David McDermott
In 1016, the same year that witnessed at least five battles between Edmund Ironside and Cnut of Denmark for the throne of England, the city of London was subjected to three sieges by the Danish army. The second of these sieges, relieved by Edmund, occupies a pivotal position in his at times desperate resistance to Cnut’s relentless attacks.1 How do Cnut and Edmund compare? In Timothy Bolton’s view, their “competition for the crown seems to have been that of a cunning and intelligent man versus a more straightfoward warrior.”2 Before we consider this comparison, let us study Cnut’s approach to London. Collectively, his three sieges conform to a pattern of Viking military strategy that can be traced back to the first Viking Age in the ninth century. A short sketch of this history is in order before we return to Edmund’s duel with Cnut for London in 1016.
Viking Sieges of London before Cnut
The Winchester manuscript of the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle records that an immense Viking raiding-army entered the mouth of the River Thames in 851 and “brecon” (stormed) London, putting to flight the king of Mercia and his army. After dispersing these forces, the Vikings turned south into Surrey, where they suffered a signal defeat in battle against King Æthelwulf of Wessex.3 The absence of any reference to London being taken in this year in the Chronicle, infuriatingly succinct as this is, may indicate that the city withstood the onslaught. Thereafter London appears to have escaped the attention of the Vikings until 871, when the city was occupied by a raiding-army that quartered in the city over the winter before moving its operations to Northumbria. Unfortunately, the Chronicle provides no information regarding how the occupying force came to take possession.4 London may have come under Viking control when a raiding-army settled in Mercia in 877, but within a decade King Alfred retook London and made Ealdorman Æthelred of Mercia responsible for the safety of the city.5
These early attacks on London were sporadic and of questionable effect. From the time London was returned to English control in the late ninth century, and throughout most of the tenth century, London appears to have escaped the attention of the Vikings. However, the penultimate decade of the reign of Æthelred II (978–1016) signalled the beginning of a series of renewed Viking assaults against London. These began in 994 with the arrival of Óláfr Tryggvason (later king of Norway) and King Sveinn Forkbeard of Denmark, who led a combined raiding-army comprising ninety-four ships. The Chronicle relates that the forces of “Anlaf” (Óláfr) and “Swegen” (Sveinn) “fæstlice” (determinedly) set about attacking London and attempted to raze the city by fire.6 Despite their efforts to breach London’s defenses, according to the Chronicler, the Vikings were met with a level of resistance from the Londoners that was unexpected in its ferocity and the assailants sustained the greater “hearm ⁊ yfel” (harm and injury).7 Defied and frustrated by the city’s defenders, according to the twelfth-century narrative of John of Worcester, the raiding-army withdrew from London on the same day and made good by pillaging the neighboring counties.8
When London was next attacked in 1009, the city’s assailants demonstrated they were more determined than their predecessors to take the town. The account in the Chronicle is typically sparse in detail, but it does relate that the “ungemetlice” (immense) raiding-army before London “oft … gefuhton” (often attacked) the town. Although the Chronicler does not disclose the duration of the Vikings’ relatively sustained assault, he does record that it proved ineffective, reporting they “æfre yfel geferdon” (always fared badly). As before, the Vikings abandoned their siege and directed their aggression elsewhere, burning down Oxford.9
London was equally resolute and successful in resisting Sveinn Forkbeard in 1013. Sveinn moved on London only after receiving the submission of the north of England and that of Oxford and Winchester. Any expectations Sveinn may have had that London would follow the example of other major towns and capitulate were dashed when the inhabitants refused to submit. The level of the Londoners’ determination to resist Sveinn is indicated in the Chronicler’s description that London held out against him “fullan wige” (with full battle)10 and, according to John of Worcester, “illum abegit” (drove him off).11 Denied his goal, Sveinn traveled to Bath, where he received the submission of the west of England, before returning north, where the whole nation accepted him as “fulne cyning” (full king). The impression created by the Chronicle is that London was alone in its opposition to Sveinn, but finally London, fearing his retribution, also submitted.12
The Vikings’ repeated attempts to occupy London during Æthelred’s reign require some explanation. One of the consequences of the expansion of the political power of the kingdom of Wessex from the early tenth century, which culminated in the unification of England under King Æthelstan, was a shift in what Ryan Lavelle has described as the “strategic key to the kingdom” from Wessex to the area around London.13 Although the city may not have been larger than any of the other important towns in England, by the beginning of the eleventh century London had become, to quote C. N. L. Brooke, the country’s “chief port … the centre of communications with the Continent” and “the centre of the money-markets of England and north-western Europe.”14 This combination of political, economic and military factors made London a “nodal point” in Æthelred’s kingdom and an ideal southern center from which to govern the entire country.15
King Edmund II Ironside and Cnut’s First Siege of London
By the time Cnut arrived for his first siege of London, its ruler was King Edmund Ironside, Æthelred’s eldest son and successor, to whom much of the organization of the resistance to Cnut must be credited. Edmund was in London when Æthelred died there on April 23, 1016.16 Edmund was aware of the king’s declining health and it is plausible that he was in the city to secure his succession, as well as to defend the city in the sure expectation that Cnut would attack it.17 Cnut, however, according to the early-twelfth-century narrative of William of Malmesbury, waited with his ships in the west of the country until Easter was past before launching his forces against London in the second week of May.18
Edmund’s accession did not have universal support. In a telling reference to the details of his accession, the Chronicle reports that he was elected to the throne by “ealle þa witan þe on Lundene wæron” (all the councillors who were in London) and the citizens of the city.19 Although he was not chosen by a full complement of the royal council (the “witan”), his elevation to the throne, with the approval of the city’s citizenry, may be read as further proof of London’s increasing importance.
Shortly after his accession, King Edmund left London sometime before Cnut, arriving with his fleet between May 7 and 9, could cut him off.20 The Chronicle does not explain Edmund’s reason for leaving the city at a time when one might reasonably expect it to be besieged, but its description of Edmund’s departure may be instructive. In deceptively simple language, it says that Edmund “gerad” (rode) to Wessex, which submitted to him.21 If this preterite is of a transitive verb gerīdan (to obtain by riding, occupy), the entry in the Chronicle may convey the sense, as suggested by Ann Williams, that Edmund forcibly took possession of Wessex.22
A demonstration of force by him might have been necessary, if, as reported in the narrative of William of Malmesbury, parts of Wessex had capitulated to Cnut. While the English were making several unsuccessful attempts to send an army against Cnut at the end of 1015 and the beginning of 1016, the Danish king, according to William, took possession of towns in Wessex.23 Although this account is only in William, the divided loyalties of the English at the battle of Sherston, in June 1016, indicate that some southern Mercian and West Saxon magnates had reached an accommodation with Cnut that may have included a formal submission.24
The partiality of Edmund’s election in London may also lend credibility to the unique account by John of Worcester that Cnut, en route from Poole Harbour to besiege London, stopped at Southampton, where the “episcopi, abbates, duces et quique nobiliores Anglie” (bishops, abbots, ealdormen and all the nobles of England) accepted him as king.25 Even if John of Worcester sometimes exaggerates in his record of the degree of English defection to Cnut, it is possible on this basis that Edmund was twice elected king in 1016. Ann Williams has remarked upon the similarity between the repudiation of King Æthelred and his descendants, on the one hand, which John of Worcester records as part of the promises made to Cnut at Southampton,26 and on the other, the declaration of exile on every Danish king which the Chronicle records as part of the negotiations for Æthelred’s return from Normandy.27 If Cnut had learned of the edict of outlawry against him, so Williams suggests, he may have demanded that the English kings be similarly rejected. A second election at Southampton would also explain the Chronicle’s intimation that Edmund exerted force to subdue Wessex.28
Other factors may also explain Edmund’s absence from London when it was first besieged. Although Thietmar of Merseburg, writing in the early eleventh century, is alone and probably incorrect in placing Edmund in London when Cnut arrived, there may be some validity in his explanation of Edmund’s departure from this city. Thietmar alleges that Queen Emma, whom he places in London, agreed to have Edmund and his brother Æthelstan killed in exchange for Cnut’s guarantee of her safety.29 The lack of corroboration for this claim, together with numerous factual errors, such as reporting Æthelstan to be alive one year after his death, bring Thietmar’s account into question. Nonetheless, Edmund’s death would have been politically advantageous for Emma. If, as reasonably suggested by Pauline Stafford, Emma sought to promote the interests of her sons by Æthelred over those of his first marriage, Edmund’s demise would have facilitated her ambitions.30 Thietmar’s narrative is sometimes confused and confusing, as indicated by him reporting that the ætheling Æthelstan, who predeceased Edmund, relieved the besieged city.31 However, he may be essentially accurate about a threat against Edmund from enemies inside the city of London, which Edmund may then have prudently chosen to leave to avoid being trapped by them within, as well as by enemies without.
Cnut’s Great Ditch in Southwark
The Chronicle reports that Cnut, en route to London from the south coast, stopped temporarily at Greenwich before proceeding to London. Upon arriving at the city Cnut was confronted with the obstacle of London Bridge, which he avoided by having “micle dic” (a great ditch) dug from east to west around the southern end, through which the Danes dragged their ships.32 Although neither the Chronicle, nor any of the other primary sources which record this event, explains the reason for Cnut’s tactic, one may reasonably infer that the bridge was manned by a contingent of London’s defenders which he wished to avoid. Once the Danes had secured their ships, the Chronicle records that they blockaded the city by encircling it with a greater ditch, which William of Malmesbury was probably correct to describe as surrounding only those sides of the city not adjacent to the Thames.33
The Chronicle’s closely contemporary account of a Danish-dug ditch surrounding three sides of London (on the north bank of the Thames), described by John of Worcester as “alta lataque” (deep and wide)34 might be supported by archaeological evidence. Excavations conducted in the Cripplegate area of the City of London between 1946 and 1968 revealed, beyond the remains of the Roman city wall, a medieval trench that had been dug to a minimum depth of 1.5 m and may originally have had a width of 15 m.35 Between the ditch and the Roman city wall was a 15 m wide berm, which may have been produced from the upcast from the ditch to form an earthen embankment against the wall facing.36 An examination of the pottery recovered from the ditch revealed that material had been deposited over several stages, the earliest being 950–1100. The implication of this finding is that the ditch had been cut no later than the early eleventh century.37
Subsequent excavations near the Roman wall in other areas of the City have produced possible further evidence for the existence of an early-eleventh-century ditch around London. Similar ditches have been identified at several other sites, including the Houndsditch to the east of Cripplegate, and one to the west of Cripplegate at Aldersgate, from which eleventh-century finds were recovered.38 Gustav Milne, in his summary of the significance of these excavations, concluded there was a ditch surrounding early medieval London “at least two centuries” before the earliest extant documentary record of 1211. Milne also concluded, perhaps controversially, that the ditch was defensive.39 It is possible that the construction of the ditch is Anglo-Saxon in origin. However, when the archaeological evidence for an early-eleventh-century ditch around London is combined with the closely contemporary record of the Danes surrounding London with a ditch in 1016, it may be considered likely that the ditches discovered at various locations outside the City wall are part of the longer ditch dug on the orders of Cnut.
London’s Ally: Ulfcytel of East Anglia
With the city now circumvallated and blockaded, the Danes, according to the Chronicle, “oftrædlice on þa buruh fuhton” (regularly attacked the town) but were repeatedly repulsed by the Londoners.40 In the early-twelfth-century account of William of Malmesbury, who perhaps imitates the patriotic stance of the Chronicle, the engagements beside the wall of London are described as even-handed, with the Danes receiving as much injury as they inflicted.41 Corroboration that the Danes made attacks during their first siege is provided by a closely contemporary Scandinavian source, the collectively composed Liðsmannaflokkr (Soldiers’ Song). This skaldic poem records two instances of fighting close to, or beside, London. The first instance, in stanza 5, refers to a battle waged on the bank of the Thames (“á Tempsar síðu”).42 Citing the command given by Cnut that the Danes “bíða” (wait) after the battle, before launching an assault on London, Russell Poole argues persuasively that Liðsmannaflokkr indicates the encounter took place somewhere close to the city.43 The second instance of fighting, in stanza 7 of this poem, is more compelling. After their aforementioned engagement beside the Thames, the poem says that “vá herr við díki” (the [Danish] army fought alongside the moat).44 It is difficult to interpret this “dík” as anything other than the ditch mentioned in the Chronicle. The ferocity of the fighting indicated in the Chronicle is also supported in this source. Cnut, in the battle between the Danes and English beside the ditch, is likened to a man “sem ólmum heldi elg” (holding a maddened elk).45 The aggression of the earlier battle beside the Thames, as in “hǫrð óx hildar garða hríð” (the harsh storm of battle-forts [i.e., shields] grew; or, the fighting grew fierce), does not match the language with which the second encounter is described. Nonetheless, this verse is notable for its reference to Ulfcytel (Ulfkell) leading the English defense.46
The “Ulfkell” identified in Liðsmannaflokkr is most probably the prominent thegn Ulfcytel of East Anglia, who fought the Danes near Norwich in 1004 and again at Ringmere Heath in 1010. Ulfcytel’s ability to command an army was amply illustrated in 1004, when the Danes admitted that had Ulfcytel’s forces not been under strength they would never have returned to their ships, even though they got “East Engla folces seo yldesta ofslægen” (the chief men of the East Anglian people killed).47 Ulfcytel, whose name reveals that he was of Scandinavian origin, also appears to have proven himself to be a bold and capable general at London. Liðsmannaflokkr may imply that he had anticipated the actions of the Vikings and was lying in wait for them (“lét … víkinga at bíða”).48 Ulfcytel’s ability to inflict what Poole describes as “considerable damage” may be inferred from the extant poem’s reticence about the outcome of the battle. There is also evidence of dissent in the Danish ranks. The unknown authors of the poem wrote that “tveir hugir runnu” (two intentions were current) amongst the Danes with regard to fighting, following the encounter with Ulfcytel.49 It would seem that there were those who questioned Cnut’s decision to besiege London. As we have seen, however, it would also seem that they were overruled and the siege continued.
Other evidence for Ulfcytel being in the London area when Cnut was attempting to take the city may be found in another contemporary source. In what may be a reference to the same engagement mentioned in Liðsmannaflokkr, the skaldic poem Eiríksdrápa (Eulogy on Eiríkr) by Þórðr Kolbeinsson, reports that his patron, Earl Eiríkr Hákonarson of Hlaðir (Lade in Trondheim), joined battle west of London (“fyr vestan … Lundún”), where he was resisted by Ulfcytel, who he says received “œglig hǫgg” (frightful blows).50 Like the anonymous poets of Liðsmannaflokkr, Þórðr does not name the victor of the engagement, but rather invites the inference that the two forces were evenly matched and that the English acquitted themselves honorably under Ulfcytel’s command.
The location for the battle between Ulfcytel and Eiríkr has not been identified with certainty. In the later nineteenth century Guðbrandur Vigfússon tentatively nominated Brentford,51 but his proposal has since been questioned both by Russell Poole and Ann Williams. Poole directs our attention to the Chronicle’s account which says that Edmund Ironside commanded the English at Brentford, while Williams points out that Óttarr svarti’s Knútsdrápa (Eulogy on Cnut) gives Cnut as the leader of the Danes on that occasion.52 The references to Ulfcytel in Liðsmannaflokkr (which was composed for Cnut) and the Eiríksdrápa (for Earl Eiríkr), may be seen as two separate proofs that in 1016 the activities of Ulfcytel were not restricted to East Anglia and that, as Williams believes, Ulfcytel was involved in the defense of London. Poole argues that Ulfcytel’s absence in the Chronicle’s account of this may be explained as an omission in keeping with the latter’s tendency to favor King Edmund Ironside over Ulfcytel, a commander whose status and authority remain a matter of debate.53
Queen Emma’s Whereabouts in 1013–1017
Cnut’s first siege of London in 1016 begs another contentious question: the whereabouts of Emma, King Æthelred’s widow. In the Chronicle, Emma is said to have fled Sveinn Forkbeard’s successful invasion for Normandy at the end of 1013, before reappearing in 1017, when Cnut, having become king, “het … feccan him Æðelredes lafe þes oðres cynges him to cwene Ricardes dohtor” (ordered the widow of the former king Æthelred, Richard’s daughter, to be fetched to him as queen).54 From where, this annal does not say, although, as Alistair Campbell suggests, the entries for 1013 and 1017 may be read in conjunction to imply that Emma was absent from England during the sieges of London and remained in Normandy until summoned by Cnut.55 This reading has been challenged by Sten Körner, who argues that the annals for 1013 and 1017 were written by different scribes and that one might therefore expect there to be lacunae between their accounts.56 If one accepts the involvement of at least two scribes, one of whom was not concerned to maintain an unbroken account of all the topics covered by his or her predecessor, Emma may indeed have returned from Normandy in 1014 with Æthelred, or sometime thereafter, and was later brought to Cnut from a place in England. The implication that Cnut recalled Emma from Normandy has also been questioned by Simon Keynes. He believes that Cnut was “a bit high-handed” in ordering Emma to be “fetched” from abroad and suggests the entry in the Chronicle be read with the meaning that Emma remained in England after Æthelred’s death and was detained by the Danes until summoned by Cnut.57 Support for the strong possibility that Emma was in London, at least during Cnut’s first siege, may be found in Liðsmannaflokkr, whose stanza 8 refers to an “ekkja” (widow) looking out from the walls, while stanza 9 contains a reference to a “horna Hlǫkk” (drinking-horn Valkyrie [i.e., lady]) looking over the bank of the Thames. The unnamed widow is said to watch Cnut as he “sœkir snarla borgar karla” (smartly attacks the borough’s churls [i.e., the city’s garrison]). Although the Norse word ekkja (widow) does not have to be literal in skaldic verse, Poole believes that it is here in Liðsmannaflokkr. He is also persuasive in his reasoning that the most significant widow in England at that time was Queen Emma; given that she subsequently married Cnut, it is most probably Emma whom the poem records observing Cnut from the walls of London.58
Despite the apparent disagreement in the earliest English and Scandinavian sources concerning Emma’s presence in London when it was first besieged, most of the remaining primary sources place her in the city. Although Thietmar’s account of events at London, cited briefly above, is described by Keynes as “garbled” and “beyond our powers of comprehension,” he suggests that credence be given to the claim that Emma was in London. Thietmar, Keynes reminds us, was contemporary to the events he recorded.59 By Williams we are also reminded that Thietmar received his information about England from a “reliable witness,” presumably the Sewald who informed Thietmar of the death in 1012 of Archbishop Ælfheah.60 Support for Thietmar can also be found in other sources. William of Jumièges puts Emma in London when Æthelred died, and she is said to be there when Cnut, hearing of the king’s death, is reported to have removed Emma from the city (“Emmam reginam abstractam ab urbe”) and married her.61 William of Jumièges is an admittedly late source, having written his account in ca. 1070 or 1071.62 Like Thietmar, he is prone to error, and Poole describes him as a “shaky source for events early in the [eleventh] century.” However, with regard to the assertion that Emma was in London, Poole also argues that William, being a member of the entourage of Emma’s great-nephew, William of Normandy, would have been a “well-informed, if biased witness.”63 Keynes also supports William of Jumièges’s credibility here, suggesting that as Emma might not have escaped the city, William’s report of her being taken from London is compatible with the Chronicle’s account that she was “fetched” by Cnut.64 In addition to Liðsmannaflokkr, two other Scandinavian sources indicate that Emma was in England during 1016. The thirteenth-century Knýtlinga saga tells us that Emma attempted to sail to Normandy immediately after Æthelred’s death, but was prevented from doing so; with Emma forcibly taken before him, Cnut follows his counselors’ advice and promptly marries Emma.65 Another relatively reliable late source, the fourteenth-century Appendix to Jómsvíkinga saga, has a similar account in which Earl Thorkell, finding Emma on board a ship intercepted by him, returns her to England and successfully persuades Cnut to marry her.66
Unique amongst the primary sources, the Encomium Emmae Reginae claims unequivocally that Emma was in Normandy when Cnut sought her out for his wife.67 Despite this explicit declaration, James Campbell doubts the reliability of the Encomiast here, whose panegyric of Emma “completely suppresses” her marriage to Æthelred and omits her dead husband’s name from the narrative.68 The economic treatment of certain facts and the exclusion of others, it is suggested, cast doubt on the reliability of some of the Encomium’s contents. Given the circumstances in which the Encomiast was writing, Keynes suggests, the singularity of his narrative should not be treated as unexpected. Emma, having returned from exile to be restored to power beside her sons Harthacnut and Edward, enjoyed a “moment of glory” in the years 1041–1042 in which she commissioned the Encomiast expressly to praise her. To do this successfully, the Encomiast would have had to negotiate the complexities of Emma’s career before her restoration. One way for him to achieve this objective was to stress Emma’s connection to Cnut and ignore her earlier marriage to Æthelred. To be consistent with this omission, the Encomiast would have had to claim that Emma was in Normandy when Cnut sent for her.69
In this way, Emma was probably in London when the city was first besieged by Cnut. The majority of sources say that Emma was either in London or trying to escape England at this time. The unnamed “widow” in Liðsmannaflokkr may be Emma, and it is only the absence of references to her in the Chronicle, between her leaving for Normandy in 1013 and being brought to Cnut in 1016, that creates the impression that she was abroad in the interval. Emma’s own claim to have been out of the country is most probably untrue, a falsehood perpetrated to facilitate her acceptance by the Anglo-Danish regime.
Cnut Leaves the Siege to Face Edmund
It was most probably the resolute resistance of the city’s defenders, as recorded in most sources, that persuaded Cnut to leave the siege of London to part of his army. The costly encounter with Ulfcytel’s forces somewhere near the city should also be considered a contributory factor. With the momentum of his conquest appearing to stall, with signs of discord in the ranks, and with the losses necessarily incurred during the assaults, Cnut left a contingent of his army to maintain the siege and protect the ships. According to John of Worcester, he marched into Wessex to engage with Edmund Ironside.70 Having so far failed to take London, Cnut may have thought that defeating Edmund in battle was his only way to expedite the city’s capitulation and shorten his campaign. Although it is unknown when Cnut abandoned the siege and when he encountered Edmund, the sources are consistent in locating the first battle between them at Penselwood (Somerset), which lies in western Wessex near the boundaries of Somerset, Dorset and Wiltshire. The position of Penselwood makes it likely that Edmund recruited his army from all three counties,71 and that support for him was strongest in western Wessex. In relation to descriptions of Edmund’s other battles, the reference in the Chronicle to Penselwood is unusually brief, stating simply that a battle occurred.72 However, the historical narratives of the later Norman period are unanimous in making Edmund the victor of the engagement.73 The discrepancy between the earlier and later sources may be resolved by Stafford’s argument that writers of history in the twelfth century sought to commemorate the Anglo-Saxon past.74 For this reason, in the absence of a detailed account in the Chronicle, the twelfth-century apologists for pre-Conquest England would have been inclined to declare Edmund the victor.
The Chronicle creates the impression that another battle was fought shortly after Penselwood between Cnut and Edmund at Sherston (Wiltshire) after midsummer in 1016.75 Williams suggests that the westerly location of Sherston, close to the borders of Wiltshire, Somerset, and Gloucestershire, indicates that the more easterly parts of Wessex were then under Danish control.76 This suggestion is supported by the similarly western location of Penselwood. The probability that Edmund’s power base was in the west of Wessex is also suggested by John of Worcester’s account that the English rebel, the Mercian ealdorman Eadric Streona, exhorted the men of Dorset, Devon, and Wiltshire to desert Edmund’s army.77 Other named English defectors were the otherwise unknown Ælfmær Darling and (uniquely recorded by John of Worcester) Ælfgar, son of Meaw.78 The defection of Ælfgar, a Gloucestershire magnate, is significant. Timothy Bolton has established that Ælfgar had estates in Devon and Dorset, counties also putatively represented in Edmund’s army.79 If men from these counties had been recruited by Ælfgar for the Danes, Edmund did not have support from everyone in the aforementioned areas. The possibility of political disaffection within a single county is also illustrated by John of Worcester’s assertion that a section of Cnut’s army came from Wiltshire. These defections, along with the alleged collaboration of Hampshire,80 further illustrate the profound political fragmentation of Wessex and southern Mercia.
Most sources report that the battle of Sherston ended with the two armies going different ways as if by mutual consent, with neither gaining an outright victory.81 There is evidence, however, that Edmund won both a moral and practical victory at Sherston, for William of Malmesbury, albeit uniquely, records that the West Saxons who had sided with Cnut recognized Edmund as their “dominum legitimum” (rightful lord).82 Since these sources repeatedly refer to Edmund subsequently raising several armies in Wessex, it seems likely that after Sherston his position in the region had become more secure, and William of Malmesbury’s assertion may have some basis in fact. If John of Worcester’s account may be trusted, Cnut’s decision to desert the field under the cover of darkness to resume the siege of London is also significant.83 The clandestine manner of the Danes’ departure suggests they did not want to be attacked as they left. It can also be argued, and has been by Jeffrey James, that Cnut, by leaving possession of the field to Edmund, was effectively admitting defeat: retaining the battlefield is traditionally an indicator of victory.84
Welsh Warriors with King Edmund?
Edmund responded to Cnut’s abandonment of Sherston by raising another army in Wessex and pursuing him back to London.85 Perhaps the most puzzling reference to the composition of this army is made by Thietmar, who says that the force, inaccurately reported to have been led by the ætheling Æthelstan, contained a contingent of “Britanni” (Britons). Since this is unlikely to be a synonym of “Angli,” a word which, as Poole has observed, Thietmar uses for the English several times,86 it is more probable that Thietmar refers to the “British,” or Brythonic, inhabitants of this island, otherwise known as the Welsh. Although Thietmar’s inclusion of the ætheling Æthelstan in the relief force, as we have seen, illustrates his susceptibility to errors, a reference in Liðsmannaflokkr allows for the possibility that the Welsh had already participated in defending London from Cnut. Stanza 8, recounting how Cnut attacked the city’s garrison, says “dynr á brezkum brynjum blóðiss” (the blood-ice [i.e., sword] rings against British mailcoats).87 In the context of the siege of London, the term “brezkar” or “Bretar,” words which denote the “Welsh,” have been explained as “poetical licence” to mean the English, as a term “belonging to all the inhabitants of Britain.”88 However, as Poole has demonstrated, other skaldic poetry does not support such an interpretation. When ascribing national names to the various peoples of the British Isles, several skaldic works use “brezkir” or “Bretar” for the Welsh with a specificity which argues against any general application to the British Isles.89
Although, as Poole indicates, the reference to Welsh coats of mail in Liðsmannaflokkr does not necessarily mean they were worn by Welshmen,90 it is more plausible that part of Edmund Ironside’s army at London was recruited in the more westerly reaches of Wessex, where the population was more Brythonic than English. Edmund can be connected to the most westerly part of England, specifically Cornwall, which in the mid-ninth century was described in the Winchester recension of the Chronicle as “Westwalas” (West Wales).91 An early diploma of Cnut confirms a grant made by Edmund in exchange for property he held in Cornwall.92 If Edmund enlisted men from this county, it is feasible that Thietmar’s “Britanni” refers to men of Cornwall. Equally enigmatic is Henry of Huntingdon’s report that Edmund brought to London a team “manu electa bellatorum” (of hand-picked warriors).93 Although neither the origin of this select group, nor the source, if any, used by Henry is disclosed, the reference to elite soldiers might allude to Thietmar’s “Britanni,” given Edmund’s starting point. Otherwise, Edmund’s professionals may have been a body of warriors similar to the Danish housecarls introduced to England in the early eleventh century.94
King Edmund’s Relief of London
Most sources are silent concerning how Edmund’s army approached London, but one of the Chronicle’s recensions recounts how Edmund concealed his arrival by keeping to the north of the Thames and descended upon the besiegers by emerging through “Clæihangran” (Clayhanger), whose location (not the Clayhanger near Walsall) was reliably identified by Sir Frank Stenton as Clayhill Farm, Tottenham.95 The exact manner in which Edmund relieved London is also unknown. The account in the Chronicle is typically laconic, recording only that Edmund “buruhwaru aredde” (rescued the city’s inhabitants) and “here aflymde to scipe” (drove the [Danish] raiders to their ships).96 In stark contrast to the Chronicle’s account of fighting at Penselwood and Sherston, there is a conspicuous lack of any reference to hostilities during the liberation of London. On the other hand, it is possible that blows were not exchanged, for William of Malmesbury may be close to the truth when he says that the Danes beat a hasty retreat upon hearing of Edmund’s approach.97 The notion that Edmund won a bloodless victory is even supported by an apologist for Cnut, L. M. Larson, who argues that Cnut was unable to conduct a siege while fighting such a determined opponent as Edmund, and so prudently withdrew to his ships.98
Contrary to the other sources, the Encomium, which has probably telescoped events, says that Cnut accepted an invitation from the Londoners to occupy the city, but then, doubting the loyalty of the citizens, left London as soon as Edmund arrived. The Encomiast also asserts that Edmund challenged Cnut to single combat, which he refused, and that the Danes departed to winter on the Isle of Sheppey.99 This account is highly dubious, for it is unlikely that Edmund arrived just as Cnut was leaving, or that he would stake his crown on the outcome of a duel. Furthermore, it is implausible that Edmund would have allowed the Danes to leave without pursuing them. Instead, it is more credible that the Encomiast’s account was a fiction, made to spare Emma the embarrassment of hearing it said that Cnut failed to secure London while Edmund was still alive to oppose him.
Most of the sources say that Edmund, having lifted the siege, remained in London for two days before traveling to Brentford to face the Danes in battle and dislodge them further.100 While in London, Edmund may have taken counsel with the city’s leading citizens and attended to its defenses, but Larson plausibly suggests that Edmund stayed there until that part of Cnut’s fleet that had remained had joined the rest of the Danish ships. Brentford, connected to London and the West Country by a Roman road, may have been chosen by Cnut in order to facilitate further attacks on London. Both the Chronicle and the later Latin Chronicles give victory to the English at Brentford, although a passage in the ca. 1027 Knútsdrápa of Óttarr svarti, which records a Danish victory, may also illuminate the composition of Edmund’s army. Unique to this Knútsdrápa is the statement that Cnut has taken Frisian lives at Brentford.101 If Óttarr’s account is reliable, his eulogy may tell us that Edmund employed foreign mercenaries, as his father Æthelred had – and as Sveinn and Cnut did, of course.102 The possibility that a section of Edmund’s army was motivated by greed for gain, rather than by love of country, would seem to be supported by the reference in the Chronicle to a section of the English army at Brentford drowning in pursuit of loot.103 If mercenaries were present at Brentford, they may have been with Edmund at London, which would help to explain the origin of the elite warriors alleged to have contributed to the liberation of the city.
Cnut’s Second and Third Sieges of London
The Chronicle says that after Brentwood, Edmund left London and withdrew to Wessex to assemble another army. The probability of ferocious fighting at Brentford may be inferred from this account of Edmund’s move, which suggests that his forces had been severely depleted. The Chronicle also reports that Edmund put the Danes to flight, implying an English victory,104 but Poole suggests that the Londoners may have perceived the outcome of this battle differently. From their perspective, Brentford may have been only a temporary interruption of Cnut’s assault on the city.105 In Edmund’s absence, at any rate, Cnut’s Danes “sona” (immediately) besieged London for the second time. There is also a suggestion that their efforts were intensified, for the Chronicle has the Danes attacking strongly “ge be wætere ge be land” (by both water and land).106 The city’s staunch resistance may once again have proved effective, for the Danes abandoned this siege and left with their ships to raid in Mercia.107 Perhaps from the fact that the sources agree about the Danes pillaging southern Mercia around London, Larson concluded, probably correctly, that they left London because the harvest had recently been gathered.108 If this is correct, the timing of the Danes’ plundering suggests that late August or early September may have been the season when Edmund relieved London a second time. There were subsequent engagements between Edmund and Cnut beyond London. In Otford in Kent, Edmund intercepted the mounted section of the Danish army taking plunder from southern Mercia to the Isle of Sheppey. It is said that Edmund “ofsloh heora swa feala swa he offeran mihte” (killed as many as he could overtake), before halting at Aylesford, where, according to the Chronicle, he was persuaded by Ealdorman Eadric to discontinue the chase.109 After his defeat the following month in Essex, however, Edmund retreated west and the Danes besieged London a third time.
Defeat and Death of King Edmund
There was a decisive battle at “Assandun” in Essex on October 18, 1016: either Ashdon in north-west or Ashingdon in south-east Essex.110 Eadric Streona is said to have played a crucial role, deserting the English ranks, provoking further desertions, and contributing to Edmund’s defeat, his flight westwards and the final Danish victory over his forces which was achieved, despite possible reinforcements from Wales,111 near the Forest of Dean in Gloucestershire.112 In the following peace negotiations at Olney (now Alney) in the same county, the kingdom of England was divided, with King Edmund taking Wessex and King Cnut receiving the remainder.113
London continued to be associated with Edmund and Cnut after the cessation of hostilities. Immediately following the settlement at Olney, Cnut and his army wintered in London, whose inhabitants, according to the Chronicle, arranged their own truce with the Danes and so “heom frið gebohtan” (bought peace from them).114 The Chronicle does not clarify what is meant by this phrase, but one may imagine that the city was required to make some form of payment to the Danish force lifting the siege. Edmund may have been badly wounded during his last encounter with the Danes. It might be inferred from the Chronicle’s statement “feng Eadmund cing to Weastseaxon” (King Edmund succeeded to Wessex) that he did not return to London but traveled to his political heartland at the conclusion of the peace talks.115 John of Worcester says that he was in London when he died,116 but the lack of corroboration for his claim, together with the late composition of his narrative, gives sufficient grounds to doubt John’s reliability in this matter. It seems unlikely that Edmund would have gone to London so soon after Olney; in Larson’s view it was improbable that Edmund would have been there at the same time as the city was occupied by Cnut and his fleet.117 At any rate, Edmund died on November 30, 1016.118
Although London eventually submitted and indeed hosted Cnut’s first post-war assembly towards the end of 1016,119 the repeated and successful resistance of this city through the war most probably led Cnut to take special measures. While he needed London for its economy, which was unequaled on the island, experience had taught him not to trust the loyalty of a city that might, as Matthew Townend suggests, become a “crucible” of rebellion.120 The continued antipathy of the Londoners to Danish rule, as well as Cnut’s response to this, are topics beyond the scope of this chapter, but it is worth noting that in 1018 the city suffered a tax which could be described as a punitive.121 An earlier exemplary action witnessed by London was Cnut’s execution of Ealdorman Eadric in 1017.122 And then in June 1023, as we have seen, the remains of Archbishop Ælfheah, killed by Danes in 1012, were forcibly translated from London to Canterbury, depriving St. Paul’s of an important source of income.123
Conclusion: Cnut’s Reluctant Capital
In the course of 1016 London was besieged three times by the Danes, although they failed to break in, while their attacks, which conformed to a pattern of Viking behavior stretching from the First Viking Age, proved ineffective. Upon the death of Æthelred, London demonstrated its support for Edmund by electing him king and remained loyal to the English cause throughout the war. While the battle for control of the city, and the greater war for the mastery of England, was fought primarily between Edmund Ironside and Cnut, other English nobles contributed to safeguarding London and during the first siege the city’s defenses were most probably organized by Ulfcytel of East Anglia. It also seems likely that Æthelred’s widow, Emma, resided in the city during the sieges. Cnut’s abandonment of the first siege, to bring Edmund to battle in Wessex, enabled Edmund to distinguish himself as a military commander and to assert his authority unchallenged throughout the region. Edmund’s relief of the second siege at Brentford may have been accomplished with the assistance of non-English troops, an elite band of Welsh extraction, or Frisian or other foreign mercenaries; possibly a combination. When Cnut abandoned his siege of London a third time, he made himself vulnerable, but the intervention of Ealdorman Eadric aided him and prevented Edmund from capitalizing on the damage he inflicted on the Danes at Aylesbury.
At the conclusion of the war, London was included in that half of the kingdom ceded to Cnut. It was then that the garrison, perhaps concluding that further resistance was impracticable, finally submitted. Nonetheless, throughout Cnut’s reign, London remained a center of anti-Danish sentiment. The city’s continued patriotism may be attributed, at least in part, to its hold over the remains of King Æthelred, whose later reign suffered a resurgence of Viking activity, as well as over the body of St. Ælfheah, the former archbishop of Canterbury whom the Danes had killed four years earlier. One might also consider the city’s antipathy to Cnut to have been influenced by its collective memory of Edmund Ironside, liberator of the city which had elevated him to the throne. For Cnut, the king who replaced him, London was nonetheless the jewel in the crown.
Notes
1
The second siege of London, and the relief of the city, took place after the battles of Penselwood and Sherston but before the battles of Brentford and Assandun. John of Worcester alleges an armed encounter between Edmund Ironside and the Danes at Otford which is unlikely to have taken place.
2
Bolton, Cnut the Great, 91.
3
ASC (A), ed. Bately, 44 (s.a. 851).
4
ASC (AE), trans. Swanton, 72–73 (s.a. 871 [for 870]).
5
ASC (AE), trans. Swanton, 74–75 (s.a. 877 [for 876]); 80–81 (s.a. 886 [for 886]).
6
ASC (E), ed. Irvine, 61–62 (s.a. 994); trans. Swanton, 127 (s.a. 994).
7
ASC (E), ed. Irvine, 61 (s.a. 994); trans. Swanton, 129 (s.a. 994).
8
Chronicon ex chronicis, ed. Darlington and McGurk, 442–43.
9
ASC (E), ed. Irvine, 67 (s.a. 1009); trans. Swanton, 139 (s.a. 1009).
10
ASC (E), ed. Irvine, 70 (s.a. 1013); trans. and ed. Swanton, 143 (s.a. 1013).
11
Chronicon ex chronicis, ed. Darlington and McGurk, 472–73.
12
ASC (D), ed. Cubbin, 58 (s.a. 1013); trans. Swanton, 144 (s.a. 1013); see also Lavelle, Æthelred II, 129, and Roach, Æthelred the Unready, 291.
13
Lavelle, Æthelred II, 120.
14
Brooke, London 800–1216, 23.
15
Lavelle, Æthelred II, 127.
16
ASC (DE), trans. Swanton, 148–49 (s.a. 1016).
17
Freeman, History of the Norman Conquest, I, 417.
18
Gesta Regum Anglorum, ed. Mynors, Thomson, and Winterbottom, I, 314–15.
19
ASC (D), ed. Cubbin, 61 (s.a. 1016); (E), ed. Irvine, 73 (s.a. 1016); (DE), trans. Swanton, 148–49 (s.a. 1016).
20
ASC (DE), trans. Swanton, 149 (s.a. 1016).
21
ASC (D), ed. Cubbin, 61 (s.a. 1016).
22
Williams, Æthelred the Unready, 142–43 and n. 63, 226.
23
Gesta Regum Anglorum, ed. Mynors, Thomson, and Winterbottom, I, 312–13.
24
ASC (DE), trans. Swanton, 150–51 (s.a. 1016); Chronicon ex chronicis, ed. Darlington and McGurk, 486–87; Bolton, Empire of Cnut, 38–39.
25
Chronicon ex chronicis, ed. Darlington and McGurk, 484–85.
26
Chronicon ex chronicis, ed. Darlington and McGurk, 484–85; Williams, Æthelred the Unready, 140.
27
ASC (E), trans. Swanton, 145 (s.a. 1014).
28
Williams, Æthelred the Unready, 140.
29
Thietmar, Chronicon, 335.
30
Stafford, Queeen Emma and Queen Edith, 221–22.
31
Chronicon, ed. Holtzmann, 336.
32
ASC (D), ed. Cubbin, 61 (s.a. 1016); (D), trans. Swanton, 149 (s.a. 1016).
33
ASC (D), trans. Swanton, 149. Marshy conditions on the South Bank seem in evidence in the Encomium, ed. Campbell, 22–23, which describes London as surrounded by a naturally occurring river which Cnut blocked with his ships to circumvallate the city.
34
Chronicon ex chronicis, ed. Darlington and McGurk, 384–85.
35
Milne, Excavations at Medieval Cripplegate, 10.
36
Milne, Excavations at Medieval Cripplegate, 35.
37
Milne, Excavations at Medieval Cripplegate, 11.
38
Vince, Saxon London, 90; Butler, “1600 Years of the City Defences,” 235–44.
39
Excavations at Medieval Cripplegate, 35.
40
ASC (D), ed. Cubbin, 61 (s.a. 1016); (D), trans. Swanton, 149 (s.a. 1016).
41
Gesta Regum Anglorum, ed. Mynors, Thomson, and Winterbottom, I, 314–15. Contrary to the majority of primary sources that report Cnut’s assaults on London, the Encomium, ed. Campbell, 22–23, records that Cnut accepted the invitation of the citizens to take the city peacefully, but suspected the loyalty of the Londoners and so left soon after to winter on Sheppey.
42
Poole, Viking Poems, 87. My translations of this poem are based on his.
43
Poole, “Skaldic Verse,” 288.
44
Poole, Viking Poems, 88.
45
Poole, Viking Poems, 88.
46
Poole, Viking Poems, 86.
47
ASC (D), ed. Cubbin, 52 (s.a. 1004); (E), trans. Swanton, 135–36 and n. 1 (s.a. 1004).
48
Poole, Viking Poems, 87.
49
Poole, “Skaldic Verse,” 288.
50
Poole, “Skaldic Verse,” 289.
51
Vigfusson, Corpus Poeticum Boreale, II, 107.
52
Poole, “Skaldic Verse,” 288; Williams, Æthelred the Unready, 140; see also “Óttarr svarti: Knútsdrápa,” ed. Townend, 775.
53
Poole, “Skaldic Verse,” 289; Williams, Æthelred the Unready, 140.
54
ASC (E), ed. Irvine, 74 (s.a. 1017); (E), trans. Swanton, 155 (s.a. 1017); the same in ASC (D), ed. Cubbin, 63 (s.a. 1017).
55
Encomium, ed. Campbell, xliv.
56
Körner, Battle of Hastings, 9.
57
Keynes, “Æthelings in Normandy,” 181; see also Stafford, Queen Emma and Queen Edith, 23, and Williams, Æthelred the Unready, 142.
58
Poole, “Skaldic Verse,” 290.
59
Keynes, “Æthelings in Normandy,” 176–77.
60
Chronicon, ed. Holtzmann, 336; Williams, Æthelred the Unready, 141.
61
Gesta Normannorum Ducum, ed. van Houts, 20–21.
62
Gesta Normannorum Ducum, ed. van Houts, 22–23; 67.
63
Poole, “Skaldic Verse,” 290–91.
64
Keynes, “Æthelings in Normandy,” 183.
65
Danakonunga Sǫgur, ed. Bjarni Guðnason, 107 (chap. 9).
66
Encomium, ed. Campbell, 92–93.
67
Encomium, ed. Campbell, 32–33.
68
James Campbell, “England, France, Flanders and Germany,” 256.
69
Keynes, “Æthelings in Normandy,” 183–84.
70
Chronicon ex chronicis, ed. Darlington and McGurk, 486–87.
71
Freeman, History of the Norman Conquest, I, 421–22.
72
ASC (DE), trans. Swanton, 149 (s.a. 1016).
73
Gesta Regum Anglorum, ed. Mynors, Thomson, and Winterbottom, I, 314–15; Chronicon ex chronicis, ed. Darlington and McGurk, 486–87; Historia Anglorum, ed. and trans. Greenway, 356–57.
74
Stafford, Unification and Conquest, 20.
75
ASC (DE), trans. Swanton, 149–51 (s.a. 1016).
76
Williams, Æthelred the Unready, 143.
77
Chronicon ex chronicis, ed. Darlington and McGurk, 488–89.
78
ASC (DE), trans. Swanton, 150–51 (s.a. 1016); Chronicon ex chronicis, ed. Darlington and McGurk, 486–87.
79
Bolton, Empire of Cnut, 38–39. The family of Ælfgar meaw is discussed in Williams, World Before Domesday, 13–15.
80
Chronicon ex chronicis, ed. Darlington and McGurk, 486–87.
81
ASC (DE), trans. Swanton, 150–51 (s.a. 1016); Gesta Regum Anglorum, ed. Mynors, Thomson, and Winterbottom, I, 314–15; Chronicon ex chronicis, ed. Darlington and McGurk, 488–89; Historia Anglorum, ed. and trans. Greenway, 356–57.
82
Gesta Regum Anglorum, ed. Mynors, Thomson, and Winterbottom, I, 314–15.
83
Chronicon ex chronicis, ed. Darlington and McGurk, 488–89.
84
James, An Onslaught of Spears, 175.
85
ASC (DE), trans. Swanton, 150–51 (s.a. 1016).
86
Poole, “Skaldic Verse,” 294.
87
Poole, Viking Poems, 88.
88
Zachrisson, Romans, Kelts and Saxons, 47; Ashdown, English and Norse Documents, 207.
89
Skjaldedigtning, ed. Finnur Jónsson, B.I, 148–52; Heimskringla I, ed. Bjarni Aðalbjarnarson, 264–65 (Óláfs saga Tryggvasonar, chap. 30); Orkneyinga Saga, ed. Finnbogi Guðmundsson, 59–62 (chaps. 33–34); Poole, “Skaldic Verse,” 292.
90
Poole, “Skaldic Verse,” 294.
91
ASC (A), ed. Bately, 42 (s.a. 835); (A), trans. Swanton, 62 and n. 9 (s.a. 835 [for 838]); see also Charles-Edwards, Wales and the Britons, 432, 494, 512–13.
92
Electronic Sawyer, S 951 (s.a. 1018).
93
Historia Anglorum, ed. and trans. Greenway, 356–57.
94
Flateyjarbók, ed. Vigfusson and Unger, I, 203, 205, and II, 22; Sveno’s “Lex Castrensis,” in Scriptores Rerum Danicarum, ed. Langebek, Suhm, Engelstoft, and Werlauff, III, 144; Larson, “The King’s Household,” 158–59.
95
ASC (C), ed. O’Brien O’Keeffe, 102 (s.a. 1016); Stenton, Anglo-Saxon England, 391; Cover, Place Names of Middlesex, 79.
96
ASC (D), ed. Cubbin, 61 (s.a. 1016).
97
Gesta Regum Anglorum, ed. Mynors, Thomson, and Winterbottom, I, 314–15.
98
Larson, Canute the Great, 89–90.
99
Encomium, ed. Campbell, 22–25.
100
ASC (DE), trans. Swanton, 150–51 (s.a. 1016); Chronicon ex chronicis, ed. Darlington and McGurk, 488–89; Historia Anglorum, ed. and trans. Greenway, 356–57. William of Malmesbury says that Edmund followed the retreating Danes; Gesta Regum Anglorum, ed. Mynors, Thomson, and Winterbottom, I, 314–15.
101
“Óttarr svarti: Knútsdrápa,” ed. Townend, 775.
102
Abels, “Household Men, Mercenaries and Vikings,” 152, 155–57; Lavelle, Alfred’s Wars, 105.
103
ASC (DE), trans. Swanton, 150–51 (s.a. 1016).
104
ASC (DE), trans. Swanton, 150–51 (s.a. 1016).
105
Poole, “Skaldic Verse,” 275.
106
ASC (E), ed. Irvine, 73 (s.a. 1016); (DE), trans. Swanton, 150–51 (s.a. 1016).
107
ASC (DE), trans. Swanton, 150–51 (s.a. 1016).
108
ASC (DE), trans. Swanton, 150–51 (s.a. 1016); Gesta Regum Anglorum, ed. Mynors, Thomson, and Winterbottom, I, 316–17; Chronicon ex chronicis, ed. Darlington and McGurk, 488–89; Historia Anglorum, ed. and trans. Greenway, 356–57; Larson, Canute the Great, 91.
109
ASC (E), ed. Irvine, 73–74 (s.a. 1016); (D), ed. Cubbin, 61 (s.a. 1016); (DE), trans. Swanton, 151.
110
ASC (E), ed. Irvine, 74 (s.a. 1016).
111
Lawson, Cnut: England’s Viking King, 28.
112
ASC (DE), trans. Swanton, 152 (s.a. 1016).
113
ASC (DE), trans. Swanton, 153 (s.a. 1016).
114
ASC (E), ed. Irvine, 74 (s.a. 1006); (DE), trans. Swanton, 152–53 (s.a. 1016).
115
ASC (E), ed. Irvine, 74 (s.a. 1006); (DE), trans. Swanton, 152–53 (s.a. 1016).
116
Chronicon ex chronicis, ed. Darlington and McGurk, 492–93.
117
Larson, Canute the Great, 99–100.
118
Chronicon ex chronicis, ed. Darlington and McGurk, 492–93.
119
Bolton, Cnut the Great, 93.
120
Bolton, Cnut the Great, 110. Townend, “Contextualising the Knútsdrápur,” 167.
121
ASC (DE), trans. Swanton, 154–55 (s.a. 1018); Hill, “An Urban Policy for Cnut?,” 103.
122
ASC (DE), trans. Swanton, 154–55 (s.a. 1017); Chronicon ex chronicis, ed. Darlington and McGurk, 504–5.
123
ASC (DE), trans. Swanton, 142–43 (s.a. 1012), 156–57 (s.a. 1023); Rumble, Reign of Cnut, 282–315; Bolton, Cnut the Great, 112. See North and Goeres in the Prologue to this book (19–24).