I wrote a letter to the Herald clarifying that the battle was fought on English soil because the real Anglo-Scottish border is the Antonine wall. They never published it.
I wrote a letter to the Herald clarifying that the battle was fought on English soil because the real Anglo-Scottish border is the Antonine wall. They never published it.
I would guess though that if the battle did place in this area it would be in the territory of the Strathclyde British.
I will be fascinated to see what wendun has come up with here.
At the moment I am still attracted to the Michael Wood argument ie. Brunanburh in South Yorks. The place name association doesn't seem brilliant in his book(In Search of England) but the geo-politics seems more convincing. It wouldn't be much of an invasion if the allies only got as far Dumbarton, ok they might have retreated in the face of Athelstan's forces. But William of Malmesbury describes an invasion of the "northern land". Olaf, a leading light in the enterprise, was doubtless trying to recover the Viking kingdom of York established by his family some years earlier - with the support of Constantine of the Scots and Owain of the Cumbrians, determined to reverse the dominance Athelstan had achieved. William's passage here implies substantial inroads.
It's tricky because William is supposedly quoting from a lost source described only by himself(Wood - In Search of England).
However the "poet" apparently said " Now the fierce savagery of the North couches on our land, now the pirate Olaf, deserting the sea, camps in the field, breathing forbidden and savage threats. At the will of the king of Scots the northern land lends a quiet assent tothe raving fury, and now they swell with pride, now frighten the air with words. The natives give way, the whole region yields to the proud. For since our king, confident and eager in his youth, deeming his service done, had spent long slow leisure hours, they despoiled everything with continuous ravages, driving the people out, setting fire to the fields. The green crops withered in the fields, the blighted cornfield mocked at the husbandman's prayers. So great was the force of foot-troops, so fierce that of horsemen, a host of countless coursers. At length the complaining rumours roused the king, not to let himself thus be branded that he gave way to the barbarian axe. There is no delay, he fiercely unfolds in the wind standards, leading victorious cohorts, a hundred banners. A vigorous force of men, one hundred thousand strong, follow their standards to the scene of battle. The mighty report of their approach terrified the raiders, the din so shook the legions of their plunderers, that, dropping their spoils, they sought their own lands. Butthe multitude left behind, destroyed with a pitiable slaughter, polluted the thirsty air with foul stench. Olaf fled, one of many thousands, a hostage of death, fortune's noble pledge, to hold power when Athelstan was dead" - English Historical documents.
The Herald article looks a little premature as the SHR has still not come out!! A problem I have encountered that I had not anticipated is a degree of censorship from the English press. You may remember that The Times did a Bromborough is Brunanburh story last December. The reporter concerned, Ben Hoyle, remains committed to Bromborough, will not print anything by me, will not even read my article and will not discuss it with any independent experts to gauge its importance or veracity. I am hopeful The Independent will run it next week but it is clear to me that Freedom of the Press and Free Speech are quite different.
Actually, as an example of how even handed Brunanburh studies are at the moment I have printed below some extracts from correspondence with The Times. Remember that in the last year the Bromborough claims have been aired on national and local tv, radio and the press. 28/10/05 Wendun to Times; '..as my forthcoming article...is a serious and (so far) well received refutation of the Bromborough claim it seems only even-handed that you might at least have acknowledged my communication'. 28/10/05 Hoyle to Wendun; '...your research, as far as I can tell (ie. from the Herald article and without sight of the SHR article or reference to me or the editor), has not proven that all modern accounts of the battle are incorrect...we...can't afford to give up space for every new development....' Bear in mind the same man had published a long, entirely uncritical of the Bromborough claim which presented barely any evidence let alone 'proof'. 28/10/05, Wendun to Hoyle 'I can't immediately see why the Times wrote a piece on a proposed location for the battle at Bromborough but is apparently unwilling to write a piece based on new research which shows the Bromborough claim to be a fiction.' A David Campbell of The Times intervened in support of Hoyle again implying that Brunanburh theories were coming to the paper daily but refusing to state why Bromborough apparently received preferential treatment. 28/10/05, Wendun to Times; 'I haven't approached other broadsheets because i feel that your paper, having carried the Bromborough story, has a duty to be even-handed. You state that I haven't proved the theory ( a much higher burden of proof than applied to Bromborough)but you haven't read the article or approached either me or the SHR for further details...How you can justify carrying a story giving an imprimatur to Bromborough without being prepared to carry a short article to the effect that 'Bromborough brunanburh Claim Dismissed'is beyond me.' The upshot of all this is not to judge the worthof a piece of research by the amount of media coverage it receives.
I would guess that the Times reporter has nailed his colours to the mast, judging by his article.
Could you maybe be a bit more forthcoming about your own theory - Bromborough somehow doesn't feel right, but what's wrong with the South Yorks location?
The reporter concerned, Ben Hoyle, remains committed to Bromborough, will not print anything by me, will not even read my article and will not discuss it with any independent experts to gauge its importance or veracity.
Hi Wendun,
I remember one of Dr Budd's posts about a press conference where he chuckled, "we had great fun phrasing our answers which would not allow the reporters to tell the story that they wanted their audience to hear".
Freedom of the press is the freedom which allows them to tell their story, not yours :-) Contributors simply supply evidence which may, or may not, be used as appropriate.
Dear Cottar and Harry Amphlett, apologies for delay but my revisionist article on Brunanburh is now published. If you or anyone else on the forum would like a copy please email me at khalloran4674806@aol.com with your e-mail address.
"6. The location of Brunanburh is uncertain. Speculation has ranged from Scotland to southern England. Michael Wood (1980), however, made a compelling case for placing the site in the region of Brinsworth, about 40 miles south of York - on the frontier between Northumbria and southern England. In his "excellent television programme on King Æthelstan" part of the series upon which is based his In Search of the Dark Ages (1987), Wood reportedly surveyed the field from helicopter (Keynes 1993:38 [G73]). The assessment of the quality of the television program is Keynes'."
Originally posted by roger davies: Heroic Age Issue 7 Spring 2004
"6. The location of Brunanburh is uncertain. Speculation has ranged from Scotland to southern England. Michael Wood (1980), however, made a compelling case for placing the site in the region of Brinsworth, about 40 miles south of York - on the frontier between Northumbria and southern England. In his "excellent television programme on King Æthelstan" part of the series upon which is based his In Search of the Dark Ages (1987), Wood reportedly surveyed the field from helicopter (Keynes 1993:38 [G73]). The assessment of the quality of the television program is Keynes'."
Wood did say as regards Brinsworth "The name, it has to be said at the outset, is not strictly analagous to the battle site".
Having read wendun's article I would say that he has definitely moved the debate on, not only as regards place-names, but also the general strategic context.
