BRITAIN’S biggest and bloodiest ever battle was staged on Merseyside, a sensational new BBC TV documentary will reveal tonight.

The Battle of Brunanburh actually took place at Bromborough in Wirral in 937AD, lasted from dawn to dusk, cost the lives of thousands of warriors and changed the structure of the British Isles forever.

"This is one of the most important battles of British history, on a par with Hastings, yet few people have even heard of it," the writer and archeologist Neil Oliver told the Daily Post.

He will present the programme, A History of Scotland, which will recall what was called The Great Battle when it is first broadcast on BBC2 at 8pm tonight.

The battle came at a time when there were two kings, Constantine II commander of the northern coalition of tribes and the Anglo Saxon Athelstan from the South. They clashed at Brunanburh which most historians are now convinced is present day Bromborough.

Much of the recent research is based on the work of Wallasey- born Professor Steve Harding and colleagues Dr Paul Cavill and Professor Judith Jesch at Nottingham University who in 2004 were at the forefront at placing the battle in Wirral.

"This was the mother of all Dark Age bloodbaths which would define the shape of Britain into the modern era," said 41-year-old Oliver who first sprung to TV prominence in the series Two Men In A Trench.

"This was a showdown for two very different ethnic identities – a Norse Celtic alliance versus Anglo Saxon.

"It aimed to settle once and for all whether Britain would be controlled by a single imperial power or remain several separate independent kingdoms, a split in perceptions which is still very much with us today."

He said that for decades after it was referred to as The Great Battle, and though Athelstan emerged victorious, such was the savage resistance of the northern "rainbow alliance" from the likes of Gaels, Picts, Celts and Vikings further conflict was avoided and his dream of completely conquering Britain shelved.

"It really was a monster gathering at Brunanburh as so much was at stake," he added. "Athelstan really believed it was his destiny to carry on where the Romans left off by controlling every part of Britain.

"But the fighting was so severe and both sides so devastated by it, that both withdrew to lick their wounds." Its status as The Great Battle, however, may have been diminished by the invasion of the Normans and their victory at Hastings in 1066.

"Just over 100 years later, the Normans’ records would have reflected their sides of things and would have wanted their battle to be remembered above all else.

"But although there’s no plaque in place and the evidence has only been unearthed by intensive work by academics, you would be hard pushed to undermine the significance of Brunanburh in British history.

"It many ways it puts Hastings in the shade."

There you go people or brommies as we like to call ourselves.
Ta
Pace

Didnt a large section of the battle take place where Brackenwood Golf Course now stands though?

nice one pace, glad i noticed your post now will watch that. thanks

currently set to record on me sky+ will watch it later

this sounds pretty cool

Strange that, My 3 year old Daughter has often stood at my parents patio doors in bromborough and referred to a soldier crying in the garden, Spooky.

that will be me mountain biking in the dark trying to ride the dibby steps and falling off again.

I watched the programme last night and was thoroughly fascinated by it. Being Scottish, I was amazed at the discovery of the Chronicle book in France and of the The Battle of Brunanburh. So many died for independence and so much was negotiated for the alliances. Bromborough does spook me out, especially the area round the church. I walked through it once, never again, on my own! The Wirral has so much history still uncovered that it would be great if they also put together a programme just for this area.

I unfortunatly never got to see it,but I thats a great idea Gloria.

I think its very important to mention that nobody is certain that it did take place in Wirral, no proof has been found and nothing has been verified.

However that said it does seem the most likely contender out of all of the suspected sites and the old Norse translation does fit the local surroundings.

And yes it would be cool if it was true

Wow I just watched this on iPlayer and its so fascinating...learned a bit of how Scotland was formed too, which im sad to say they dont really teach in schools in England i dont think, well they didnt when I was at school, which was sometime around the reign of Athelstan.

Oh, as late as that?

Your not supposed to make comments on a lady's age....but then I dont see any present

I found the folloiwng quote from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Brunanburh
Battle site
The location of Brunanburh has not been definitively identified though possible sites in Northumberland have been suggested as well as Bromborough in Merseyside,[[color:#CC33CC]4] Burnswark in Dumfries and Galloway, Tinsley Wood in South Yorkshire,[5] and Axminster in Devon.[6] These are not the only sites suggested, but they are the most commonly accepted. Alistair Campbell analysed all the sources, contemporary and later, and found it impossible to locate the battle.[/color]
To further research these references, this is also what I found
4 Birthplace of Englishness 'found'. BBC News Online (URL accessed 27 August 2006). [/color]
This was from the BBC website:
Birthplace of Englishness
A group of academics believe they have found the battlefield where the concept of 'Englishness' was born.
The bloodbath at Brunanburh in 937 AD was fought by King Athelstan when he united the Anglo-Saxons for the first time to fight off a Viking invasion.

The research claims that the site of the battle mentioned in the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle was on what is now a golf course in Bebington, Wirral.

It is thought the exact location has been a mystery for more than centuries.


The golf course was the scene of "absolute carnage" in 937

Professor Stephen Harding, from Wirral, told BBC News the golf course would have been the scene of "absolute carnage".

The amateur historian added: "We believe it was probably the site of the Battle of Brunanburh which was one of the bloodiest of battles to have taken place in the British Isles."

The two place names referred to in The Anglo-Saxon Chronicle as being the sites of battles are Brunanburh and Dingesmere.

Brunanburh could have been Bromborough, in Wirral, although other locations in Scotland, Yorkshire, Northamptonshire and Lancashire have been suggested by historians.

But, until now, Dingesmere has never been located.

Chased up fairway

Prof Harding's research argues that 'Ding' refers to the Viking meeting place or 'Thing' at modern-day Thingwall, off the A551 in Wirral.

The Chronicle recounts how the English advanced and began pursuing the invaders up what is now the fairway of the par 4 11th hole at Brackenwood Road golf course.

The Anglo-Saxon Chronicle records: "Never yet on this island has there been a greater slaughter.

"When it was over Athelstan and his brother Edmund returned to Wessex, leaving behind corpses for the dark black-coated raven, horny-beaked, to enjoy."

Prof Harding runs the National Centre for Molecular Hydrodynamics in Nottingham. [/color]
5 Wood, Michael (2001). Tinsley Wood. In In Search of England: Journeys into the English past, pp203–221. Penguin Books Ltd (University of California Press in the United States). ISBN 0-520-23218-6 - this can be found on Google books secion on the internet.


6 Anglo-Saxon warfare

Brunanburh 937

An Armed coalition formed by Olaf Guthfrithson, with Constantine of the Scots invaded England sailing up the Humber with a fleet of 615 ships which would rendezvous with further troops from the north-west. It was a large army sometimes exaggerated to 60,000 but more reasonably placed at about 20,000. Æthelstan had to take some time to raise an army large enough to face the threat but at then end of 931 he met the invaders in the battle of Brunanburh. The Mercian and West Saxon army attacked in two divisions. Mercians faced the Scandinavians, and the Saxons headed off against the Scotts. The victory was a national triumph for the English. Historians are still in debate of the exact location of the battle but they speculate that it was in one of three places; Axminster, between Dery and Rotherham, or Bromborough.

I wonder how the BBC located it to Bromborough or Wirral. Do you think they made a assumption or based it on evidence which they failed to report in the programme? Point to ponder.

Its based on a lot of research by Paul Cavill, Stephen Harding, Judith Jesch and students from Nottingham Uni. They have been at the forefront of Viking research for decades and have instigated many studies.

As mentioned the evidance does support Wirral as the site but by no means confirms it. The lack of any finds from the battle is a serious problem.

the battle is mentioned in the 1889 edition of the Wirral Hundred

Okay who has one of those little trench diggers and knows where the 4th fairway is. Oh, don't get in the way while I am teeing off.

Pages from A Perambulation of the Hundred of Wirral 1909

From Place Names of the Hundred of Wirral.

Bromborough.—Before attempting to deal with the
etymology of this name, it is necessary to consider the
evidence for and against the identification of Bromborough
with the Brunanburh around {ymbe) which ^^ithelstan, in
A.D. 937, achieved his great victory over the allied Danes,
Irish, Scots, and Welsh. The site of the battle of Brunanburh
has long been a subject of controversy, but until
comparatively recently the claims of Bromborough to be
considered the scene of the sanguinary conflict, probably
owing to the former secludedness and insignificance of the
township, have scarcely been thought worth discussing.
Thus Gibson merely mentioned the fact that there was a
place in Cheshire called ' Brunburh,'- a statement which Bosworth ('A.-Sax. Diet.,' 1838) repeats. Thorpe, in his
edition of the Saxon Chronicle (1861), was unable to locate
Brunanhurh ; so was Earle in his {1865); but Plummer,
re-editing Earle's edition in 1889, queries the county of
Durham, as advocated in Bosworth and Toller's ' A.-Sax.
Diet.' (1882), and prefers, with Powell, to think that the
battle was fought in Lancashire. Thomas Baines, however,
in 'Lancashire and Cheshire, Past and Present,' 1867,
i. 316, was of the opinion that it took place near Bromborough
in Wirral.
Some correspondence on the subject is to be found in
the Athencuwi of the second half of 1S85. In the issue of
that journal for August 15, 1885, p. 207, Dr. R. F. Weymouth
entertains no doubt that Bromborough in Cheshire
is Brunanburh, and he speaks of " traces of a great battle in
that neighbourhood." In the issue for August 22, 1885,
p. 239, the Rev. T. Cann-Hughes points out that the question
has been discussed in the Cheshire Sheaf, that Mr.
John Layfield shows that on the Ordnance Survey for
Bromborough parish the ' Wargreaves
'
is mentioned as the
site of a battle between ^thelstan and the Danes in 937,
and that in the Proceedi?igs of the Chester Archceological
Society (vol. ii.) there is a paper by the secretary, Mr.
Thomas Hughes, in which it is stated that about 910 the
Princess ^thelfleda built a fortress at Brimsbury, which is
identified by local authorities with Bromborough. Another
contributor to this correspondence, however, asserts Brunanburh
to be in Dumfries-shire ; another claims it to be near
Axminster, while Mr. Herbert Murphy, writing in the
Athenmwi of October 3, 1885, p. 436, thinks that Mr.
Hardwick, in his 'Ancient Battlefields in Lancashire'
(1882), has made out an irresistible case in favour of the
country round Bamber Bridge, just south of Preston and
the Ribble, stress being rightly laid on the discovery, in
1840, in this locaHty of the famous Cuerdale collection of
coins.
On the other hand, Dr. Birch, in his ' Cartularium Saxonicum'
(1885, etc.), ii. viii., maintains that Brunan-burh is
a poetical alliteration for Brinnnga feld, which occurs in a
Latin charter of King ^thelstan, a.d. 938 (' Cart. Sax.,'
ii. 435), and, arguing that an English Broomfield or Bromfield must supply the site of the conflict, he suggests Broomfield
in Somersetshire. I must confess that this portion of
Dr. Birch's reasoning does not convince me. Brunnanburh
or Brunan-burh may be a form in which historical
accuracy is sacrificed to poetical demands ; but the fact
that a charter refers casually to the battle having been
fought at or in Bruninga-feld need not count for much.
This name strikes one as a generalization, meaning simply
'the plain of the Brunings,' i.e., of the descendants of
Brun ; and, in fact, this occurrence of Bruninga-feld might
seem to some to tend to the confirmation of the theory that
Cheshire witnessed the battle of Brunanburh, for in this
county we have, in comparative contiguity, at least three
places which may owe their name to an eponymic Brun—
namely, Bromborough (formerly Brunborough, Brunbree,
etc.), Brimstage (formerly Brunstath), and Brinnington.
Besides, as to Bruninga-feld representing a modern Bromfield
or Broomfield (Bartholomew's Gazetteer gives three
Bromfields and five Broomfields in England), it must not
be overlooked that a sharp labial, as/ is, is not so liable to
convert a preceding n into m as a flat labial like /^ is ;
and a Bromfield or Broomfield, just the same as a Bromley
or Brompton, may generally be taken to imply a place which
was overrun with broom.
In the map entitled ' Die Britischen Inseln bis auf
Wilhelm den Erobcrer, 1066,' in the Spruner-Menke 'Hand-
Atlas fiir die Geschichte des Mittelalters '
(1880), Brunanburh
is placed on the ' Meresige
' in about the present
position of Bromborough. A gentleman who has given
much study to the question on the spot, the Rev. E. D.
Green, Rector of Bromborough, wrote to Mr. Helsby, the
editor of Ormerod ('Hist. Chesh.,' 1882, ii. 427): "A
large tract of land near the seashore at Bromborough has
long been known by the name of IVargraves. This fact,
and that of the recent discovery (June, 1877) of a large
number of skeletons near the coast of the Dee, a few miles
further off, with other circumstances, combine to prove that
this parish was the unquestionable^site of ^thelstan's famous
victory over the Danes and their allies in 937."
There are one or two other points which would appear
to add strength to the theory of the Battle of Brunanburhhaving been fought in Cheshire. In the first place it is
probable—given the actual existence of a Brunanburh—
that there was but one Brunanburh in England in a.d. 937,
just as there is but one Bromborough to-day. Secondly,
the Dee and the Mersey, whose estuaries are divided by
the Wirral Peninsula, have, from time immemorial, been the
favourite points of embarkation for and debarkation from
Ireland ; it is, indeed, tolerably certain that the first Irish
missionaries to visit England landed in Wirral.^ Thirdly,
we know that a considerable Norse and Danish population
had already settled in Wirral when Anlaf's ships crossed the
Irish sea, and the Hiberno-Danish king could surely reckon
upon the support of his fellow-countrymen.
The fact that certain land at Bromborough is known as
the Wargraves is, however, of no significance. The Early
English werre^
' war '
(if that be the word intended), was
not in use at the time of the battle, 7vig being the ordinary
A.-Sax. word, and the one used in the poem-chronicle^
itself. The A.-Sax. grcrf (pi. gncfas)—whence Mod. Eng.
'grave'—certainly meant 'trench,' 'ditch,' or 'pit'; but
without evidence of early spelling it is not safe to say what
the war in Wargraves positively represents. (Is it the
A.-Sax. warn, 'defence,' or A.-Sax. wcer^ 'sea,' or A.-Sax.
waroth, 'shore,' or A.-Sax. wer, 'fishing-place'?) Besides,
the terminations ^/-az'tf ^wdi graves in place-names are usually
attributable to A.-Sax. graf (pi. gnifas),
'
grove.' But see
Wargrave in the West Derby Section.
The question may now be asked. Is the available evidence
fairly conclusive in favour of Bromborough being Brunanburh
? I am afraid that the answer must be that it is not.
And for this reason, namely, that the indefatigable researches
of Mr. T. T. Wilkinson'^ and Mr. Chas. Hardwick,-*
combined with the Cuerdale find of coins, leave scarcely
room for doubt that the great battle of a.d. 937 was fought
in the northern portion of that principal part of Lancashirewhich Hes between Ribble and Mersey. Mr. Wilkinson
makes out a very good case for the neighbourhood of
Burnley, which is on the river Brun,^ and was formerly
known as Brunley, while close by are Saxifield and Danes
House. Mr. Hardwick argues for the district south of
Preston, and points to such names as Bamber and Brindle.
A theory reconciling these two diverse views would make
out that the battle was actually fought at or near Burnley,
that the defeated Danes and Irish were pursued to their
ships in the Ribble, and that, when that river was reached,
the chest constituting the Cuerdale find had to be hurriedly
buried to prevent its falling into the hands of the enemy.
The Cuerdale treasure-trove, it may be recalled, consisted
of (besides ingots, etc.) some 10,000 silver coins enclosed
in a chest. The greater number of the coins were Danish ;
a large number were Anglo-Saxon, and a smaller number
were French, the remainder being made up of Italian and
Oriental pieces.
^ The fact that specially interests us now,
however, is that a/l these coins ivere minted between a.d. 815
and A.D. 930, and they must consequently have been inhumed
within a comparatively short period after the latter
date, that is to say, about the time of the Battle of Brunanburh.
Worsae remarks,^ with needless caution, that "the
treasure must have been buried in the first half of the tenth
century."
As we have therefore decided that Bromborough is not
Brunanburh, it will be as well to note the early forms of
the name Bromborough as they are given by Mr. Green,
who writes -^
" In 912 we have it
' Brimburgh,' and before
the Conquest it is '
Brunsburg,'
' Brunnesburgh,' and
'
Brimesburgh
'
; in 1152
' Brunborough '
; tern. Pope
Honorius, ' Brumbure '
; tern. Edward I. (in its charter)
' Brumburgh
' and ' Bromburgh '
; in 1291
' Bromborch '
;
in 1548 '
Brombrogh,' 'Brumburgh,' and ' Brumborowe '
;
tern. Eliz. ' Brumbrow '
; in 17 19
' Brombrough,' and since ' Bromborough '
(pron. Brumborough)." The pre-Conquest
forms point to the personal name Erun^—A. -Sax. brihi, or
O. Nor. hriiim, 'brown,' 'dark'—combined with A.-Sax.
biirh or burg, or (J. Nor. borg, 'castle,' 'fortress';- and I
am therefore unable to agree with Mr. Irvine's derivation of
the first element of 'Bromborough,'^ viz., O. Nor. brunnr,
'
well,'
'
spring.' See Brimstage (Wirral Hundred) and
Bryn (West Derby Hundred).

http://ia341041.us.archive.org/3/items/placenamesoflive00harr/placenamesoflive00harr.pdf

If you check out this link you can find that an Oxford MA, Francis Tudsbery had strongly suggested (and evidenced) Bromborough for the site of the battle in 1907 - a long time before the present researchers:

http://www.archive.org/stream/brunanburghad93700tudsuoft/brunanburghad93700tudsuoft_djvu.txt

It's downloadable in pdf form.

Cheers,

Tom.

"A gentleman who has given
much study to the question on the spot, the Rev. E. D.
Green, Rector of Bromborough, wrote to Mr. Helsby, the
editor of Ormerod ('Hist. Chesh.,' 1882, ii. 427): "A
large tract of land near the seashore at Bromborough has
long been known by the name of IVargraves. This fact,
and that of the recent discovery (June, 1877) of a large
number of skeletons near the coast of the Dee, a few miles
further off, with other circumstances, combine to prove that
this parish was the unquestionable^site of ^thelstan's famous
victory over the Danes and their allies in 937."



Does anyone have any more detail re the skeleton quote above ? I've never heard that before .....how many were discovered /

The discovery of skeletons near the coast of the dee will refer to those found near Burton Point Hillfort. Another archaeologist I work with is pretty much the main expert on the area, and he links the burials to a known dated ship wreck, which was post-medieval.

However, there was a mass burial found in St. Andrews, Bebington. Many skeltons had evidence of violent injuries. There's also a field in Bromborough called "wargraves". This is the main evidence (other than placenames) that has been used to suggest Bromborough as the home of the Battle. All old hat though, this has been suggested for over 100 years.

The skeletons could be those referred to in Transactions of the Historic Society of Lancashire and Cheshire vol 46 1894 page 45. The survey mentioned in the article was undertaken by the engineers Telford, Stevenson and Nimmo and the skeletons were reported to be located near Leasowe lighthouse.

these are in Wallasey though, not "further along the dee"

Thanks for the info deano , the St Andrews bit is very interesting (used to go to St Andrews school but had never heard this although I did know that a religious site predated the Norman church there).

"The curve of the adjacent road follows the boundary of an ancient circular burial ground (Viking settlers believed that corners were hiding places for evil spirits)."

Do you (or anyone else) have any detail when the mass burial may have been discovered ? struggling a bit finding owt online .

It was found when they last opened the Lancelyn-Green crypt, some time in the late 19th century I think. Not got a reference to hand, but it's mentioned in the biography of the church written by one of the Lancelyn-Green family.

St Andrews easily predates the Viking diaspora. Curvilinear grave yards suggest much earlier sites.

Hope this helps.

Forgot to mention....a copy of this book is in the reference section of Beb library.

great , thanks

I came across ths map I must have taken off a previous post on wikiwirral and got to thinking if there was a possible link between the battle and the fact the petty kings were brought back to scene of the kings before them - maybe a reminder

937
The Battle of Brunanburh[1] was an Anglo-Saxon victory in 937 by the army of Æthelstan, King of England, and his brother, Edmund, over the combined armies of Olaf III Guthfrithson, Norse-Gael King of Dublin, Constantine II, King of Scots, and Owen I, King of Strathclyde.
and
973
In 973, the Anglo Saxon Chronicle records that, two years after his coronation at Bath, King Edgar of England, came to Chester where he held his court in a palace in a place now known as Edgar’s field near the old Dee bridge in Handbridge. Taking the helm of a barge, he was rowed the short distance up the River Dee from Edgar’s field to St John’s Church by six (the monk Henry Bradshaw records he was rowed by eight kings) tributary kings called ‘reguli’.

The Chronicles of Melrose, and that of Florence of Worcester also mentions "Eight petty kings, namely, Kynath, king of the Scots, Malcolm, king of the Cumbrians, Maccus, king of several isles and five others, named Dufnall, Siferth, Huwall, Jacob and Juchill, met him there as he had appointed and swore that they would be faithful to him, and assist him by land and by sea".

After the kings swore fealty and allegiance they rowed him back to the palace. As he entered he is reported to have said that with so many kings' allegiance his successors could boast themselves to be kings of the English.

sorry map isn't very clear after making file smaller

sorry cant offer nothing but it is absolutely fascinating

There is a copy of the map above hanging on the wall at the Eastham dental practice(New chester road) in the upstairs waiting room.

If we take Aethelweards 'Brunandun' as being a reliable contemporary naming of the site - then look at other similarly named battle sites :-

Secandun - Seckington
Ashandun - Ashingdon
Ethandun - Edington

There is a reasonable case for supposing that 'Brunandun' might develop into present day 'Brunington' or maybe even 'Bruningdon'

There are no such place names in existence today in the UK. However, I have found two places that were named thus in the past.

These are Bronington in Flintshire (Brunington,Brunynton, Brunyngton) and Brinnington - Greater Manchester (Bruninton)

Bronington was once in Saxon held territory on the border with Wales. Brinnington would lie very close to the route taken over the Pennines by any invading army pushing West-East.

I am currently involved in gathering information for both places and will update as and when.

...if the battle location was Greater Manchester, where would the reference to Dingesmere fit in? Didn't the defeated army supposedly flea across nearby water?

Your reference to Dingesmere is noted - and yes this has to be considered. I am presently pursuing information that may link Dingesmere with the river name 'Dvina' mentioned in Egil's Saga and the River Dee.

The difficulty with 'Brunandun' is that it is a single mention by a Wessex-based scribe with no awareness of the local geography and not the best grasp of Latin. He was writing probably forty years after the battle and would have been using the ASC as his primary source of information.

Also, Dvina refers to a river in Bjarmaland, which is on the borders of Scandi/Russia unless I'm missing something. Bit far from North Wales!

It's always worth a revisit though as I've learnt myself how simple information can be overlooked!

Would the area around Chester be on a route that is easier for an army to reach travelling from the south going north or is it a place that has some other significance as the Romans had a legion there and other battles fought there
616: Aethelfrith of Northumbria defeats the Welsh in a battle at Chester.
610, after the Battle of Chester, the Saxons were in control of most of what we now call England.

(don't know if these are 2 seperate battles or the same one)

Dingesmere could still well be the River Dee if current theories concerning the 'Thing' association and Thingwall are to be believed.

I know it's very easy to over-simplify such things but it's crossed my mind before that the Dingesmere name may have been a corruption of Inga's Mere, in reference to Ingimund and the Viking settlers who came here via Ireland & Wales. Talking rubbish, I know, but the problem with relying so much on place-name evidence is that it's always open to interpretation and doesn't really prove anything without the archaeological evidence to back it up.

I agree with you Geekus, we look too much to place-name evidence when everything else is lacking. Even supposedly firm place-names such as Thingwall are really based on infirm evidence.

Let's just say place-names can be useful but they're far from conclusive. This is the same point I was trying to make on the Fender thread.

All it takes is for one person to mistranscribe a word or name and it causes nothing but confusion. I've just noticed, for example, that I wrote Inga's Mere instead of Ingi's Mere in reference to Ingimund! An easy enough mistake, but to an etymologist every nuance of a word potentially alters it's origin & meaning.

Its early days yet, but I am working on the notion that bodies of water may be known by several different names given to it by the various peoples living along its shores.
Hydronyms from different areas and languages/dialects can also share a common etymon. The River Dee in Scotland and England/Wales is believed to be derived from Celtic 'Deva' - godess. There are also two Galician river names called 'Deva'
in North West Spain. As well as the River Don in England and Scotland, there is also a River Don in Russia. The Western Dvina was known in Old Norse as Dyna and in German as Düna. There are similarities between 'Dvina' and 'Deva' and i know it may be a longshot - but worth pursuing.

Sounds interesting enough. Good luck with your research.

The Watling Street (in use at this time) ran from Dover to Chester.

We are all aware that the coalition against Aethelstan consisted of the Irish Vikings, Strathclyde British and the Scottish. We are also aware that the Scandinavian settlements on the Wirral would likely have made that area a 'friendly' landing point.

But what of the possibilty of a strike force coming from the Welsh border?
Aethelstan had earlier (circa 927) moved against the Welsh princes forcing them to surrender to him at Hereford and agree to a staggering annual tribute.

The Welsh princes then appeared at the English court as 'sub-reguli' from 927 onwards. However, from late December 935 until the end of Aethelstans reign, Causantin, Owain and most importantly - the Welsh princes, disappear altogether from the English court.

This begs the question, that whilst the Welsh may not have actively engaged against Aethelstan - did they allow the coalition to disembark on their shoreline and give save passage etc through their country?

You might find Stephen Matthews' article on Viking Settlement in the Wirral useful. It's in the Journal of the Chester Archaeological Society (vol.78, 2003), if you're interested.

Has quite a bit of background info concerning the military problems faced by the Mercian rulers. Draws quite a lot on the work of N.J.Higham ('The Cheshire burhs & the Mercian frontier...', etc.). Well worth adding to your research reading list, if you haven't already seen it.

There appears to have been several battles against the Danes in the years before 937 Bromborough

Alfred's son Edward the Elder continued his father's policy of establishing fortified towns, and he and his sister Aethelflaed of Mercia built a new double row of burhs along the old Roman road of Watling Street, which marked the border of the Danelaw as it ran from the Mersey to Essex.The burhs were remarkable for their time in that they used a regular grid pattern of streets - not unlike the old Roman towns. Indeed, in many cases pre-existing Roman town sites were re-used to create Saxon towns. Why re-use Roman sites? Three main reasons can be found.

First, the Roman towns were sited at key points along the old Roman network of roads. In other words, communication was a key factor in siting Saxon towns. Chester and Gloucester are two examples of towns sited at major road intersections, though they were established by Alfred's successors.

Second, the Roman towns had basic fortifications in place. Walled towns such as Portchester were already defensible. Other Roman towns had earthwork defenses that could easily be repaired and strengthened.

Third, the growth of Christianity influenced the choice of town sites. In areas where the Roman church was strongest (i.e. the south and east), a conscious choice was made to establish sees in metropolitan centres. Contrast this with the Celtic church, which concentrated its efforts on evangelizing in the the countryside.

After another lull, in the autumn of 892 or 893, the Danes attacked again. Finding their position in mainland Europe precarious, they crossed to England in 330 ships in two divisions. They entrenched themselves, the larger body at Appledore, Kent, and the lesser, under Hastein, at Milton, also in Kent. The invaders brought their wives and children with them, indicating a meaningful attempt at conquest and colonisation. Alfred, in 893 or 894, took up a position from which he could observe both forces. While he was in talks with Hastein, the Danes at Appledore broke out and struck northwestwards. They were overtaken by Alfred's oldest son, Edward, and were defeated in a general engagement at Farnham in Surrey. They took refuge on an island in the Hertfordshire Colne, where they were blockaded and were ultimately forced to submit. The force fell back on Essex and, after suffering another defeat at Benfleet, coalesced with Hastein's force at Shoebury.[9]

Alfred had been on his way to relieve his son at Thorney when he heard that the Northumbrian and East Anglian Danes were besieging Exeter and an unnamed stronghold on the North Devon shore. Alfred at once hurried westward and raised the Siege of Exeter. The fate of the other place is not recorded. Meanwhile, the force under Hastein set out to march up the Thames Valley, possibly with the idea of assisting their friends in the west. But they were met by a large force under the three great ealdormen of Mercia, Wiltshire and Somerset, and forced to head off to the northwest, being finally overtaken and blockaded at Buttington. Some identify this with Buttington Tump at the mouth of the River Wye, others with Buttington near Welshpool. An attempt to break through the English lines was defeated. Those who escaped retreated to Shoebury. Then, after collecting reinforcements, they made a sudden dash across England and occupied the ruined Roman walls of Chester. The English did not attempt a winter blockade, but contented themselves with destroying all the supplies in the neighbourhood. Early in 894 (or 895), want of food obliged the Danes to retire once more to Essex. At the end of this year and early in 895 (or 896), the Danes drew their ships up the River Thames and River Lea and fortified themselves twenty miles (32 km) north of London. A direct attack on the Danish lines failed but, later in the year, Alfred saw a means of obstructing the river so as to prevent the egress of the Danish ships. The Danes realised that they were outmanoeuvred. They struck off north-westwards and wintered at Cwatbridge near Bridgnorth. The next year, 896 (or 897), they gave up the struggle. Some retired to Northumbria, some to East Anglia. Those who had no connections in England withdrew

Thanks for the link Geekus, I now have the Stephen Matthews article. I have amassed many such articles over the past 18 months, some of which have proven very useful.

If anyone is interested, I have the audio download link for a lecture given by Michael Wood on Aethelstan. its two hours long, but an excellent listen.

Please let me know and I will post on this thread.

Good thing you're a Timelord mate. Sounds like that lot should keep you busy for the next few centuries!

If, however, you can stand any more reading material check out Tony Austin's award winning dissertation giving an alternative perspective on 'Viking-Period Chester' in Journal of the Chester Archaeological Society, vol.74. It's a lot more based on trade and economic theory but an interesting overview all the same.

As a point of interest.

Bromsberrow in Gloucestershire is listed as Brunmeberge in DB and as Bromesburgh in an early 13c document.

I have been pondering over the possibility of Welsh involvement at Brunanburh for some time now.
The whole thought process was catalysed by my reading of several articles on Kevin Halloran’ Plains of Othlyn website. (no longer available).

What was the reason behind the absence of the Welsh from Athelstans court after 935?

If, as is suggested, they were allied to him in the Scottish/Strathclyde conflict in 934. then why did they not show similar allegiance at Brunanburh ?

The Armes Prydein Vawr gives us an idea of the strength of Welsh opposition and intense ill-feeling against Athelstan at that time. Just how intense this was is surely indicated by the rallying call for an allegiance with (amongst others) the Dublin Vikings and possibly the Nantes Vikings of Llydaw ( Brittany).

I am aware of the ‘cordial’ relationship between Hywel Dda and Athelstan, but can the same be said for the rulers of the petty kingdoms of South East Wales - in particular Gwent and Glywysing?

It is these petty kingdoms that bordered the Bristol Channel and River Severn - a strategically significant gateway into Welsh and Saxon territory. The Vikings had used the Severn as a campaigning route on several occasions both before and after Brunanburh.

If we peel away some of the probable ‘stock’ fabrications from Egils Saga. There are some points worthy of consideration. There is mention of the ‘defection’ of two Welsh earls and their armies over to Anlaf. Is it conceivable that perhaps the reason behind Hywel Dda not joining forces with Athelstan was because the conflict took place on Welsh soil? This would make sense, particularly as Hywel Dda was intent on unifying the whole country. If, (as we derive from the Armes Prydein Vawr) there was such a strong anti-Athelstan feeling at this time, then a Welsh army fighting alongside the Saxons on Welsh soil and possibly against their own countrymen (if we are to believe Egils account of the conflict) would not further Hywels cause at all.

If Anlaf did have strength of support in South East Wales then a landing at some strategic point along this stretch of coastline from his base in Dublin is made all the more likely. The logistics regarding the arrival of other members of his alliance is rather more difficult to ascertain, however, a combined naval landing cannot be ruled out.

A likely point of assembly for Anlaf and his alliance could have been Caerwent. This fortification remained occupied throughout the early middle ages and was strategically placed to control the crossroads West-East between Caerleon and Gloucester and North-South between Shrewsbury and the chief port of Portskewett as well as the Severn fording point at (Black Rock).

Symeon’s Wendune and Egils Vin-Heath could have possible links with Caer Went. For etymological comparison I am reminded of the battle of Winwaed (Penda) where one of the suggested sites was the River Went in Yorkshire. Similarly, the Welsh name for Winchester is Caer Wynt. Egils Vin-Wood could have connections with the present day ancient forest of Wentwood to the North of the fortification which would have been far more extensive back then. The actual battle name of Brunanburh is more of a conundrum and may have its origins in the position of Caer Went relative to the River Severn which is a dark chocolate brown in colour due to the turbidity of its waters. If Brunan- is a metathesis of OE burnan, then the meaning could be ‘fortification by the stream’ (The River Neddern that runs close by Caer Went)

With regard to the plains of Othlynn (Annals of Clonmacnois) – I am reminded of the 9th c historian Nennius and one of his ‘Miracles of Britain’ – Operlinnliuan

….Another wonder is the Oper Linn Liuan, the mouth of which river opens into the Severn, and when the tide flows into the Severn, the sea in the like manner flows into the mouth of the aforesaid river, and is received into a pool at its mouth, as into a gulf, and does not proceed higher up. And there is a beach near the river, and when the tide is in the Severn, that beach is not covered; and when the sea and the Severn recede, then the pool Liuan disgorges everything that is devoured from the sea, and that beach is covered, and it breaks and spews in one wave. And if the army of the whole country should be there, and should front the wave, the force of the wave would drag down the army, its clothing filled with water, and the horses would be dragged down. But should the army turn their backs towards the wave, it will not injure them. And when the sea has receded, then the whole beach which the wave had covered is left bare again, and the sea ebbs from it……

It has been suggested that Operlinnliuan may have been located in the present day Neddern Valley in which Caer Went stands. The phenomenon was probably the result of ‘swallow holes’ that were situated amidst the inter-tidal lakes that were created in the Gwent Levels and ranged alongside the fortification. These formed whirpools, which manifested during certain tidal conditions. The whirpools can no longer be seen as the swallow holes were filled with clay in an attempt to remedy the flooding during construction of the Severn Tunnel in the 19th C.

The low lying area is still prone to inter-tidal flooding.

There could be reason to suppose that ‘Dingesmere’ may have been a description for the ‘lake or pool of the Thing’
Although the term ‘Thing’ is attested in English from 685-686 in terms of ‘assembly’, sometime afterwards (late 9th – late 10th c) it referred to a ‘being’ or ‘entity’. The awesome spectacle of such a natural phenomenon as described by Nennius may well have prompted the formation of the name.

The battle of Brunanburh - A Casebook, is now available.
I've had a copy for my birthday