I have to take issue with Laurence ...
Not so. For starters, a Dark Ages analogy is more accurate.
International relations are restricted to near neighbours, and those
with whom there exists religious or hereditary links.
To begin with, define the term 'Dark Ages' - most serious
historians have long since abandoned this outdated concept.
No, a few of us crusty old historians still adhere to it. I was using
it to refer to the English period 402 to 1066, to distinguish it easily
from the English Mediaeval period 1066 to 1485 and to avoid confusion
with the European Mediaeval period circa 500 to circa 1500.
Even less crusty souls sometimes cling to it, though they mean
exclusively the 5th and 6th Centuries. Never easy, is it?
A great deal of archaeological evidence points to
substantial trade between Scandanavia and Britain during
this period, and where there was trade it is safe to assume
that there would have been at least some degree of contact
between kings, chiefs etc.
Up to and including the Middle Saxon period, there was not a lot. Some,
but in the 8th and the warring periods of the 9th Century it is entirely
at the will of the Vikings who have almost total control of the North
Sea. For my comments on the Anglo Saxons being unable to talk freely to
the Vikings, I was thinking specifically of Asser's Life of Alfred as my
source. The AS Chronicle gives a good feeling for it too - the
frustration of dealing with an enemy who just appeared, and attacked
you. You met them in battle, and beat them, and paid them off. THEN
you negotiated, sometimes quite literally on the battle field, then they
came back 5 years later under a new warlord, who seemed to know nothing
of the earlier agreement.
By the late AS period, communications could be undertaken with Hungary
and Rome*, but not easily with Viking and tribal societies as near as
Ireland, and not with India nor China, despite the fact that trade goods
and legends moved both ways.
I assume you mean the E. Roman Empire, i.e. Byzantium?
No, I meant Rome (Harold Godwinson went there in his youth) and India,
and China. Yes all the trade was coming through Byzantium, but nobody
went from Europe to the Far East until Marco Polo, and his journey is
rightly considered a defining element of the Renaissance. The fact that
archaeology year by year throws up more and more astounding evidence of
worldwide trade even in ancient times, should not have us imagining 1
merchant, 1 cart, 1 bale of silk and a 5 year journey. Traded goods
changed hands many, many times.
Again, the archaeological evidence points to substantial
trade and contact between the AS kingdoms and Scandanavia.
Remember that Tostig (King Harold's brother) fled to
Scandanavia rather than the continent to seek allies against
his brother. This could only have happened if there was
substantial regular contact between the two regions, both
trade and political.
Yes, but that's why I drew a distinction between the Middle Saxon and
the later period. You're using an example from the very last years. By
the 1060's the Scandinavians had entered the family of European feudal
(well proto-feudal at least) states. Characters like Harald Hadrada
were "proper kings" with administrators and diplomats. A generation
before, Canute had established a North Sea Empire. Christian
missionaries were at work in Scandinavia, and the Danelaw in England was
long established. That's round about turn 15 in MEPBM turns!
I refer you to the ongoing work being
undertaken by Martin Carver and the York unit into these
matters.
Martin Carver has his fingers in a lot of pies, so I'm not sure exactly
which work of his you refer to. If you mean the excavations at York
itself, then we're talking about the Viking settlement period aren't we?
Once the Corsairs have landed and conquered their first MT in Eriador, I
would expect them to be able to talk to each other.
Regards,
Laurence G. Tilley http://www.lgtilley.freeserve.co.uk/
···
Colin Forbes <colin@timewyrm.fsnet.co.uk> wrote
