7
We have seen, in the long narrative of Wessex’s western push, that the actions of individual rulers can sometimes have an enormous impact on the fate of the south-west as a whole. Many of these figures, like Ceawlin and Ine, are little known today outside of those with a particular interest in the Early Medieval period, despite all their accomplishments added to the eventual emergence of a single, unified England under the Kings of Wessex.
At this point we need to introduce perhaps the most important of these forgotten kings, certainly the one who has the largest single hand in setting Wessex on the path that will eventually see it dominate all of England.
Unfortunately, at least from the viewpoint of the Western Kingdom, he is also the one who will effectively end the military resistance in Cornwall, although this is not the same as completing its conquest.
With all that being said, things didn’t actually start very promisingly for the young Ecgberht. He was, it is believed, the eldest son of the King of Kent, and related to the royal line of Wessex from several generations back via King Ine’s brother. The Britain Ecgberht was born into, that of the late eighth century, was dominated by a single Anglo-Saxon kingdom and its king: Offa of Mercia.
Offa was a warrior king in every sense of the word and he had used his military might and talent to extract tribute or subjugate almost all of his neighbours at one time or another. Cynewulf of Wessex seems to have resisted Offa’s attempts to raise himself as overlord but he was murdered in 786 by another noble who then also died. A relatively unknown descendant of Cerdic, named Beohtric, then ascended to the throne of Wessex.
While it isn’t clear whether Offa had a direct hand in Cynewulf’s death, he certainly seems to have been the real power behind Beohtric’s rule, going so far as to marry Beohtric to his daughter, Eadburh. Soon, lands that had traditionally been within Wessex were being administered from the Mercian court and issued out in charters by Offa himself, while Mercian currency appears to become the nominal currency of Wessex as well.
It seems clear that this situation was working well for Offa and neither he, nor his puppet king, would want a challenger with stronger (or at least more recent) links to the royal line of Wessex abroad in the country. As such, they conspired to send the young Ecgberht into exile in Frankia, where he attended the court of Charlemagne.
William of Malmesbury, writing long after events but sometimes considered to have had access to earlier sources that we lack, attests it was in Charlemagne’s court that Ecgberht learned how to rule:
Egbert, passing the sea, went into France; a circumstance which I attribute to the counsels of God, that a man destined to rule so great a kingdom might learn the art of government from the Franks; for this people has no competitor among all the Western nations in military skill or polished manners. This ill-treatment Egbert used as an incentive to ‘rub off the rust of indolence,’ to quicken the energy of his mind, and to adopt foreign customs, far differing from his native barbarism.
It should be noted that William is a highly unreliable narrator, whatever sources he may have had access to, though in this case he may have had more of a point than in his other writings. Charlemagne was engaged in building a highly ‘modern’ and effective state in what would one day become France and Germany while also undertaking great endeavours to spread Christianity to the still-pagan populations of north-west Europe – whether they wanted it or not.
Even if Charlemagne did not have a direct hand in Ecgberht’s education, being within the court of the most powerful man in Europe would have done wonders for his future chances as he was able to build support for his claim with powerful and influential figures.
Certainly, when Beohtric died at the turn of the ninth century Ecgberht seemed to waste no time in returning from exile to ascend the throne. It’s unclear whether Charlemagne or figures in his court directly supported his return, but it seems reasonable to assume that at least the image of their friendship is likely to have discouraged any other claimants within Wessex, even if it did nothing to deter aggression from Mercia. As the Chronicle records:
This year was the moon eclipsed, at eight in the evening, on the seventeenth day before the calends of February; and soon after died King Bertric and Alderman Worr. Egbert succeeded to the West-Saxon kingdom; and the same day Ethelmund, alderman of the Wiccians, rode over the Thames at Kempsford; where he was met by Alderman Woxtan, with the men of Wiltshire, and a terrible conflict ensued, in which both the commanders were slain, but the men of Wiltshire obtained the victory.
The ‘Wiccians’ or men of Hwicce were originally an independent kingdom from the borderlands between Wessex and Mercia, although by this time they had been fully absorbed as part of the Mercian state. It seems unlikely that their aggression was an independent action – instead, it was presumably meant as an embarrassment of the new king. After all, the central role of the king is as the protector of his people. If Ecgberht had failed to respond to the incursion so soon after his crowning, he would have been shamed.
As it is, this is the last conflict noted between Wessex and Mercia for close to twenty years, suggesting that, while Wessex’s ealdorman also died, the overall battle had gone poorly for the invaders. By this time Offa himself was dead, and his heir Coenwulf was on Mercia’s throne. He had previously maintained his father’s control over Wessex via Beohtric, but he was not able to subdue Ecgberht so easily.
Much of the time between conflicts with Mercia was spent on events in the west, to which we will return shortly, but in order to give further context both to Ecgberht and some of what will follow we need to discuss his most stunning victory. In 825, Ecgberht met the forces of Mercia at Ellandun:
Egbert king of the West-Saxons and Bernulf king of the Mercians fought at Ellandun, and Egbert got the victory, and there was great slaughter made. He then sent from the army his son Ethelwulf, and Ealstan his bishop, and Wulfherd his ealdorman, into Kent with a large force, and they drove Baldred the king northwards over the Thames. And the men of Kent, and the men of Surrey, and the South-Saxons, and the East-Saxons, submitted to him; for formerly they had been unjustly forced from his kin. And the same year the king of the East-Angles and the people sought the alliance and protection of king Egbert for dread of the Mercians; and the same year the East-Angles slew Bernulf king of Mercia.
This is followed in 827 by an entry stating that Ecgberht not only conquers Mercia but also receives the submission of the Northumbrian kings, though this later statement is hotly debated, and has instead been suggested to be a more general discussion to avoid conflict.
The implications of Ellandun are enormous. Not only does the battle leave Ecgberht in a position to claim dominion over almost all of England for a short time (he is unable to retain all the territorial gains he achieves), but it also permanently transfers the ownership of all of southern England; the previously independent kingdoms of Kent, Sussex and Essex all become part of Wessex and remain there. This provides Wessex with a strong, wealthy base with which it will meet the looming crisis of the Great Heathen Army.
It is extremely likely without Ecgberht and his victories that the collection of smaller kingdoms would have been unable to rise to the challenge in the same way as the singular Wessex state, regardless of Alfred’s undeniable skill as a leader.
Ellandun also highlights that Ecgberht was a successful military leader. Even without Offa and Coenwulf at the head, the Mercian forces would have been the dominant military force in Britain at the time. To come out of exile and defeat them in only twenty years is an incredible success story and one that we will see reflected in other conflicts in the West Country.
Of course, if you are going to lose, it is at least some comfort to be beaten by someone so skilled.
We have seen that conflict in Devon was a significant recurring feature of the late eighth century, but Cynewulf’s death seems to put a temporary pause on the conflict. Given the close links between Beohtric and Offa, it is possible that the focus during these years, from the Saxon point of view, was more on conflicts within ‘England’ as well as Offa’s frequent invasions and suppressions of the various Welsh princes on Mercia’s western borders.
Ecgberht, on the other hand, was presumably keen to expand his own powerbase before attempting to challenge Mercia militarily, a long-term goal which he must have borne in mind throughout his rule.
In 813 the Chronicle records that he is on the offensive in one of the most infamous, for Cornwall certainly, passages in the entire recording: ‘King Egbert spread devastation in Cornwall from east to west.’
This is frequently interpreted as a campaign that took the entirety of Cornwall into his dominion, or at least it suffered from his campaign [Kirby, 1992]; however, this is difficult to square with the longer-running conflicts we’ve seen over the preceding century. Additionally, if Wessex is able to so easily dominate the entirety of Cornwall, then we would expect the conflict to end here and potentially Cornwall’s unique identity to more or less vanish, in the way that Devon’s Brythonic origins are now only vaguely remembered. Obviously neither of these things occur.
Of course, even the Chronicle doesn’t actually state he conquered the region either, only that he went raiding or harrying: ‘spreading devastation’. As such, it seems necessary to seek out alternative explanations.
The most obvious interpretation, and in this case the most likely to be correct, if we start from a position of conflict in mid-to-west Devon (as highlighted earlier), is that Ecgberht finalised the conquest of Devon around this time, pushing from the region around Exeter and Crediton towards the Tamar or north towards Launceston.
This may, in this case, be the first time that Cornwall corresponds to its historic boundaries, tying its longer-standing identity into the region that modern audiences will be most familiar with. Between this and the early eighth-century identification of the Cornish as a separate people, it is not entirely without merit to suggest that Cornwall is actually the oldest of the nations that make up the United Kingdom.
While questions around Cornish nationalism are fraught with both emotional and political stakes, it is certainly true that the Cornish as a people originate from outside the English state, and in this regard have as much claim to a national identity as the Welsh or Scots. The counter-argument to this, that Cornwall was absorbed by the English state, could also be made about those two nations, albeit on very different timelines.
Certainly in the early ninth century Cornwall is being referred to, by its own people, by a name we would recognise (Cerniu) while the concept of a singular English state is still not fully formed. Even at the height of his power, Ecgberht is not ‘King of the English’ – he is instead still King of Wessex, extracting tribute and acquiescence from those beneath him.
The same is true of Wales, where the many small kingdoms will not start formulating a singular shared identity – that of the ‘folk’ or Cymru – until the tenth century at the earliest.
Returning to Ecgberht and his exploits in Cornwall, the idea of a wholesale conquest is undercut in 825 when, in the same entry describing his victory at Ellandun, a fight is recorded between the men of Devon and the Cornish at Gafulford.
Gafulford was at one time thought to be Camelford in Cornwall; however, this is too far west to be taken seriously and for the most part seems to have been arrived at without considerable supporting evidence. More recent works, such as Higham [2008], have instead looked towards Galford on the northern section of the border between Devon and Cornwall, which seems to have the much stronger claim based on its location along the traditional border and the obvious place-name evolution.
Further, suggestions that Gafulford may translate to something like ‘Tax-Ford’ also seem to be eminently sensible.
We know that most overland traffic into Cornwall would have had to travel through the northern part of the country; the Tamar Valley and estuary would have been too slow to navigate, even with any ferries that may have been maintained at the time, and so was best avoided. We also see the highest density of English place names in this region of Cornwall, suggesting that it was the area most connected to Wessex.
Further, Launceston’s original Cornish name is Dun Heved, ‘Dun’ being a place-name element relating to a fortified settlement or castle, suggesting that the site was an important guarding point – which makes sense if there was indeed a significant amount of trade and traffic in the region.
Interestingly, Launceston, despite the–ton suffix so typical of Anglo-Saxon settlement, is itself a corruption of a different Cornish place name, Lannsteven, after the church of St Stephen. Of course, the fact it eventually took the ‘ton’ element is almost certainly to do with growing Anglo-Saxon settlement and interaction in the region.
What remains unknown is who the victor was in this conflict, although, as is typical of many such ambiguous entries, it is often assumed to be the Saxon forces. This was perhaps first noted by John of Worcester in his Chronicon ex Chronis, a sort of continuation and adaptation of the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle but with a wider scope. The entry in the Chronicon for this year reads slightly differently: ‘The Britons were defeated at a place called Gavulford by the men of Devonshire.’
While the Chronicle is largely thought to have been composed at least somewhat contemporaneously to events, although much of the work of bringing it together is actually undertaken during Alfred the Great’s reign, the Chronicon is very much a work of the twelfth century. Additionally, the similarity between the entries makes it clear that John, or an accomplice, is working from the Chronicle and has chosen to make an alteration to fit his own view.
In fact, there is reason to suspect that the battle may not have gone nearly so well for the men of Devon, and we find it in a pair of charters issued by Ecgberht. Both of the charters [Sawyer, S272 and S273] begin with the same phrase:
Principium autem huius scedulæ scriptum est in hoste quando Ecgbertus rex Geuuissorum movet contra Brittones ubi dicitur Creodantreow.
The beginning of this document was written in the army when Egbert, king of the Gewisse, advanced against the Britons at the place called Creodantreow (Crediton).
As has already been noted, the entry in the Chronicle describing the battle of Gafulford is the same entry for the larger and more notable Ellandun. It has been suggested that Ellandun, which was fought close to Swindon, was the result of a Mercian invasion prompted by Ecgberht fighting against the Britons in the west.
However, given that there is no royal army mentioned in the Chronicle, only the ‘men of Devon’, it perhaps is more likely that the opposite is true.
As has been noted, Mercia was the dominant power of the eighth century in mainland Britain. It had also made enemies of Ecgberht at a very young age. Confronting and defeating Mercia would have been high on his priorities as king while he went about the business of expanding and consolidating his power. Chances are he had been planning a battle like Ellandun for years, and had been mobilising his forces over the course of 825 to see it done.
The proposed battlefield for Ellandun is right in the borderlands between Wessex and Mercia. If the Mercians had really attacked Wessex while the royal forces were distracted, it would be assumed that they would have penetrated much further towards Winchester, the capital, or at least attempted to pillage some of the nearby rich towns while they were unchallenged. Equally, we might expect to see some mention in the Chronicle of a battle with the local forces – there is none.
If we consider, instead, that the Cornish, likely still very aware of events in Devon and beyond, discover that Ecgberht has moved his most powerful forces far away to the north and east, with only ten years having passed from Ecgberht’s harrying it is likely they would be eager to reclaim territory that had been recently lost.
This would seem to be supported by the charters themselves. Firstly, the mention of Crediton as the site of the charters is significant. This was, as discussed previously, close to the pre-815 border between the Britons and Wessex, and as such would be an ideal area to prepare to confront Briton forces in west Devon.
Additionally, there is the dating of the charters. Both charters are noted as being raised in late summer. In the Early Medieval period the campaigning season ran essentially over the summer months, with the lower-level freeman who made up the forces outside the professional warriors needing to return home ahead of the harvest, as Harold Godwinson found, much to his detriment, at Hastings. This does contrast with a traditional date of September for Ellandun, but that dating doesn’t appear in the original sources.
This suggests that the confrontation with the Britons is happening at the end of the season, not the start. Given what we know about Ecgberht’s rapid consolidation of power in the aftermath of Ellandun, it is not unreasonable to think that Crediton, at the very far west of his kingdom, was probably the last place he wanted to be with his army, and this suggests in itself that the fight at Gafulford was a defeat for the local Wessex forces which had let the Cornish back into western Devon, a situation Ecgberht could not allow to go unchallenged if he hoped to maintain his hard-won place at the very top.
If this is the way the scenario played out, as the evidence seems to allude, then it shows that the Cornish, far from being conquered from Tamar to Land’s End in 815 as some have suggested, were still able to mount large-scale and effective offensives away from their homelands.
Given Ecgberht’s rapid rise in the immediate aftermath of Ellandun, it is, however, unlikely that any Cornish gains survived long, but the absence of any mention of a retaliatory campaign might suggest that the Cornish retreated with their spoils and the previous status quo quietly resumed.
Ecgberht himself would soon find another enemy he’d have to deal with: the Vikings.