Forgiving Aethelred The Unready

 Somebody I’ve given a lot of thought to over the last couple of years is Aethelred The Unready. Poor Aethelred’s reign was dominated by the resurgent Viking raids which had calmed for an extended period of time before bursting into life again in the 990s. And Aethelred was, famously, completely incapable of dealing with such a terrible problem, unlike many of his distinctly more robust predecessors over the course of the previous century. But the question I frequently ask myself is “does Aethelred deserve to be heavily chastised or is his reputation as an inept ruler slightly harsh on him?”

Well, as I’ve already indicated, Aethelred was following in the footsteps of some seriously strong kings dating back to the time of Alfred The Great. By the time Aethelred became king in 978, there had only been two failed reigns of an English king in just over a century. These were Eadwig, an immature king who died young and Aethelred’s half brother, Edward The Martyr, who was murdered aged only 15, allowing Aethelred to become king. By law of averages, the country was due a disastrous reign and, unfortunately, it was Aethelred who was that disaster.

But, in my view, we must be careful about being overly critical of Aethelred. He lived in challenging times and he did try what he thought was best. The effort and endeavour to protect his English subjects from the monstrous Vikings was there but his methods were disjointed and, often, misguided. His payment of “Danegeld”, a tribute to the Vikings to cease their bloodshed, is easily construed as cowardice on Aethelred’s part but he frequently attempted to defeat his enemies in battle as well. Unfortunately, these campaigns often ended in fiasco with Aethelred entrusting the command to men who were unfit for purpose.

The organisation of Aethelred’s campaigns were a shambles. The Anglo Saxon Chronicles bemoans how the English army would often be at the opposite end of the country to wherever the Vikings were raiding. In short, Aethelred was no military genius and his strategies, both bribery and force, were dismal failures. But Aethelred is not the only one to blame for the troubles of his reign. “The Unready” of course translates to “ill advised” which is a big clue that Aethelred was surrounded by incompetence. One man who let Aethelred down on at least two occasions was Aelfric of Hampshire. This Earldoman had been trusted by Aethelred in 992 and 1002 to march on the Vikings but, on both occasions, failed to do his duty.

But Aethelred also failed to help himself. He attempted to bribe Danes to join his service, probably an indicator of his limited means and desperation. And, as was the case with Danegeld and the entire Danish force, individuals simply took the payment and promptly stabbed Aethelred in the back by returning swiftly to the Danish ranks. Danegeld didn’t prevent the Danish army from their raiding and individual bribery didn’t work either. In 1002, Aethelred’s patience snapped and he ordered the St Brice’s Day Massacre, a slaughter of Danes living in England.

It is very easy to criticise Aethelred from the relative comfort of the 21st Century but he did stand and try to fight. Unfortunately for him, he neither had the brainpower or the steadfast and loyal men required to fight such a fierce enemy. Aethelred’s reign was dogged by fear, tears, blood and fire and he was unable to stop the carnage, try as he might.

878-954: The Birth of England

 You may wonder the significance of the numbers in the title. They are, in fact, the most important years in English history. At Edington, fought on 6th May 878, the  throne of Wessex, held by a certain king Alfred, was vulnerable as the Vikings threatened to overrun Wessex as they had done other parts of England. Alfred, suffering from chronic illness, had been forced to flee through swamps and woods to seek refuge with a simple family where, legend has it, he failed to prevent the burning of the cakes, earning him the wrath of the housewife. Alfred would rally himself, gathered his army together once more and trounce the Danes at Edington, Wiltshire, forcing them into retreat. 

Alfred had preserved his kingdom and, over the coming decades, he, his son Edward The Elder and daughter Aethelflaed, gradually turned Wessex into a united England. In the face of Viking hostility and generations of English divisions, it was a staggering achievement. It would be left up to Alfred's grandsons, Aethelstan, Edmund I and Eadred to complete the job. Aethelstan, assisted by his half brother Edmund I, went a long way to securing England's future by destroying its Danish and Scottish enemies at Brunanburh; such was the rout that it was said that no greater slaughter had been seen.

Brunanburh was a hugely important victory in the early history of England but not quite decisive. Aethelstan died two years later and Edmund I succeeded to the English throne. The Danes returned and seized control of not only the north but began to swarm over Mercia as well. It was a critical moment that threatened to undo all the work of Edmund's predecessors but the king held his nerve and manfully overturned most of initial losses. Northumbria would remain problematic into the reign of Edmund's brother, Eadred, but it was brought under the crown's control in 954 and, after generations of trouble, it would remain English for good.

Explaining the popularity of Edward III

 On social media recently, I have been pondering the kingship of Edward III. Today, Edward remains one of England's most popular kings but the point that I have been making to anyone that would listen is that his reign has been overly glamorised and, in reality, not all that romantic at all. Through his wars in France and his great victories in battle to his founding of the Order of the Garter, Edward firmly established himself as a king of chivalry which modern readers still find themselves attracted to. But the reality of his reign was very different. Campaigning in medieval times was an extremely burdensome thing; it took a serious toll on a kingdom's man power through deaths in battle and inevitable outbreaks of disease that followed a medieval army. A life of campaigning could take a terrible toll on a man's health as evidenced by the long years of illness experienced by Edward's son, The Black Prince, which ultimately denied him the chance of succeeding his father.

Edward III's war, which became known as The Hundred Years War and continued on and off long after his death in 1377, also burdened England as a nation. A medieval army had to be financed and supported. In 1339, during one of his campaigns, Edward wrote to England, complaining of the lack of financial support he was being provided with.  Over the coming decades, this war would become increasingly expensive and, by the end of Edward's reign, England would have little to show for their efforts in the early stages of the Hundred Years War.. The crown was impoverished and poll taxes were levied which created tremendous resentment against an already seething peasantry class who eventually showed their anger during the Peasants Revolt of 1381 during the reign of Richard II.

When you consider the question, why is Edward III so popular, you soon realise that it has little to do with the realities of his reign and more to do with the mythology of his kingship that he added to with the Order of the Garter. In real terms, Edward declared war on France based on a false claim to the French crown, lost most of what he had won and left the nation vulnerable to a potential invasion. He angered the Peasants by suppressing their wages during the Black Death and, by the end of his reign, he couldn't even guarantee their safety from the French, Edward III's war created social disorder at home shortly after his reign and even after the Hundred Years War with the Wars of the Roses another direct consequence of Edward's decision.

In short, people like the idea of Edward III more than what he actually was. Historians continue to spread the idea that he was the "Perfect King"; he wasn't anything of the sort, During his reign, Edward held two foreign kings as prisoner in England, David II of Scotland and John II of France, the stories of both men, John in particular, contributing to Edward's reputation as a chivalrous king. I may sound miserly in my assessment of Edward III but I do think it is worth guarding against a king who helped to create real social disorder in England during the 14th and 15th centuries.

Why Was Edward II A Failure?

 On the surface, this looks a fairly easy question to answer. Edward II failed as king because he simply failed to show enough moderation when it came to his friendships with Piers Gaveston and Hugh Despenser The Younger. In 1311, Edward was presented with a list of complaints, known as the Ordinances, which sought to keep his reign and power in check. The list was fairly extensive but the central complaints were the king's relationship and emotional reliance on Piers Gaveston and his dismal handling of Scotland where Edward was being hopelessly outwitted by Robert The Bruce. But I think the Scottish failures as bad as they were, and worse was to come at Bannockburn in 1314, may have been overlooked had Edward II allowed himself to be manipulated by his personal favourites so, I suppose, the question is perhaps more why did Edward become so fixated on Piers Gaveston and then Hugh Despenser which ultimately brought about his own downfall in 1326?

Well, Edward was clearly a likeable enough man. In the backdrop of disapproving tuts and sneering words of medieval chroniclers, Edward could often be found conversing with ordinary men who were perhaps going about their menial and every day work. For a medieval king, this was hardly what was expected of them. Such behaviour was regarded as being beneath their royal dignity. Whatsmore, Edward thoroughly enjoyed other peasantry pursuits such as building, digging ditches and so forth. Again, this met with much disapproval.  Edward was not a conventional king.

Edward's father, Edward I, had raised Edward on the art of warfare, taking him on campaigns in Scotland. Young Edward could be found at the siege of Caerlaverock in 1300 so, judging by his upbringing, Edward should have been fully prepared for the difficult task of being king medieval king of England. But, during his rearing to be king, Edward began his friendship with Piers Gaveston which Edward I initially didn't mind but which grew to irritate him. As a young boy, Edward's mother, Eleanor died, to his father's dismal. Later in Edward's childhood, Edward I married again and he became close with his stepmother When you look over what we've seen so far, Edward seems to have been a person who built relationships easily and, when he became fond of some one, he became too attached to them.

This then is perhaps the crux of the issue. By nature, Edward was not a malicious man, certainly not compared to his father, although, during his long war against his nobles, Edward II certainly could show malice. His character was affable and genial, he bonded with people with relative ease and self serving people like Gaveston and Despenser could play on that to their great advantage whilst Edward failed to see through their selfishness. I don't think Edward's failings as king were necessarily because he was a bad man, per se but more because he just didn't have the stomach for the fight the way his father had. This is one of the problems with a monarchy passed between father and son. A king could trains his heir as much as he liked in the arts of kingship but if his son didn't have the gravitas then there was little he could do and it seems Edward I was aware of his heir's failings.