all the feedback and comments I’ve received, for which many thanks.

I will be posting more blogs on various topics in due course. If you would like to be advised regarding these please sign up to my mailing list.

In 793, a surprise attack on an otherwise peaceful monastery at Lindisfarne marked the beginning of one of the most turbulent periods in English history. In this series I hope to provide an overview of events to explain what happened and why. Whilst the facts I’ve cited are not all universally accepted, they are gleaned from the research I undertook for my books in The Shadow of the Raven Series

First, let me explain that the Vikings were not solely interested in England, they traded and explored throughout the then known world, their destinations eventually included places as far afield as Constantinople (Istanbul) and even the east coast of Canada and North America via Iceland and Greenland. However, there were a number of reasons which prompted them to adopt a violent approach to their travels, including one key event for which I need to take you back to when Charlemagne (Charles the Great) ruled the all-powerful Frankish Empire which dominated Europe at that time.

It was a very powerful empire and, as a devout Christian, Charlemagne saw it as his duty to convert the pagans in Europe to Christianity. To achieve this, he rounded up 4500 pagan prisoners in 782 and forced them to be baptised. When they did, he promptly beheaded each and every one of them! As you can imagine, this brutal act sent shock waves through the pagan communities, especially those in what we now think of as Scandinavia. This may have persuaded the pagan Vikings to see Christian lands and monasteries as a legitimate target and the first (recorded) of what were to become frequent raids was carried out in England on a monastery at Lindisfarne in 793 – accompanied by much bloodshed and extraordinary violence.

If retaliation was one of the motives for this savage attack on a Christian land, it was facilitated by a number of other important factors, not least of which was better ship building technology which produced the infamous Viking Longship.

These fast, stable craft were ideally suited to the purpose of raiding. They could sail at close to 15 knots and could be beached and relaunched quickly without being dependent on the tides. Having a shallow draught meant they could also sail up rivers enabling them to strike deep inland and their construction was such that it allowed the hull to ‘flex’ so as to handle very rough seas, opening up the prospect of winter raids despite the severe storms at that time of year. 

There were actually various different sizes and designs of longships, each fulfilling a specific role and, whilst the English ships would not have looked very different, they were initially no match for these technologically advanced vessels manned by an experienced Viking crew. From what we can tell, owning a longship was often a community affair. If so, the crew would all be well known to each other and worked very much as a team with a common objective.

Given the long history of trading with English settlements, in all probability they may well have established some ‘safe ports’ where they could rest after an arduous journey across the North Sea and then take on supplies and fresh water before embarking on their raids. This might sound something of a betrayal by the Saxon settlements involved but it is conceivable – particularly given that there were still trading ties between the Saxons and the Vikings going back many generations.

Apart from the advances in technology, the raids may also have been encouraged by a shortage of viable farmland, not to mention the prospect of substantial booty from what must have seemed like ‘soft targets’ in the rich but unguarded churches and monasteries in England. Alcuin, a monk, commented thus:-

Never before has such terror appeared in Britain
as we have now suffered from a Pagan race

In fact, ‘visits’ from the so called ‘Vikings’ were probably nothing new – as I’ve said, trading with Scandinavia had been long established – but the violence which now accompanied them came as a terrible shock which must have resounded through the religious communities and which they saw as evidence that they needed to be better Christians. But were the Vikings really just blood crazed heathens intent on vengeance? I suspect not. They were certainly violent and committed some fearful atrocities but it was a violent time and as like as not they were no worse than anyone else. Yet, to the peace-loving monks whose job it was to record these events, they must have seemed very terrible indeed, something which may well have prejudiced the Vikings’ reputation.

Having got the taste for some ‘easy pickings’ of plunder and slaves, (slaves being a valuable commodity in those days) the violent raids continued until, in 865, everything changed. No longer content to simply raid, the Vikings determined to conquer England for themselves. This resulted in a full-scale invasion from a largely Danish force (the Great Heathen Horde) which quickly secured most of the kingdoms which made up England at that time leaving just one – the Kingdom of Wessex to stand alone.

As discussed in Part One of this series, there followed a period of fiercely fought battles, bloodthirsty raids and terrible destruction. Eventually Alfred, by then King of Wessex, secured an astounding victory, though it remains one that few people have ever heard of. Part four of the series looks at this in more detail as the story of these turbulent times continues.

READ PART 4 – THE ALMOST FORGOTTEN BATTLE

In 793, a surprise attack on an otherwise peaceful monastery at Lindisfarne marked the beginning of one of the most turbulent periods in English history. In this series I hope to provide an overview of events to explain what happened and why. Whilst the facts I’ve cited are not all universally accepted, they are gleaned from the research I undertook for my books in The Shadow of the Raven Series

You might be surprised to learn that the so called ‘Vikings’ were not a people at all – the word ‘Viking’ is a verb which means to go off in search of adventure and to explore, though no doubt raiding or at least foraging as they went.
There were actually three main ‘groups’ which have all become lumped together as ‘The Vikings’.
The Danish Vikings were probably the largest group and formed the main part of the force which invaded England in 865. There was also the Norwegian Vikings who actually sailed as far as the eastern coast of Canada and North America (via Iceland and Greenland), and even briefly established settlements there. The rest were the ‘East Facing Vikings’ from Sweden and the Baltic regions who travelled extensively – using rivers and dragging their boats across land if necessary, and even reaching as far as what is now St Petersburg and the cosmopolitan city of Constantinople (now Istanbul).

In reality they may not have fitted quite so easily into these rather neat categorisations and there would have been some overlap both in terms of their objectives and achievements. Also, their numbers would have included mercenaries and probably slaves but there were certain ‘traits’ which were common to all. For one thing, they all travelled and traded extensively – a grave discovered in Scandinavia revealed a rich array of surprisingly exotic ‘grave goods’, including a small statue of a Buddha suggesting trading links with some very distant lands and cultures.

Also, it would be wrong to think of them as people who had nothing better to do than raid, rape and pillage. They included extremely skilled craftsmen who produced some superb work, poets, storytellers and astute traders, not to mention expert sailors and navigators as well. They were lured to Britain not only by the prospect of plunder and slaves but also came in search of land they could farm, that being a scarce resource in many parts of Scandinavia. This is perhaps what Alfred had in mind when, having secured victory at Ethandune (Edington), he ceded areas of land to the Vikings so long as they didn’t trouble him again – land which became subject to the so called ‘Danelaw’ – basically that north of a line drawn from London to Chester. Much of this was already under Viking control but, even so, it was probably not a popular act at the time – giving back land they’d fought for to the very people who’d taken it from them in the first place! Yet it proved how wise Alfred could be, for it meant that many Vikings eventually gave up a life of raiding and integrated themselves into the Saxon communities, traces of which are evident even today not only in our language but in our place names and, of course, in the DNA of many people.

None of this should diminish the image of battle-hardened warriors who carried out some brutal attacks on the fat, undefended monasteries and, of course, on many settlements and farmsteads as well given that they needed to live off the land as they went, often with much violence and bloodshed. But these were brutal times – war was conducted very much up close and personal. It was also a very dangerous occupation because even minor wounds received whilst fighting might well become infected and therefore cause an agonising death sometime later.

For the Vikings their chief tactic when attacking a monastery or a settlement seems to have been a lightening ‘hit and run’ raid, no doubt sometimes even on horseback (the horses having presumably been stolen). However, when it came to a battle both sides tended to fight on foot, often with one side forming a defensive shield wall which, if breached, would result in fearsome hand to hand combat. This involved the use of an array of very brutal weapons including axes, arrows, spears and swords, plus any number of projectiles. The ferocity of the Viking warriors was no doubt fuelled by their belief that only if they died in battle could they earn their place in Valhalla – the Great Hall of Dead Warriors.

To this end I must also mention the Berserkers. These feature strongly in my novel, Blood & Destiny, as warriors who would razz themselves up into such a frenzy that they had no fear of death or dying. They reputedly stripped off their mail vests and drew heathen symbols on their bare chests, having possibly imbibed some sort of halogenic drug, making them an almost impossible foe. If you’ve ever seen the Lewis chess set in the British Museum or one of the many replicas you may have noticed that one of the pieces is shown chewing the edge of his shield which is thought to depict a berserker. In Blood & Destiny I have regarded them as a cohesive and specialist military unit and I think that is the generally accepted position but I do wonder whether in fact they were just individual warriors who chose to prepare themselves for battle in that way hoping to secure a larger share of any booty by fighting like maniacs – hence the term ‘to go beserk’.

Part 3: Why did the Vikings first invade England?

In 793, a surprise attack on an otherwise peaceful monastery at Lindisfarne marked the beginning of one of the most turbulent periods in English history. In this series I hope to provide an overview of events to explain what happened and why. Whilst the facts I’ve cited are not all universally accepted, they are gleaned from the research I undertook for my books in The Shadow of the Raven Series

It’s quite likely that strong trading links had existed between Saxon England and what we now call Scandinavia for many years. This changed following the attack on Lindisfarne (more about the motivation for that in Part Three of this series) which was followed by more raids until, in 865, a Viking army, known as the ‘Great Heathen Army’, landed in East Anglia determined to conquer England for themselves. This largely Danish force quickly secured most of the kingdoms which made up England at that time leaving just one, Wessex, to stand alone.

In 870 Wessex was ruled by King Aethelred who, with his younger brother, Alfred, held the Vikings off but the only significant victory they achieved was at the battle of Ashdown where Alfred earned his military spurs. His brother is said to have spent so long at Mass that Alfred pre-empted things and ordered the attack himself. Aethelred died later that year, probably from wounds received at the battle of Marton.

In those days there was no automatic right of succession. Kings were ‘chosen’ and Alfred, as an accomplished warrior, was the obvious contender to succeed his brother. As King, he fought a number of major battles but could not secure a decisive victory. He also tried to buy peace by paying tribute (i.e. gold or silver etc), which didn’t please the church or many of the senior Saxons. Then, in 878, he retired to his Royal Vill in Chippenham for the winter, thinking himself safe until Spring. But on the 10th day after Christmas – the Vikings under Jarl Guthrum launched a surprise attack. Alfred’s army – or at least that part of it which had remained with him – was all but annihilated. Alfred fled with a few survivors and took shelter in the desolate marshes at Athelney in the Somerset Levels, a time which features strongly in my first novel, Blood and Destiny.

Given the ferocity of the attack, Alfred was lucky to survive. In fact, luck is a key element in his story. For a start, he was ‘lucky’ that only about half the main Viking army took part in the attack on his Vill, a contingent which had split off from the main force. Had it been the full Viking army it’s doubtful he would have survived. In fact, he was ‘lucky’ to be King in the first place as, being the youngest of five brothers, he was destined for a life in the church until one by one his brothers predeceased him and he found himself as King.

But King of what? The marshes at Athelney were then a harsh and forbidding place and he had nothing which could be described as an army at his disposal. Estimates of the numbers who accompanied him vary but we are probably talking about twenty or so men at best, many of them wounded and no doubt dejected having lost family and friends in the attack. It is from this miserable and wretched period that many of the stories about Alfred emanate – such as the burning of the cakes and the contention that he disguised himself as a wandering minstrel and actually returned to Chippenham to spy on the Vikings. Make what you will of the story of the cakes (you might also like to read my blog post ‘So, Did Alfred Really Burn the Cakes’) but the idea of him returning to spy on his enemies is an unlikely proposition given that the prize for anyone prepared to betray him would have been wealth beyond all reckoning. Also, if he was betrayed as a spy, Alfred could expect no mercy for the Vikings hated spies, reasoning that whereas a murderer might kill one or two men, a spy could be responsible for the defeat of a whole army.

Having conducted what might best be described as a guerrilla campaign against the Vikings, by Easter Alfred had somehow managed to rally the Saxon people in sufficient numbers to strike back and win a decisive Victory at the Battle of Ethandune (sometimes called ‘Edington’) which then secured his realm of Wessex – and ultimately provided the basis for a united England, albeit that didn’t happen until several generations later.

The relevance of this surprising victory reaches deep into English culture for had King Alfred not triumphed there, virtually the whole of England would have been under Viking rule and Alfred himself either executed or slain. Had that occurred, many of the hugely important events which followed would simply not have happened; including quite possibly the Battle of Hastings given that the Vikings had such close ties with the Normans – the name ‘Norman’ is actually derived from the ‘Norsemen’ or ‘Northmen’ – Vikings who had settled in that part of France. Whilst not exactly brothers, they might be considered as cousins, albeit many times removed.

Alfred was merciful in victory and entered into a treaty with the Viking warlord, Guthrum, whereby he ceded control of lands to him (basically to the north of Watling Street) in return for leaving Wessex in peace. This provided a period of relative and much needed peace which, although it didn’t last, enabled Alfred to instigate the many reforms and initiatives for which he is renowned.

Read Part 2: Who were the dreaded Vikings?