Canute the Great Part 7

[109] Thus Steenstrup (_Normannerne_, iii., 287-289) and Oman (_England before the Norman Conquest_, 577) on the authority of Florence of Worcester (_Chronicon_, i., 171) who speaks of these men as Danish warriors. But the contemporary writer of the _Chronicle_ speaks of Eadric's forces as the "fyrd," a term which is always used for the native levy, "here" being the term used for alien troops.

On the theory of serious disagreements with Edmund, whose accession to the throne seemed imminent, Eadric's treason becomes perfectly intelligible. For a selfish, ambitious man like the earl, there was scarcely any other course to take.

[110] _Anglo-Saxon Chronicle_, 1016.

[111] _Anglo-Saxon Chronicle_, 1016.

[112] _Opera_, ii., 148.

[113] Snorre, _Saga of Saint Olaf_, cc. 46-51.

[114] Snorre, _Olaf Trygvesson's Saga_, c. iii., _Corpus Poetic.u.m Boreale_, ii., 92.

[115] _Anglo-Saxon Chronicle_, 1016.

CHAPTER IV

THE STRUGGLE WITH EDMUND IRONSIDE

1016

The Old English kingship was elective: on the death of a ruler, the great lords and the high officials of the Church, the "witan" or wise, would meet in formal a.s.sembly to select a successor. Usually the nearest male heir of the house of Alfred would be chosen; but circ.u.mstances might dictate a different selection, and in such cases the "wise men"

seem to have possessed plenary powers. In the spring of 1016, however, a free choice was impossible; nearly the whole kingdom was pledged to the invader. In his camp were the Saxon hostages; and the great Dane had shown on an earlier occasion that he could be cruel when he thought a pledge was broken.

During the winter months the Danish fleet had apparently been moored at the old viking rendezvous, the Isle of Wight, or in some neighbouring harbour. In April, Canute was back from his march to York and was getting his ships in readiness for further operations, when the death of Ethelred checked his movements. With remarkable promptness the notables (perhaps those of Southern England only) came together at some point unknown, awarded the kingship to Canute, and proscribed all the descendants of Ethelred. This done, they adjourned to Southampton to give their pledges of loyalty. It was a body of great respectability that thus gathered to pay homage, containing, as it did, both laymen and churchmen, lords, bishops, and abbots. The election must have been held some time about the close of the month, for by the seventh of May, Canute was at Greenwich with his fleet.[116]

In London, too, an a.s.sembly had met and a king had been chosen. Edmund was in the city when his father died. The chiefs present, "all the witan who were in London and the citizens of London," as the Chronicler carefully puts it, at once proclaimed Edmund king. Thus both the peace party and the war party had acted. It is clear, however, that neither of these elections could lay any claim to legality; neither a.s.sembly could pretend to represent the entire kingdom; between the death of Ethelred in April and the accession of Canute at the following Christmas, England had no lawful ruler.

Canute at once proceeded to the siege of London. His plan was to isolate the city completely, to block the Thames both above and below the town, and to prevent all intercourse with the country to the north. To accomplish this investment, a ca.n.a.l was dug around London Bridge wide enough to permit the long but narrow viking ships to pa.s.s into the stream west of the city. On the north side a ditch was dug enclosing the entire town, "so that no man could come either in or out."[117] Vigorous efforts were made from time to time to storm the fortifications, "every morning the lady on the Thames bank sees the sword dyed in blood"[118]; but the townsmen held their own. The siege continued through the month of May and perhaps till late in June, when it seems to have been interrupted by disquieting news from the West.

On the approach of the fleet, or at least before the investment had become complete, Edmund left London. We are told that his departure was secret, which is probable, as it was surely to his interest to keep Canute in the dark as to his whereabouts. We do not know who directed the defence of London during his absence; a year or two later, Thietmar, the bishop of Merseburg, introduced into his _Chronicle_ a confused account of these events, in which Queen Emma is made to play an important part in the resistance of 1016.[119] It may be that the Queen had returned with Ethelred, but it is doubtful. When Canute heard that his enemies were mustering in the Southwest, he seems to have detached a part of his force and sent it westward to look for Edmund. At Penselwood, near Gillingham in Dorset, the Danes came upon the Saxon forces. Edmund's success in raising the West had not been great; but, "trusting in the help of G.o.d," he gave battle and won a victory.[120] It is likely that the affair at Penselwood was little more than a skirmish, for it seems to have made small difference in the relative positions of the contending forces. But it gave Edmund what he sorely needed--the prestige of success. A month later, battle was again joined at Sherstone, a little farther to the north near Malmesbury in the upper part of Wiltshire.

The encounter at Sherstone was a genuine battle fiercely fought, one that lived long in the memories of Englishmen. It occurred after the feast of Saint John, probably in the early days of July. The earlier sources do not mention Canute in connection with this fight; with Eric he was apparently continuing the siege of London. The western campaign was evidently in Thurkil's hands; the sources also mention three prominent Englishmen, Eadric, Almar Darling, and Algar, as fighting on the Danish side.[121] The Encomiast, who speaks of a Danish victory at Sherstone, gives the entire credit to Thurkil, whom he naively describes as a fervent believer "continuously sending up silent prayers to G.o.d for victory."[122]

[Ill.u.s.tration: ANGLO-SAXON WARRIORS (Harl. MS. 603.)]

[Ill.u.s.tration: ANGLO-SAXON HORs.e.m.e.n (Harl. MS. 603.)]

Sherstone was at best a drawn battle, neither side claiming a victory.

The Anglo-Norman historians, true to their habit of looking for some traitor on whom to blame the outcome, could not overlook Eadric; he is said to have picked up the head of a soldier who bore some resemblance to Edmund and thus to have deceived the Saxons into believing that their leader was dead.[123] The tale is obviously mythical; if Henry of Huntingdon is to be trusted, the trick was played again later in the year at Ashington.

After the encounter at Sherstone, Thurkil seems to have joined Canute before London; but his whole force did not return with him. Eadric once more had shifted his allegiance; he had made peace with Edmund and had joined him against the invader. Whatever his motives may have been, there can be no dispute as to the importance of his new move. Edmund's army was strengthened, as was doubtless his prestige in the Midlands.

For the third time he had an army at his command, gathered, it seems, from the region north of the Thames. With this host he marched to the relief of London. On the appearance of this force, Canute found himself in a difficult situation: to maintain a siege and fight a vigorous foeman at the same time, required forces greater than those at the Dane's command. Prudence was Canute's greatest virtue, and he promptly raised the siege and withdrew to his ships. Edmund seems to have come up with his forces to Brentford, just as the Danes were busy crossing to the south bank. The enemy fled; but many of the English were drowned "because of their own heedlessness, as they rushed ahead of the main force to get at the booty."[124] Evidently the whole Danish force had not left London, as the fight at Brentford was two days after the city had been relieved.

With the relief of London, the English seem to have considered their duty done, and soon Edmund found himself once more without an army.[125]

It may, of course, be that the apparent lack of patriotism was due to the necessities of the harvest season, which must have arrived by this time. The tireless Edmund next made a visit to Wess.e.x to raise the militia there. While he was seeking recruits, the Danes returned to London, resumed the siege, and attacked the city furiously by land and sea, but as usual failed to take it.

The supply of provisions was probably running low in the Danish camp, for we next hear of a pillaging expedition into Mercia. Ordinarily that region was spared; but Eadric's defection had made it hostile territory and, furthermore, it was probably the only neighbouring section that had not been drained to the limit. Whether the entire army took part in the foray is uncertain; but the probabilities are that it was the raid mentioned by the Encomiast as undertaken by Eric with Canute's permission. Part of the host may have remained on the Isle of Sheppey in the mouth of the Medway, where a camp appears to have been established.

The fleet sailed north to the Orwell in Suffolk, and thence the host proceeded westward into Mercia, "slaying and burning whatever they came across, as is their wont."[126] As the crops had just been garnered, the raiders did not return empty-handed. Laden with plunder they began the return to the Medway, the footmen in the ships, the hors.e.m.e.n by land, driving the plundered flocks before them.[127]

With the forces of the enemy thus divided, Edmund's opportunity had come. With his fourth army, collected from "all parts of England," he crossed the Thames at Brentford and dashed after the Danes, who, enc.u.mbered with booty, were hurrying eastward through Kent. At Otford, in the western part of Kent, Edmund came up with the raiders and slew a number of them; but much fighting there could not have been, as the Danes were apparently unwilling to make a stand and hurried on to Sheppey. If Edmund had been free to make use of the advantage that was his, it seems that he might have destroyed a considerable part of the Danish host; but at Aylesford he was evidently detained by a quarrel with Eadric and the raiders escaped.[128]

Canute's position in the autumn of 1016 must have been exceedingly difficult and serious, even critical. After a year of continuous warfare--marches, battles, sieges--he seemed as far as ever from successful conquest. Edmund had, indeed, won no great victories; still, he had been able to relieve London, to stay the current of Danish successes, to infuse hope and patriotic fervour into the hearts of the discouraged English. But too much must not be inferred from the fact that Canute, too, had been only moderately successful on the battle-field; he was one of those commanders, who are not attracted by great battles. In two respects he possessed a decided advantage: he had a splendid army that did not desert; he had a great fleet to which he could retire when too hotly pursued. In the autumn of 1016, Edmund had come with a strong force to the lower Thames; the enemy, however, was out of reach on the Isle of Sheppey. It was not to be expected that Canute would long lie idle; but operations in the direction of London were impossible in the presence of Edmund's army. Canute accordingly embarked his men, crossed the estuary once more, and proceeded to devastate East Anglia.

Edmund started in pursuit, and on the 18th (or 19th) of October he came upon the Danes at Ashington in Ess.e.x, as they were on their way back to their ships. There seem to have been divided counsels among the English as to the advisability of making an attack, Eadric in particular advising against it.[129] But Edmund was determined to strike, and about the middle of the afternoon the battle began. The English had the advantage of numbers; but there was a traitor in camp: Eadric sulked and refused to order his forces of men from Hereford into battle. The fight continued till nightfall, and did not cease entirely even then.

Darkness finally put an end to the carnage, and the Angles fled from the field.

It is said that Canute was not eager to fight; but the feeling in his army must have been different. The banner of the invaders was the ancient Raven Banner, the raven being Woden's own bird. It is said of this banner that it was made of plain white silk and bore no image of any sort; but, when battle began, Woden's bird appeared upon its folds, its behaviour indicating the outcome. In the presence of victory it showed great activity in bill and wings and feet; when defeat was imminent, it hung its head and did not move. We are told that it was reported in Canute's army that the raven had appeared and showed unusual excitement.[130] Perhaps of even greater importance was military skill and experienced generalship. The tactics employed seem to have been such as the Northmen frequently used: at the critical moment, the Danes pretended to retreat; but when the lines of the pursuing English were broken, they closed up the ranks and cut the Saxon advance in pieces.

During the night, the Danes encamped on the battle-field; the next day they buried their fallen comrades and removed all articles of value from the bodies of their Saxon adversaries, the corpses being left to the wolf and the raven.

[Ill.u.s.tration: THE RAVEN BANNER (From the Bayeux Tapestry.)]

[Ill.u.s.tration: ANGLO-SAXON WARRIORS. (From a ma.n.u.script in the British Museum, reproduced in _Norges Historie_, i., ii.)]

The English aristocracy suffered heavily at Ashington. The sources mention six magnates among the slain: G.o.dwin the ealdorman of Lindsey; an ealdorman Alfric whose locality is unknown; Ulfketel, ealdorman of East Anglia; Ethelwerd, son of an earlier East Anglian ealdorman; also the bishop of Dorchester and the abbot of Ramsey.[131] It is a noteworthy fact that nearly all these are from Eastern England; so far as we know not one of them came from below the Thames. It may be true that all England was represented in Edmund's host at Ashington; but we are tempted to conclude that perhaps the army was chiefly composed of East Anglians summoned by the doughty Earl Ulfketel.

By far the most prominent of all the slain was this same Earl, the ruler of Saint Edmund's kingdom. Ulfketel is said to have been Edmund's brother-in-law. As his name is unmistakably Norse, it is more than likely that his ancestry was Scandinavian. In his earldom he appears to have been practically sovereign. So impressed were the Norse scalds with the power and importance of the Earl that they spoke of East Anglia as Ulfkelsland.[132] The sagas accuse him of having instigated the slaughter of the thingmen, especially of having destroyed Heming's corps at Slesswick. Thurkil is naturally mentioned as his banesman.[133]

Eadric's behaviour at Ashington furnishes an interesting but difficult problem. To the Saxon and Norman historians it was the basest treachery, premeditated flight at the critical moment. Still, after the battle he appears in the councils of the English in apparently good standing, even as a leader. From the guarded statements of the Encomiast, we should infer that Eadric had advised against the battle, that his counsel had been rejected, that he therefore had remained neutral and that he had withdrawn his forces before the battle was joined.[134]

From Ashington Edmund fled westward to the Severn Valley; Canute returned to the siege of London. Once more Edmund tried to gather an army, this time, however, with small success; England was exhausted; her leaders lay on the field of Ashington. Soon the Danes, too, appeared in Gloucestershire. Some sort of a council must have been called to deliberate on the state of the country, and the decision was reached to seek peace on the basis of a divided kingdom. Eadric seems particularly to have urged this solution. Edmund reluctantly consented, and amba.s.sadors were sent to Canute's camp to offer terms of peace.

It seems at first sight rather surprising that Canute should at this time be willing even to negotiate; apparently he had Edmund in his power, and England showed no disposition to continue the war. Still, the situation in his own host was doubtless an argument for peace. After more than a year of continued warfare, his forces must have decreased appreciably in numbers. Recruiting was difficult, especially must it have been so on the eve of winter. Without a strong force he could do little in a hostile country. The campaign had been strenuous even for the vikings, and the Danes are represented as thoroughly tired of the war.[135] Canute therefore accepted the offer of the English, with the added condition that Danegeld should be levied for the support of his army in Edmund's kingdom as well as in his own.

On some little island near Deerhurst in Gloucestershire,[136] the two chiefs met and reached an agreement which put an end to the devastating war and pillage that had cursed England for more than a generation. It was agreed that Edmund should have Wess.e.x and Canute Mercia and Northumbria; or, in a general way, that the Thames should be the dividing line between the two kingdoms. As to the disposition of East Anglia and Ess.e.x there is some doubt: Florence holds that these territories with the city of London were a.s.signed to Edmund. So far as London is concerned, this seems to be erroneous: Canute took immediate possession of the city and made preparations to spend the winter there, which seems a strange proceeding if the place was not to be his. The kingdom of England was thus dissolved. There is no good evidence that Canute understood his position to be that of a va.s.sal king; he had without doubt complete sovereignty in his own domains. On the other hand, the fact that Edmund agreed to levy Danegeld in his own kingdom of Wess.e.x looks suspiciously like the recognition of Canute as overlord of the southern kingdom.

The compact of Olney, says Florence of Worcester, was one of "peace, friendship, and brotherhood." Other writers state that the two kings agreed to become sworn brothers and that the survivor should inherit the realm of the other brother.[137] We cannot affirm that such a covenant was actually made, as the authority is not of the best. There is, however, nothing improbable in the statement; the custom was not unusual in the North. Twenty years later, Canute's son, Harthacanute, entered into a similar relationship with his rival, King Magnus of Norway, who had been making war on Denmark. In Snorre's language,

it was agreed that the kings should take the oath of brotherhood and should maintain peace as long as both were on earth; and that if one of them died sonless, the survivor should inherit his realm and subjects. Twelve men, the most eminent of each kingdom, took the oath with the kings that this agreement should be kept as long as any of them lived.[138]

It is possible that some such qualification in favour of male heirs was also inserted in the Severn covenant; still, the whole matter would have been of slight importance had the magnates on Edmund's death been in position to insist on the ancient principle and practice of election.

Witnesses similar to those mentioned in the later instance there seem to have been at Deerhurst; for, after the death of Edmund, Canute summoned those to testify before the a.s.sembly, "who had been witnesses between him and Edmund" when the agreement was made, as to the details of the treaty.[139]

The reign of Edmund as king of Wess.e.x was destined to be brief. The covenant of Deerhurst was probably made in the early days of November (it could scarcely have been earlier, as the battle of Ashington was fought on October 18) and by the close of the month (November 30) he was dead. Florence of Worcester tells us that he died in London, which is improbable, as it seems strange that he should have ventured into the stronghold of his late enemy. Other writers give Oxford as the place, which also seems unlikely, if Eadric, who apparently resided at Oxford,[140] had played the traitor's part at Ashington. It seems clear that these writers have placed Edmund's death at Oxford because they believed that Eadric was in some way the author of it.[141]

For so opportunely did the end come, that the suggestion of foul play was inevitable, and coa.r.s.e tales were invented to account for the manner of death. There is, however, not the least hint in any contemporary source that Canute was in any way guilty of his rival's untimely decease. The simple-minded Encomiast again sees an ill.u.s.tration of Providential mercy:

But G.o.d, remembering his teaching of olden time, that a kingdom divided against itself cannot long endure, very soon afterwards led Edmund's spirit forth from the body, having compa.s.sion on the realm of the English, lest if, perchance, both should continue among the living, neither should reign securely, and the kingdom be daily annihilated by renewed contention.[142]

It is difficult to form a just estimate of Edmund Ironside, as our information is neither extensive nor varied. It is possible that he was born of a connection that the Church had not blessed; at least such seems to have been the belief when William of Malmesbury wrote.[143] A late writer tells us that his mother was the daughter of Earl Th.o.r.etus[144]; an earl by such a name actually did flourish in the closing decade of the tenth century; he was one of the chiefs to whom Ethelred entrusted his fleet in 992. From his name we should judge that he was of Norse ancestry. There can be no doubt as to Edmund's bravery on the battle-field; perhaps he was also in possession of some talent in the way of generalship. But on the whole, his military exploits have been exaggerated: we know them chiefly from an ecclesiastic who was doubtless honest, but warmly patriotic and strongly partisan; it was natural for him to magnify skirmishes into battles. Edmund was the victor in several important engagements, but in no great battle. There was no heavy fighting at Penselwood; Sherstone was at best a drawn battle; Brentford and Otford seem to have been partly successful attacks on the rear of a retreating foe; Ashington was a decisive defeat. We cannot tell what sort of a king he might have become but the glimpses that we get of his character are not rea.s.suring. We get sight of him first about 1006 when he sought to come into possession of an estate in Somerset: "and the monastic household dared not refuse him."[145] His rebellious behaviour in the Danelaw, his raid into English Mercia, give little promise of future statesmanship. Edmund Ironside was an English viking, pa.s.sionate, brave, impulsive, but unruly and uncontrollable.

When the year closed there was no question who should be the future ruler of England. Fate had been kind to Canute; still, the outcome must be ascribed chiefly to the persistent activity of the invader. But while the name of the young King is necessarily made prominent in the narrative, we should not forget that he was surrounded and a.s.sisted by a group of captains who probably had no superiors in Europe at the time.

There was the tall and stately Thurkil with the experience of more than thirty years as a viking chief; the resourceful Eric with a brilliant record as a successful general; the impetuous and volcanic Ulf; doubtless also Ulf's brother, Eglaf the Jomviking. These were the men who helped most to win the land for the Danish dynasty; they also formed Canute's chief reliance in the critical years following the conquest.