Reconstructing late sixth century British Pseudo-historical chronology -
The 12 year hiatus.
The 12 year hiatus.
In this essay I seek to reconstruct the pseudo-historical chronology of the second half of sixth century northern Britain, from the time of Ida onwards. As most of the material is probably pure pseudo-history as Simms-Williams has pointed out in The settlements of England in Bede and the Chronice, it would seem like a worthless task but it may yet clear up some of the problems inherent in it. The difficulties in the chronology are apparent in the various sources that are used to construct it. Our current understanding of the chronology is based on the work of Bede in the early eighth century and the Historia Brittonum in the ninth. The tenth century Anglo Saxon Chronicles then use a combination of both of these to construct its own chronology. It used the dating of the start of Aethelfriths reign in 592 as given by Bede, then counted back the regnal years as given in the HB to arrive at a date for when Ida arrived in 547. This date has then been enshrined in our history as the turning point in Britain for it was from this time on that Saxon ascendency dominated and the power of the Britons was pushed back to the west lands and beyond. The background to this is mainly the early Northumbrian settlement in the late 6thC which prompted the wars against the Britons - Dutigern, Urien, Gwallog etc. The parts of Northumbria we are most concerned with are Deira and Bernicia.
For some brief background details of the accepted chronology see here:
For more in depth analysis see here:
HB = Historia Brittonum,
ASC = Anglo Saxon Chronicle.
AC = Annales Cambriae (Welsh Annals)
ASC = Anglo Saxon Chronicle.
AC = Annales Cambriae (Welsh Annals)
 |
| Bede |
"porro gentes anglorum ab aquilone humbri fluminis sub regibus aelle et aedilfrido sitae necdum verbum vitae audierant."
"far away (further?), the nation of the Angles of the North Humbrian river under the leadership of Aelle and Aethelfrith have not yet heard the word of God? (Vitae? - life)"
Kirby places the end of Aelle's reign to about 599 (myself at 600) which could work with Bede's mention here of him just after Augustine's arrival and Ethelbert's conversion. This means then that Aelle could not possibly have died in 588. So we now know the Chronology is wrong. The difference is 11/12 years, which I hope to show is an error of Bede making Aethelfrith's reign last 24 years instead of 12, caused because Aethelfrith is said to have ruled both Bernicia for 12 years and then Deira for another 12 years.
Therefore Aelle appears to have been the King of Deira immediately before Aethelfrith, so until around 600. What seems to have happened is that on Aelle's death in 600 Aethelfrith, a Bernician noble, became regent of Deira due to the young age of Edwin (son of Aelle) and by his marriage to Aelle's daughter. He then moved against Bernicia on the death of their king Hussa in 603 whose son Hering went to the Dal Riatans of Aedan Mac Gabran to obtain the help. Aedan sent an army with Hering. To no avail though, Hering's/Aedan's army was defeated at Degsastan and Aethelfrith became ruler of both Bernicia and officially Deira in 604 by expelling Edwin now 18. So now we know the accepted chronology is wrong let’s look at it and compare it to a revised one. Starting with the accepted Chronology...
Main Players:
Aethelfrith, King of Bernicia,
Aelle, King of Deira,
Aethelbert - King of Kent,
Aethelbert - King of Kent,
Freothwulf and Hussa kings of Bernicia,
Ida - first king of Bernicia.
So Bede tells us in the last paragraph of his work :
"AT this time, Ethelfrid, a most worthy king, and ambitious of glory, governed the kingdom of the Northumbrians, and ravaged the Britons more than all the great men of the English, insomuch that he might be compared to Saul, once king of the Israelites, excepting only this, that he was ignorant of the true religion. For he conquered more territories from the Britons, either making them tributary, or driving the inhabitants clean out, and planting English in their places, than any other king or tribune. To him might justly be applied the saying of the patriarch blessing his son in the person of Saul, "Benjamin shall ravin as a wolf; in the morning he shall devour the prey, and at night he shall divide the spoil." Hereupon, Ædan, king of the Scots that inhabit Britain, being concerned at his success, came against him with an immense and mighty army; but was beaten by an inferior force, and put to flight; for almost all his army was slain at a famous place, called Degsastan, that is, Degsastone. In which battle also Theodbaid, brother to Ethelfrid, was killed, with almost all the forces he commanded. This war Ethelfrid put an end to in the year 603 after the incarnation of our Lord, the eleventh of his own reign, which lasted twenty-four years, and the first year of the reign of Phocas, who the governed the Roman empire. From that time, no king the Scots durst come into Britain to make war on the English to this day"
So Aethelfrith's reign is said by Bede to start 11 years before the battle of Degsastan in 603. This makes a date of 592 for the start of his reign. Now our common chronology of this period then merely counts back using the regnal years of kings given in the HB to arrive at the date for Ida. So it looks like this from Ida,:
So Bede tells us in the last paragraph of his work :
"AT this time, Ethelfrid, a most worthy king, and ambitious of glory, governed the kingdom of the Northumbrians, and ravaged the Britons more than all the great men of the English, insomuch that he might be compared to Saul, once king of the Israelites, excepting only this, that he was ignorant of the true religion. For he conquered more territories from the Britons, either making them tributary, or driving the inhabitants clean out, and planting English in their places, than any other king or tribune. To him might justly be applied the saying of the patriarch blessing his son in the person of Saul, "Benjamin shall ravin as a wolf; in the morning he shall devour the prey, and at night he shall divide the spoil." Hereupon, Ædan, king of the Scots that inhabit Britain, being concerned at his success, came against him with an immense and mighty army; but was beaten by an inferior force, and put to flight; for almost all his army was slain at a famous place, called Degsastan, that is, Degsastone. In which battle also Theodbaid, brother to Ethelfrid, was killed, with almost all the forces he commanded. This war Ethelfrid put an end to in the year 603 after the incarnation of our Lord, the eleventh of his own reign, which lasted twenty-four years, and the first year of the reign of Phocas, who the governed the Roman empire. From that time, no king the Scots durst come into Britain to make war on the English to this day"
So Aethelfrith's reign is said by Bede to start 11 years before the battle of Degsastan in 603. This makes a date of 592 for the start of his reign. Now our common chronology of this period then merely counts back using the regnal years of kings given in the HB to arrive at the date for Ida. So it looks like this from Ida,:
547
|
Ida, the son of Eoppa, possessed countries on the left-hand side of Britain, i.e. of the Humbrian sea, and reigned twelve years, and united Dynguayth Guarth-Berneich
|
547-559
|
Then Dutigirn at that time fought bravely against the nation of the Angles. At that time, Talhaiarn Cataguen was famed for poetry, and Neirin, and Taliesin and Bluchbard, and Cian, who is called Guenith Guaut, were all famous at the same time in British poetry
|
547-559
|
The great king, Mailcun reigned among the Britons, i.e. in the district of Guenedota, because his great-great-grandfather, Cunedda, with his twelve sons, had come before from the left-hand part, i.e. from the country which is called Manau Gustodin, one hundred and forty-six years before Mailcun reigned, and expelled the Scots with much slaughter from those countries, and they never returned again to inhabit them
|
559
|
Adda, son of Ida, reigned eight years
|
567
|
Ethelric, son of Adda, reigned four years
|
571
|
Theodoric, son of Ida, reigned seven years
|
578
|
Freothwulf reigned six years. In whose time the kingdom of Kent, by the
mission of Gregory(596 Augustine), received baptism. (so should really be dated to 590's) |
584
|
Hussa reigned seven years. Against him fought four kings, Urien, and Ryderthen, and Gualllauc, and Morcant. Theodoric fought bravely, together with his sons, against that Urien. But at that time sometimes the enemy and sometimes our countrymen were defeated,
and he shut them up three days and three nights in the island of Metcaut; and whilst he (Urien) was on an expedition he was murdered, at the instance of Morcant, out of envy, because he possessed so much superiority over all the kings in military science. |
591
|
Eadfered Flesaurs (Aethelfrith) reigned twelve years in Bernicia, and twelve others in Deira and gave to his wife Bebba, the town of Dynguoaroy, which from her is called Bebbanburg
|
So this dating of Ida, also reflected in the ASC, can be seen to derive from the HB regnal years. But they take no account of the problem of Freowulf during the arrival of Augustine. So something is wrong here. The HB states that Freowulf was reigning when Augustine arrived in 596 and that he reigned before Hussa who is commonly dated to the 580's! These two kings appear to be the crux of the matter. They do not appear to be part of Ida's line and by 592 Aethelfrith is supposed to have ousted them. The HB says that Freothwulf reigned 6 years and Hussa 7 years.
If we read this as the HB intended ,it places both Freowulf and Hussa in the 590's at a time when Bede says that Aethelfrith was already in power by 592. Something's not correct here. Hussa's son Hering is said to have fought at the battle of Degsastan in the ASC:
"A.D. 603. This year Aedan, king of the Scots, fought with the Dalreathians, and with Ethelfrith, king of the Northumbrians, at Theakstone; where he lost almost all his army. Theobald also, brother of Ethelfrith, with his whole armament, was slain. None of the Scottish kings durst afterwards bring an army against this nation. Hering, the son of Hussa, led the army thither."
It looks like Hering led an army supported by Aedan's Dal Riatans. If so it may be that the sons of Hussa had appealed to the Dal Riadan court for help and were seeking to establish their rule with Aedans help. This suggests that the Dal Riatans may have had some role in supporting the reigns of Freothwulf and Hussa, who were not of the line of Ida, to which Aethelfrith belonged.
If Freowulf was around when Augustine arrived in 596 then we could say that 596 was his last year and Hussa's began in 596 which would make his seven years arrive at 603. What is the answer to this? Can we trust Bede on this or have the two intermediate kings Freowulf and Hussa been erased from Bede's chronology and the reign of Aethelfrith extended? Or were the regnums of Freo and Hussa counted even though they may have been in exile? However, Aethelfriths battle in 603 against Aedan may have been the first actual year of his reign in Bernicia. The HB though following Bede does give him a 24 year reign. I am inclined to think that Bede has erased the two intermediate
kings and extended the reign of Aethelfrith by design. Alternatively were Freo and Hussa sub kings of Aethelfrith? Seems unlikely.
If Freothwulf and Hussa are moved to the 590's (with Aelle) then much of the HB's chronology would make sense. Urien etc would be placed in the 590's where they belong, fighting Hussa. Theoderic would also be dated much later, enabling him to fight Urien earlier on before Hussa. Ethelric, Aethelfriths father would also move closer to a better time and Adda would then be able to fight Gorgi and Peredur (d.circa 580 AC) of Ebrauc (who in the common chronology can't because of a 12 year difference see Triads Ynys Prydein - Eda Glinmawr). See Michelle Zieglers blog post here that mentions this problem. This would also solve the problem of Gorgi and Peredur fighting at the battle of Arderydd in 573
kings and extended the reign of Aethelfrith by design. Alternatively were Freo and Hussa sub kings of Aethelfrith? Seems unlikely.
If Freothwulf and Hussa are moved to the 590's (with Aelle) then much of the HB's chronology would make sense. Urien etc would be placed in the 590's where they belong, fighting Hussa. Theoderic would also be dated much later, enabling him to fight Urien earlier on before Hussa. Ethelric, Aethelfriths father would also move closer to a better time and Adda would then be able to fight Gorgi and Peredur (d.circa 580 AC) of Ebrauc (who in the common chronology can't because of a 12 year difference see Triads Ynys Prydein - Eda Glinmawr). See Michelle Zieglers blog post here that mentions this problem. This would also solve the problem of Gorgi and Peredur fighting at the battle of Arderydd in 573
The Chronology from Ida in the HB would then look like this, placing him slightly later than traditionally given (a difference of 12 years from 547 to 559) :
559
|
Ida, the son of Eoppa, possessed countries on the left-hand side of Britain, i.e. of the Humbrian sea, and reigned twelve years, and united Dynguayth Guarth-Berneich
|
559-571
|
Then Dutigirn at that time fought bravely against the nation of the Angles. At that time, Talhaiarn Cataguen was famed for poetry, and Neirin, and Taliesin and Bluchbard, and Cian, who is called Guenith Guaut, were all famous at the same time in British poetry.
|
559-571
|
The great king, Mailcun reigned among the Britons, i.e. in the district of Guenedota, because his great-great-grandfather, Cunedda, with his twelve sons, had come before from the left-hand part, i.e. from the country which is called Manau Gustodin, one hundred and forty-six years (so 413-425 very plausible as Constantine had taken the last of Britain's Legions to Gaul) before Mailcun reigned, and expelled the Scots with much slaughter from those countries, and they never returned again to inhabit them.
|
571-579
|
Adda, son of Ida, reigned eight years
|
579-583
|
Ethelric, son of Adda, reigned four years. (father of Aethelfrith)
|
583-590
|
Theodoric, son of Ida, reigned seven years
|
590-596
|
Freothwulf reigned six years. In whose time the kingdom of Kent, by
the mission of Gregory(596 Augustine), received baptism. |
596-603
|
Hussa reigned seven years. Against him fought four kings, Urien, and Ryderthen, and Gualllauc, and Morcant.
Theodoric fought bravely (circa 589/590), together with his sons, against that Urien. But at that time sometimes the enemy and sometimes our countrymen were defeated, and he shut them up three days and three nights in the island of Metcaut; and whilst he (Urien) was on an expedition he was murdered, at the instance of Morcant, out of envy, because he possessed so much superiority over all the kings in military science. |
603 (592 Bede)
|
Eadfered Flesaurs (Aethelfrith) reigned twelve years in Bernicia, and twelve others in Deira and gave to his wife Bebba, the town of Dynguoaroy, which from her is called Bebbanburg
|
Now after this battle in 603 is usually said to be when Aethelfrith became leader of Deira as well, in 604 and he reigned for another 12 years. It seems to me that Aethelfrith became ruler of both in 603/4 and then reigned only for 12 years not 24. He seems to have become friendly with the Dal Riatans after this though as on his own defeat in 616 his sons, Aenfrith, Oswald and Oswiu fled there for safety and exile from the returning Edwin.
We can turn now to the ASC.
A.D. 552. This year Cynric fought with the Britons on the spot that is called Sarum, and put them to flight. Cerdic was the father of Cynric, Cerdic was the son of Elesa, Elesa of Esla, Esla of Gewis, Gewis of Wye, Wye of Frewin, Frewin of Frithgar, Frithgar of Brand, Brand of Balday, Balday of Woden. _In this year Ethelbert, the son of Ermenric, was born_, who on the two and thirtieth year of his reign received the rite of baptism, the first of all the kings in Britain.
Ethelbert converted to Christianity in 596 as noted before. 32 years before this would equal his reign starting in 564 but that's too long a reign of about 53 years. The answer is that it is from his year of birth, not reign that was meant. A difference again of 12 years.
So AD 552 in the ASC is actually AD 564/5. Similarly as above Ida in 547 is actually 559/60.
So the ASC chronicle should look like this for these dates (I've removed the ancestry data)
Ethelbert converted to Christianity in 596 as noted before. 32 years before this would equal his reign starting in 564 but that's too long a reign of about 53 years. The answer is that it is from his year of birth, not reign that was meant. A difference again of 12 years.
So AD 552 in the ASC is actually AD 564/5. Similarly as above Ida in 547 is actually 559/60.
So the ASC chronicle should look like this for these dates (I've removed the ancestry data)
559
|
This year Ida began his reign; from whom first arose the royal kindred of the Northumbrians. Ida was the son of Eoppa. Ida reigned twelve years. He built Bamburgh-Castle, which was first surrounded with a hedge, and afterwards with a wall.
|
563/565
|
This year Columba the presbyter came from the Scots among the Britons, to instruct the Picts, and he built a monastery in the island of Hii. (563 according to Irish Annals but circa 565 is fine) And Columba, the mass-priest, came to the Picts, and converted them to the belief of Christ. They are the dwellers by the northern moors. And their king gave him the island of Hii, consisting of five hides, as they say, where Columba built a monastery. There he was abbot two and thirty winters; and there he died, when he was seventy-seven years old. The place his successors yet have. The Southern Picts were long before baptized by Bishop Ninnia, who was taught at Rome. His church or monastery is at Hwiterne (Whitehorn), hallowed in the name of St. Martin, where he resteth with many holy men. Now, therefore, shall there be ever in Hii an abbot, and no bishop; and to him shall be subject all the bishops of the Scots; because Columba was an abbot -- not bishop. (this was second part of 572(563) entry but moved from that date to it's correct place. Two events put in wrong chronological time by ASC).
|
564
|
This year Cynric fought with the Britons on the spot that is called Sarum, and put them to flight. Cerdic was the father of Cynric, Cerdic was the son of Elesa. In this year Ethelbert, the son of Ermenric, was born, who on the two and thirtieth year of his reign received the rite of baptism, the first of all the kings in Britain. (now agrees with Ethelberts 32nd year being 596, so it is not the 32nd year of his reign but from the year of his birth.)
|
568
|
This year Cynric and Ceawlin fought with the Britons at Beranbury
|
572
|
This year Ceawlin undertook the government of the West-Saxons; and Ella, on the death of Ida (now agrees with the revised HB chronology, Ida dying in 571), that of the Northumbrians; each of whom reigned thirty winters (Ella = 28 years 572-600). Ella was the son of Iff.
This year Ethelbert came to the kingdom of the Cantuarians, and held it fifty-three winters (625 an error). In his days the holy Pope Gregory sent us baptism. That was in the two and thirtieth year of his reign (596. Again the 32nd year of reign must be wrong, and birth must be meant) |
Problem above is that it mentions one Ella as ruling in Northumbria from 572, however the HB says that Adda was in power at this time for 8 years. The solution is that Ella/Aelle was king of Deira and Adda of Bernicia.
575
|
This year Ceawlin, and Cutha the brother of Ceawlin, fought with Ethelbert, and pursued him into Kent. And they slew two aldermen at Wimbledon, Oslake and Cnebba
|
578
|
This year Cuthulf fought with the Britons at Bedford, and took four towns, Lenbury, Aylesbury, Benson, and Ensham. And this same year he died.
|
583
|
This year Mauricius succeeded to the empire of the Romans. (dating now reconciled to correctness by mention of Mauritius but entry below was originally before this so now moved to after once redated)
|
584
|
This year Cuthwin and Ceawlin fought with the Britons, and slew three kings, Commail, and Condida, and Farinmail, on the spot that is called Derham, and took from them three cities, Gloucester, Cirencester, and Bath. (in effect I have redated the fall of these cities from 577 to 584)
|
585
|
(adjusted by one year from 584) This year Ceawlin and Cutha fought with the Britons on the spot that is called Fretherne. There Cutha was slain. And Ceawlin took many towns, as well as immense booty and wealth. He then retreated to his own people
|
591
|
This year there was a great slaughter of Britons at Wanborough; Ceawlin was driven from his kingdom, and Ceolric reigned six years
|
592
|
This year Gregory succeeded to the papacy at Rome
|
593
|
This year died Ceawlin, and Cwichelm, and Cryda; and Ethelfrith succeeded to the kingdom of the Northumbrians. He was the son of Ethelric; Ethelric of Ida. (should be 603 for Aethelfrith)
|
596
|
year Pope Gregory sent Augustine to Britain with very many monks, to preach the word of God to the English people
|
600
|
(moved from 588) This year died King Ella; and Ethelric (Aethelfrith) reigned after him five (12 years) years. (Ethelric of earlier reigned 4 years)
|
601
|
This year Pope Gregory sent the pall to Archbishop Augustine in Britain, with very many learned doctors to assist him; and Bishop Paulinus converted Edwin, king of the Northumbrians, to baptism
|
603
|
This year Aeden, king of the Scots, fought with the Dalreathians, and with Ethelfrith, king of the Northumbrians, at Theakstone; where he lost almost all his army. Theobald also, brother of Ethelfrith, with his whole armament, was slain. None of the Scottish kings durst afterwards bring an army against this nation. Hering, the son of Hussa, led the army thither.
|
The Welsh Annales Cambrae don’t help an awful lot in deciding the chronology except for the entry of 580 concerning Gorgi and Peredur dying, which with the revised chronology above would now enable them to be available to fight Adda. In the old chronology this was not possible due to a 12 year difference. See here :
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adda_of_Bernicia .
So all the chronological problems are solved by correcting Bede's error of making Aethelfrith rule for 24 years instead of 12. Bede, writing 100+ years after the event must have assumed that as Aethelfrith was king of both Deira and Bernicia that these ran one after the other instead of together or he wilfully wrote out two other kings from history. This error was then perpetuated in the later HB and ASC.
Interestingly, re-dating this chronology reveals some startling correspondences. The mention of Maglocunus by Gildas has always been difficult when reconciled with the dating in the HB if the battle of Badon was in 516, as Maglocunus in the old chronology would exist/die in 547. In this new scheme he would exist in the timescale of 559-571. This would now agree with Gildas and with the battle of Badon in 516 (in the ASC) as 516+44 years (the age of Gildas when he wrote) would give us the year 560 when Maglocunus is said to be alive by Gildas. This would then also explain why Gildas is extolling the British tyrants to take arms against the new Saxon threat begun by Ida and his arrival in 559. That he did not publish his book until ten years later, so in 570 would explain perhaps that these five kings were now dead. (Maglocunus, Aurelius Caninus, Constantine, Vortipor and Cuneglase) The five tyrants then may belong to the 560's-570's+. This is not to say that some of them did not start to rule before 560 and some may have died before the 570's. Gildas' unmentioned good king above Maglocunus then would have been Dutigern, who had fought against Ida's Angles. This would also solve the problem of why Gildas does not mention Arthur, who was of the old generation who had fought at Badon and was probably just a northern local war leader.
Of course, the records above state only that Ida began to reign in 559 not that he hadn't arrived earlier. So we can postulate him arriving a few years before in the 550's. In another blog I will look at the British Kings then existing in Britain of this time in this new chronology. Perhaps it wasn't as dark an age as it seemed.
No comments:
Post a Comment