England, my England
11/05/2005

From time to time I have indulged myself by posting what I think of as geographical articles (Landscapes and More on Landscapes). The understandable lack of interest with which these have been received has served to confirm my feeling that I should not allow the stranger aspects of my personality to run rampant through these pages. After all, the very fact that they are strange indicates that there will be a lack of interest in such things amongst the great majority of people.

So, to a large extent, I have curbed my natural impulses to write of matters geographical. And I find that I have been reasonably successful in doing so; I was quite surprised in hunting through the blog to find only two posts that are unashamedly geographical. What my readers cannot appreciate, however, is my even greater success in not mentioning another weird interest of mine: English history.

I am not entirely stupid. Whilst flirting with disaster in producing even two articles on geography, I know full well that to do a history post is the equivalent of committing blog hara kiri (okay, I know it's really seppuku but who else does?). I have been tempted often but have always resisted. And you can have no idea how I have protected you, the reader, in this. Get me on to the subject of Anglo Saxon history from 500 to 1000AD and I am perfectly capable of going on for hours and boring you within an inch of your life in the process.

The bad news is that this is about to change. Something has happened that has made me throw all common sense to the wind and to decide upon a glorious but suicidal determination to do a history post. I no longer care that no-one will understand and that my blog will become anathema, a place to be avoided by all sane readers. I must do this.

You see, I've been stung. Over at Blighty Blog a fellow Brit named Marlowe has begun a series taking a humorous look at British history (poking fun at history is allowed, taking it seriously, never!). Mr Marlowe starts from the eminently sensible premise that none of us would actually enjoy living in the historical periods that we might have a hankering for. Who would argue with that? I think we are all aware that our modern comforts and conveniences are a very recent phenomenon and that we would not survive long without them.

But still, I've been stung. When I read the first of Mr Marlowe's articles, I was moved to point out that many of the awful aspects of life in those days were the result of the Norman conquest and that life for the common Englishman before that event was not nearly as bad as we might think. It was Mr Marlowe's answer to my comment that has stung me into presenting this particular post.

Of course, I understand completely that what Mr Marlowe is doing is quite legitimate as humor and I applaud his bravery in venturing forth upon the ground of history. His intent is to open our eyes to just how beastly living in those times was and to have a little fun whilst doing so. But, in the words of George Costanza, "it's not you, it's me." I care about our history too much. In it I see the reasons for so much that we take for granted today. I see the character of the English people rooted in those Anglo Saxons of so long ago; I see institutions today that were first begun by those pre-conquest peoples.

My argument is not really with Mr Marlowe. It is much more that I wish we had a greater understanding of just how much we owe to our Anglo Saxon ancestors. More work has been done in the last thirty years in the field of Anglo Saxon archaeology than was done in the previous thousand and we know enough now to stop using that misleading term, "the Dark Ages". I cannot imagine that anyone would actually do this but, if you're interested in a good overview of present scholarship in this area, I recommend In Search of the Dark Ages by Michael Wood.

There are a few points made by Mr Marlowe that I would like to take issue with, however. Rather than clutter up his comments system with long discussions of matters not really relevant to his series, I will deal with them here.

Mr Marlowe asks the question, "to those at the bottom of the pile wasn't the only difference to their life that their lords spoke a different language?" My answer must be a resounding, "No!" As I mentioned in my first response to Mr Marlowe's article, the feudal system was brought to England by the Normans and it was this system that made virtual slaves of those who worked the land. There was a social hierarchy in pre-conquest England, it's true, but it was far less rigid and unfair than the feudal system. The vast majority of Englishmen were freemen, meaning that they could own and farm land without owing a percentage of their produce to the lord of their area. They had obligations but these centered on their duty to serve as soldiers when their lord required them for the defense of the land. Even this duty was limited to a period of three months and this was the reason for Harold Godwinson's difficulties in holding a large army together while awaiting the Norman invasion. I suppose there is some irony in the fact that it was the amount of freedom in Anglo Saxon society that led ultimately to its subjugation by the Normans.

I am then confronted with this statement from Mr Marlow: "Oh and don't forget that those Danish tourists didn't visit quite so much." Ignoring the fact that the Normans were actually Danes who had settled in France and that the "tourists" came to stay in the end therefore, I would point out that Scandinavian power to invade anywhere in Western Europe was broken by the Anglo Saxons at the Battle of Stamford Bridge. Harald Hardrada made himself king of both Denmark and Norway by being the most ruthless and efficient war leader ever known in Scandinavia. With his death at the Battle of Stamford Bridge all Viking raids into England ceased, not because the Normans had taken over but because the Anglo Saxons had demonstrated that the time of Danish supremacy was over.

Hardrada's invasion was something of an anomaly anyway. Under King Alfred the Great and his grandson, Athelstan, England had largely subdued the threat of the Vikings and the brief interlude of the Danish King Cnut was ended with a return to power by the Anglo Saxons. It should be remembered, too, that the Danes and Anglo Saxons were closely related peoples and had reached an accommodation whereby they lived happily enough together.

Finally, Mr Marlowe says, "The age you talk of as golden was only so in a historical context. I doubt many 21st century visitors on the Blighty time machine would want to hang around there too long." I do not disagree with this, although I think the reason we would not enjoy such a visit is because we have become so used to the conveniences of modern life. But is that not true of any age? Is it not natural that we should prefer the comforts that we know to the perceived hardships of a previous time? But I will stick my neck out and venture this: that the 21st century visitors on the Blighty time machine would find it a lot easier to live in the 11th century than they would in the centuries that followed.

So that is my answer to the points raised by Mr Marlowe. I am sorry to have inflicted this on my suffering readers but, for once, my reason was overpowered by passion. My advice to you all is this: don't show any interest in this post whatsoever. If I get even a hint of approval, I will be severely tempted to do a few more historical posts!

Clive

Back to the main blog

Have your say

You may use HTML in comments. A carriage return is <br />, use two for a new paragraph. For bold text use <strong></strong> and for italic text use <em></em>. If you know what you're doing feel free to use more complex mark-up but please no deprecated tags or JavaScript.

Name *

Comment *

Email *

URL

Commenting has closed for this post