Site of the battle which saved England from Vikings is discovered near motorway


Blackleaf
+1
#1  Top Rated Post
A TV historian believes he may have discovered the real location of the Battle of Brunanburh on a humble lay-by off the A1.

The battle is long believed to have saved England from Viking invaders over 1,000 years ago.

It pitted a West Saxon army against a combined horde of Vikings, Scots and Irish in 937, and was one of the most decisive events in British medieval history.

The A1 is Britain's longest road, linking London and Edinburgh.

Site of the Battle of Brunanburh that saved England from Viking invaders more than 1,000 years ago is pinpointed by a TV historian on a Yorkshire lay-by off the A1

Comments made by Professor Michael Wood, a TV historian for the BBC
Many believe the battle took place in Bromborough on the Wirral, Merseyside
Professor Wood is convinced it unfolded 100 miles away in South Yorkshire
This was an area of conflict between Northumbrians and West Saxon kings
Professor Wood highlights poems and several historic texts to back up claims


By Phoebe Weston For Mailonline
20 November 2017

A TV historian believes he may have discovered the real location of the Battle of Brunanburh on a humble lay-by off the A1.

The battle is long believed to have saved England from Viking invaders over 1,000 years ago.

It pitted a West Saxon army against a combined horde of Vikings, Scots and Irish in 937, and was one of the most decisive events in British medieval history.


A TV historian believes the epicentre of the Battle of Brunanburh was Robin Hood's Well (pictured) near the quaint village of Burghwallis, about seven miles north of Doncaster and has a population of just 300 people

Had King Athelstan - grandson of Alfred the Great - been defeated it would have been the end of Anglo-Saxon England.

But upon victory, England was created for the first time and Athelstan became the de facto King of all England, the first in history.

Despite the legendary battle's significance, mystery has surrounded its true location for over 1,000 years, with more than 30 locations proposed across England.

A consensus emerged that the battle took place in Bromborough on the Wirral, Merseyside, but TV historian Professor Michael Wood is convinced it actually unfolded 100 miles away in South Yorkshire.

He believes the epicentre of the battle was Robin Hood's Well near the quaint village of Burghwallis, about seven miles north of Doncaster and has a population of just 300 people.

The monument was originally on the route of the A1 but was moved a few hundred yards south in the 1960s when the road was expanded into a dual carriageway.

Professor Wood, who has presented documentaries about early medieval British history for the BBC, said a battle site on the main route from York down into England's Danish heartland in Mercia is a far more likely location for the battle.

He said: 'The evidence clearly points to the Battle of Brunanburh taking place in the region south of York which was the centre of conflict between the Northumbrians and the West Saxon kings during the second quarter of the 10th century.'

In 927, King Aethelstan invaded Northumbria, occupied York and expelled King of Ireland Anlaf Guthfrithson's kinsmen, the rulers of York and Dublin.

Ten years later, in the summer of 937, Anlaf and Scotland's King Constantine launched their invasion with 'the biggest Viking fleet ever seen in British waters'.


Professor Wood (pictured) has presented documentaries about early medieval British history for the BBC. The battle is long believed to have saved England from Viking invaders over 1,000 years ago


Professor Wood said a battle site on the main route from York down into England's Danish heartland in Mercia (pictured) is a far more likely location for the battle


A consensus emerged that the battle took place in Bromborough on the Wirral, Merseyside, but TV historian Professor Michael Wood is convinced it actually unfolded 100 miles away in South Yorkshire

"The Battle of Brunanburh" is an Anglo-Saxon poem preserved in the "Anglo-Saxon Chronicle" celebrating the victory. Listen to it in its original Old English:


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zfaEGU45lKA

At some point later in the year Aethelstan advanced out of Mercia and attacked the main allied army around Brunanburh.

In a battle described as 'immense, lamentable and horrible', King Aethelstan defeated a Viking fleet led by Anlaf and Constantine, the King of Alba.

Anlaf escaped by sea and arrived back in Dublin the following spring.

The name Bromborough comes from an Old English place name Brunanburh or 'Bruna's fort' which is the same as the battle.

But Prof Wood argues the case for Bromborough being the location of the battle 'rests on the name alone'.


The monument was originally on the route of the A1 but was moved a few hundred yards south in the 1960s when the road was expanded into a dual carriageway. The old Great North Road passes Robin Hood's Well in 1906


A TV historian believes he may have discovered the real location of the Battle of Brunanburh on a humble lay-by off the A1 (pictured). He gives six main reasons as evidence

He says Bromborough is not mentioned in the 1086 Domesday Book and doesn't appear until the 12th century.

There are also doubts about whether Brunanburh should be spelt with a single or double 'n', as it was by several 10th and 11th century chroniclers.

Altering the spelling to a double 'n' and Brunnanburh changes the Old English meaning from 'Bruna's fort' to 'the fort at the spring', which could refer to Robin Hood's Well.

Prof Wood highlights a poem in 1122 in which John of Worcester reported Anlaf's fleet landed in the Humber, the opposite side of the country to the Wirral.

And a lost 10th century poem quoted by William of Malmesbury says the Northumbrians submitted to the invaders at or near York, implying the invaders were in Yorkshire in the prelude to the battle.

An early Northumbrian source, the Historia Regum, gives an alternative name for the battle site - Wendun.


The A1 passes Robin Hood's well in the 1950s. Prof Wood argues the case for Bromborough being the location of the battle 'rests on the name alone'


Prof Wood believes the epicentre of the battle was Robin's Hood Well about seven miles north of Doncaster (pictured). The original site is in yellow and today's site is pictured in green


The monument moved a few hundred yards south in the 1960s. Altering the spelling to a double 'n' and Brunnanburh changes the Old English meaning from 'Bruna's fort' to 'the fort at the spring', which could refer to Robin Hood's Well

Prof Wood said this could be interpreted as 'the dun by the Went' or 'Went Hill' in South Yorkshire, near to Robin Hood's Well.

Prof Wood, 69, of north London, said: 'This is one of the greatest events in early British history yet there has been a controversy for more than 300 years.

'It is strange the site could be forgotten for an event which was so famous and recorded in so many sources.

'Bromborough has become the consensus especially in the last 20 to 30 years but this is all because of a form of its name which appears to derive from 'Bruna's Fort'.

'Yet Bromborough was not mentioned in the Doomsday book of 1086 and there are no references to it until the 12th century.

'There is no other evidence whatsoever to support Bromborough but plenty of evidence to suggest the battle was somewhere else.


Prof Wood highlights a poem in 1122 in which John of Worcester reported Anlaf's fleet landed in the Humber, the opposite side of the country to the Wirral. Pictured is Robin Hood's Well today


In a battle described as 'immense, lamentable and horrible', King Aethelstan defeated a Viking fleet led by the Anlaf and Constantine, the King of Alba. Pictured is the site in North Yorkshire

'You have to leave no stone unturned and we have accepted the spelling of Brunanburh with a single 'n' but several 10th and 11th century chroniclers spelt it with a double 'n'.

'This completely alters its meaning from 'Bruna's Fort' to 'Fort of the Spring'.

'The alternative name for the battle in the Historia Regum of Wendun could be interpreted as 'the dun by the Went' or 'Went Hill'.

'If you are travelling up the A1 into Yorkshire Went Hill is one of the biggest landmarks and a major escarpment.

'An early 12th century chronicler said the invading fleet landed in the Humber and there is clear evidence the Northumbrians submitted to the invaders.

'If the goal of the invaders was to re-establish their kingdom in York, what were they doing in the Wirral?

THE BATTLE OF BRUNANBURH



The Battle of Brunanburh, which pitted a West Saxon army against a combined horde of Vikings, Scots and Irish in 937, was one of the most decisive events in British medieval history.

In 927, King Aethelstan invaded Northumbria, occupied York and expelled King of Ireland Anlaf Guthfrithson's kinsmen, the rulers of York and Dublin.

Ten years later, in the summer of 937, Anlaf and Scotland's King Constantine launched their invasion with 'the biggest Viking fleet ever seen in British waters'.

At some point later in the year Aethelstan advanced out of Mercia and attacked the main allied army around Brunanburh.

In a battle described as 'immense, lamentable and horrible', King Aethelstan defeated a Viking fleet led by the Anlaf and Constantine, the King of Alba.

Anlaf escaped by sea and arrived back in Dublin the following spring.

Had King Athelstan - grandson of Alfred the Great - been defeated it would have been the end of Anglo-Saxon England.

But upon victory, England was created for the first time and Athelstan became the de facto King of all England, the first in history.


SIX REASONS THE BATTLE TOOK PLACE IN SOUTH YORKSHIRE

Most people believe the Battle of Brunanburh took place in Bromborough on the Wirral, Merseyside.

But TV historian Professor Michael Wood is convinced it actually unfolded 100 miles away in South Yorkshire, near the quaint village of Burghwallis.

He gives six main reasons as evidence for the battle's location in South Yorkshire:

1 - He says a battle site on the main route from York down into England's Danish heartland in Mercia is a far more likely location for the battle.

The region south of York was the centre of conflict between the Northumbrians and the West Saxon kings during the second quarter of the 10th century.

2 - The name Bromborough comes from an Old English place name Brunanburh or 'Bruna's fort' which is the same as the battle.

But Professor Wood argues the case for Bromborough being the location of the battle 'rests on the name alone'.

He says Bromborough is not mentioned in the 1086 Domesday Book and doesn't appear until the 12th century.

3 - There are also doubts about whether Brunanburh should be spelt with a single or double 'n', as it was by several 10th and 11th century chroniclers.

Altering the spelling to a double 'n' and Brunnanburh changes the Old English meaning from 'Bruna's fort' to 'the fort at the spring', which could refer to Robin Hood's Well.

4 - Professor Wood highlights a poem in 1122 in which John of Worcester reported Anlaf's fleet landed in the Humber, the opposite side of the country to the Wirral.

5 - And a lost 10th century poem quoted by William of Malmesbury says the Northumbrians submitted to the invaders at or near York, implying the invaders were in Yorkshire in the prelude to the battle.

6 - An early Northumbrian source, the Historia Regum, gives an alternative name for the battle site - Wendun.

Professor Wood said this could be interpreted as 'the dun by the Went' or 'Went Hill' in south Yorkshire, near to Robin Hood's Well.


Read more: Location of the Battle of Brunanburh is pinpointed | Daily Mail Online
Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook
Last edited by Blackleaf; Jan 14th, 2018 at 01:03 PM..
 
Curious Cdn
#2
It put the Saxon invaders finally and firmly in control for a whole 130 years until the Normaans crushed them and most traces of their culture under their boots.
 
Blackleaf
#3
Quote: Originally Posted by Curious Cdn View Post

It put the Saxon invaders finally and firmly in control for a whole 130 years until the Normaans crushed them and most traces of their culture under their boots.

The Normans - longtime natives of the British Isles.

They're the ones who ruined the beautiful English language as spoken in that video to give us the Frenchified version we have today.
 
Hoid
#4
Kind of a shame, considering the way Scandinavia is so much better off than England. The Anglos and the Saxons not so bright.
 
Blackleaf
#5
Quote: Originally Posted by Hoid View Post

Kind of a shame, considering the way Scandinavia is so much better off than England . The Anglos and the Saxons not so bright.

So why do they have such high suicide rates?
 
Curious Cdn
#6
Quote: Originally Posted by Hoid View Post

Kind of a shame, considering the way Scandinavia is so much better off than England. The Anglos and the Saxons not so bright.

They were barbarians. We'd be about five hundred years behind technologically had the Normans not pushed the Anglo Saxons aside and brought us back into the European mainstream.
 
Blackleaf
#7
Quote: Originally Posted by Curious Cdn View Post

They were barbarians. We'd be about five hundred years behind technologically had the Normans not pushed the Anglo Saxons aside and brought us back into the European mainstream.

I think you'd find that Anglo-Saxon England was the richest and most advanced country in Europe.
 
Hoid
#8
Quote: Originally Posted by Blackleaf View Post

So why do they have such high suicide rates?

Too much talking to you?
 
Curious Cdn
#9
Quote: Originally Posted by Blackleaf View Post

I think you'd find that Anglo-Saxon England was the richest and most advanced country in Europe.

I think you'll find that Charlemagne's empire looked upon the Anglo Saxons the way that we see the Angolans.
 
Hoid
+1
#10
Quote: Originally Posted by Blackleaf View Post

I think you'd find that Anglo-Saxon England was the richest and most advanced country in Europe.

Ill remove the laughing shaq - its a little too busy

 
Blackleaf
#11
Quote: Originally Posted by Curious Cdn View Post

I think you'll find that Charlemagne's empire looked upon the Anglo Saxons the way that we see the Angolans.

If that was the case, why were there so many riches to find in England that it tempted the Vikings to invade?
 
Cliffy
+1
#12
I think I know what Blackhead is all about. He has small dick syndrome. "My country is bigger and better than your country."
 
Hoid
#13
Quote: Originally Posted by Blackleaf View Post

If that was the case, why were there so many riches to find in England that it tempted the Vikings to invade?

Riches in England pretty much by definition must have come from somewhere else.
 
Blackleaf
#14
Quote: Originally Posted by Hoid View Post

Riches in England pretty much by definition must have come from somewhere else.

Well we know that was true of Scandinavia, of course.
 
Curious Cdn
#15
Quote: Originally Posted by Blackleaf View Post

If that was the case, why were there so many riches to find in England that it tempted the Vikings to invade?

The island was weak, politically divided, poorly defended, isolated and easily reached by long boats sailing out of the North Sea. The Vikings did not march on Rome, where the pickings were infinitely richer (although, they did take Sicily, for a time).
 
Hoid
#16
I was speaking more along the lines that a little scandy in the coffee might have resulted in a better englander today. Granted they are complete mutts, but a little scandinavian in the blood could only help.

The Vikings took what they wanted. Like the mongols.
 
Blackleaf
#17
Quote: Originally Posted by Curious Cdn View Post

The island was weak, politically divided, poorly defended, isolated and easily reached by long boats sailing out of the North Sea.

Why did the Vikings invade? Why would a supposedly backward, poor land of "barbarians" have so tempted the Vikings?
 
Curious Cdn
#18
Quote: Originally Posted by Blackleaf View Post

Why did the Vikings invade? Why would a supposedly backward, poor land of "barbarians" have so tempted the Vikings?

Easy pickin's, man and not much chance of powerful push-back. ...pretty much the same reasons why Britain looted Africa, Burma, etc.

Only idiots attack strong points. Smart people go around them.
 
Blackleaf
#19
Quote: Originally Posted by Curious Cdn View Post

Easy pickin's

Pickings of what? What were the Vikings after in such a barbarous, poor country?
 
Hoid
#20
Quote: Originally Posted by Blackleaf View Post

Why did the Vikings invade? Why would a supposedly backward, poor land of "barbarians" have so tempted the Vikings?

Clearly they were after the sonnets.
 
Curious Cdn
#21
Quote: Originally Posted by Blackleaf View Post

Pickings of what? What were the Vikings after in such a barbarous, poor country?

Gold, silver, (both naturally occurring in Britain), slaves (Iceland was colonized by slaves from Britain) land, women, food, anything not nailed down.
 
Blackleaf
#22
Quote: Originally Posted by Curious Cdn View Post

Gold, silver, (both naturally occurring in Britain)

So a poor land of barbarians was awash in gold and silver?

And this supposed poor, impoverished, backward land of barbarian Anglo-Saxons was so poor and impoverished and backward that it was able to afford to pay the Danes huge sums of Danegeld over years and years to persuade them to go back to their homeland, so much so that the Danes eventually discovered they could just extort huge sums of money from the English whenever they returned instead of just taking booty.

In fact, in total the Anglo-Saxons paid sixty million pence of Danegeld to the Vikings. More Anglo-Saxon coins from the Danegeld years have been found in Denmark than in England.

So Anglo-Saxon England wasn't so poor after all. It was so rich that others came here to steal some of the wealth.
Last edited by Blackleaf; Jan 14th, 2018 at 02:26 PM..
 
Hoid
#23


The Brits were ISIS before ISIS was cool.
 
Blackleaf
#24
Quote: Originally Posted by Hoid View Post



The Brits were ISIS before ISIS was cool.

Oh, yes. A very effective form of execution, which the British learnt from the Indians themselves.
 
Hoid
#25
Of course they did. Everything the Brits ever did or had came from someone else.
 
Blackleaf
#26
'Tis, of course, an old Mughal tradition. Just prior to the institution of the reign of the first Mughal emperor, Babur, his son Humayun is said to have blown from guns 100 Afghan prisoners on 6th March 1526.

The British, of course, saw the Indians executing people in such a way and decided to use it themselves on mutineers.

Of course, you never hear any of this from the anti-British Empire lot.
 
Hoid
#27
Quote: Originally Posted by Blackleaf View Post

'Tis, of course, an old Mughal tradition. Just prior to the institution of the reign of the first Mughal emperor, Babur, his son Humayun is said to have blown from guns 100 Afghan prisoners on 6th March 1526.

The British, of course, saw the Indians executing people in such a way and decided to use it themselves on mutineers.

Of course, you never hear any of this from the anti-British Empire lot.

Because it makes you look so good?

Are you really that ****ed in the head son?
 
Blackleaf
#28
Quote: Originally Posted by Hoid View Post

Because it makes you look so good?

Are you really that ****ed in the head son?

Executions aren't used to make people look good. They're used to punish wrong'uns and to be a deterrent. And blowing wrong'uns from gun barrels is no less humane than hanging or electrocuting someone. In fact, it's probably more so.
 
Hoid
#29
The history if Britain is a shameful and horrific atrocity against any decent standard.

It might be wise to stfu about it, especially on a Canadian/American board that really doesn't care.

Your incessant trolling is starting to get ignore listy.
 
Blackleaf
#30
Quote: Originally Posted by Hoid View Post

The history if Britain is a shameful and horrific atrocity against any decent standard.

Britain has a long, immense and glorious history, of which there is much to be proud - certainly more to be proud of than almost all of her European neighbours.