| More information : Primary sources:
'A' or Parker Manuscript of the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle.
897. [See note in translation, source (2)]
Tha waes on sumera on thysum gere tofor se here, sum on East Engle, sum on Northhymbre . . . Thy ilcan geare drehton tha hergas on East Englum and on Northhymbrum West Seaxna lond, swithe be thaem suth staethe, mid stael hergum. Ealra swithus mid thaem aescum the hie fela geara aer timbredon. Tha het Alfred cyng timbran lang scipu ongen tha aescas. Tha waeron fulneah tu swa lange swa tha othru. Sume haefdon lx ara, sume ma. Tha waeron aegther ge swiftran ge unwealtran ge eac hieran thonne tha othru. Naeron nawther ne on Fresisc gescaepene, ne on Denisc, but swa him selfum thute that hie nyt wyrthoste beon meahten. Tha aet sumum cirre thaes ilcan geares, comon thaer sex scipu to Wiht, and thaer micel yfel gedydon. Aegther ge on Defenum ge wel hwaer be thaem sae riman. Tha het se cyng faran mid nigonum to thara niwena scipa, and for foron him thone muthan foran on uter mere. Tha foron hie mid thrim scipum ut ongen hie, and threo stodon aet ufeweardum muthan foran on uter mere. Tha foron hie mid thrim scipum ut ongen hie, and threo stodon aet ufeweardum thaem muthan on drygum. Waeron tha men uppe on londe of agane. Tha gefengon hie thara threora scipa tu aet thaem mutan uteweardum, and tha men ofslogon, and thaet an othwand. On thaem wearon eac tha men ofslaegene buton fifum. Tha comon forthyy on weg the thara othera scupu asaeton. Tha wurdon eac swithe unethelice aseten. Threo asaeton on tha healf thaes deopes the tha Deniscan scipu aseten waeron, and tha othru eall on othre healfe. Thaet hira ne mehte nan to othrum. Ac tha thaet waeter waes ahebbad fela furlanga from thaem scipum. Tha eodan tha Deniscan from thaem thrim scipum to thaem othrum thrim the on hira healf beebbade waeron and hie tha ther gefuhton. Thaer wearth ofslaegen Lucumon cynges gerefa, and Wulfheard Friesa and Aebbe Friesa, and Aethelhere Friesa, and Aethelferth cynges geneat, and ealra monna Fresiscra and Engliscra lxii and thara Deniscena cxx. Tha com thaem Deniscum scipum weh aer flod to, aer tha Cristnan mehton hira ut ascufon, and he forthy ut othreowon. Tha waeron he to tham gesargode, that hie ne mehton Suth Seaxna lond uta berowan, ac hira thaer tu sae on lond wearp, and tha men mon laedde to Winteceastre to thaem cynge, and he hie thaer ahon het, and tha men comon on East Engle, the on tham anum scipe waeron swithe forwundode.
'Thy ilcan sumera forwearth nolaes thon xx scipa mid monnum mid ealle, be tham suth riman.' (1)
896. (897, C, D, omitted E.)
'And afterwards in the summer of this year the Danish army divided, one force going into East Anglia, and one into Northumbria; and those that were moneyless got themselves ships and went south across the sea to the Seine . . .
'In the same year the armies in East Anglia and Northumbria greatly harassed Wessex along the south coast with marauding bands, most of all with the warships which they had built many years before. Then King Alfred had 'long ships' built to oppose the Danish warships. They were almost twice as long as the others. Some had 60 oars, some more. They were both swifter and steadier, and also higher than the others. They were built neither on the Frisian or the Danish pattern, but as it seemed to him himself that they could be most useful. Then on a certain occasion of the same year, six ships came to the Isle of Wight and did great harm there, both in Devon and everywhere along the coast. Then the king ordered (a force) to go thither with nine of the new ships, and they blocked the estuary from the seaward end. Then the Danes went out against them with three ships, and three were on dry land farther up the estuary; the men from them had gone up on land. Then the English captured two of these three ships at the entrance to the estuary, and killed the men, and the one ship escaped. On it also the men were killed except five. These got away because the ships of their opponents ran aground. Moreover, they had run aground very awkwardly: three were aground on that side of the channel on which the Danish ships were aground, and all [the others] (fn.1) on the other side, so that none of them could get to the others. But when the water had ebbed many furlongs from the ships, the Danes from the remaining three ships went to the other three which were stranded on their side, and they then fought there. And there were killed the king's reeve Lucuman, Wulfheard the Firsian, Aebba the Frisian, Aethelhere the Frisian, Aethelfrith the king's geneat, and in all 62 Frisians and English and 120 of the Danes. Then, however, the tide reached the Danish ships before the Christians could launch theirs, and therefore they rowed away out. They were then so wounded that they could not row past Sussex, anbut the sea cast two of them onto the land, and the men were brought to Winchester to the king, and he ordered them to be hanged. And the men who were on the one ship reached East Anglia greatly wounded. That same summer no fewer than 20 ships, men and all, perished along the south coast.' (2)
(fn.1) only in the 'A' MS.
Magoun's translation differs from Whitelock's in a number of respects:
'Then the king ordered (his men) to put out with nine of the new ships and they blocked off to them (the Danes) the harbour entrance from in front in the outer bay. Then they (the Danes) came out against them (the English) with three ships. And three (Danish) ships were in the upper part of the harbour on dry land; the crews had gone off (their ships) ashore).' (3)
He translates 'were very disadvantageously grounded' as opposed to 'they had run aground very awkwardly', and makes channel more specific: 'harbour channel'. 'None of those (English crews) could (cross over) to the (assistance of the three) others'.
In the aftermath:
' . . . they (Danish ships) escaped by rowing away. Then they (the Danish crews) were so wounded that they could not row out around Sussex, but there the Channel current cast two ashore . . . ' (3)
Secondary sources:
Magoun notes the difficulties of translation, not least the vagueness of the pronouns, making it difficult at times to determine what just who or what is referred to. He lists the sequence of events as follows:
Preliminary: Viking raids on the south coast;
Alfred traps six Danish ships in a harbour;
The battle on the harbour beach: the disposition of the English and Danish ships, then the beach battle itself
The aftermath.
He makes the point that the sequence of events shows that the English were not yet accustomed to handling their new ships and analyses the significance of the three locales, 'utermere', or bay, 'mutha', river?-harbour, and 'ufeweard mutha', or upper harbour.
He assigns the numbers (1-9) to the English ships and letters (a-f) to the Viking ships. Three Viking ships (d-f) were beached in the harbour, assumed to be at or near the high-water mark, positioned to raid inland. The other three (a-c) were still afloat as protection.
Alfred meanwhile ordered the squadron of nine ships (1-9) to blockade the entrance to the harbour from outside. The Danes manning the ships came out to meet the English challenge, either outside or just inside the harbour. Two were captured (a-b) and the crews massacred. One escapes. He makes the point that the English fleet may have scattered, perhaps some becoming detached to pursue the escaping vessel, and this may in part account for what happened subsequently.
Three English ships (1-3) ran aground, perhaps on a bar, interpreted as farther up from the harbour entrance, from the Danish ships (d-f), in the light of what happened next. Other English ships, perhaps (4-9), but not made clear in the original text, ran aground on the opposite shore, that is, on the opposite side of the channel (deop).
In the meantime he crews of the beached Danish ships (d-f), had returned to their ships. Although on the same side of the harbour, the crews of the English and Danish ships are unable to engage on foot since the ebbing tide is still sufficient to separate them, but as land emerges the Danes spill out onto the sand bar or spit and engate the English. The flood tide then reaches the Danes first, so that (d-f) are able to manouevre out.
Magoun then interprets the loss of the two vessels with 'weakened and reduced crews' who are unable to row out round Sussex' and are driven by the currents somewhere on the Sussex coast, perhaps trying to round Selsey Bill. (3)
"Battle of Poole Harbour", 896. Possible location of a naval battle between King Alfred and the Danes.
Alfred is described in this discussion as 'trapping the Danes by blocking their exit to the sea, making Poole Harbour a likely location, although other sites such as the mouth of the Exe are possible.'
The sequence of events is interpreted as the Danes being split into two groups of three, one attempting to reach the open sea, the other three being beached. The English captured two of the former, killing the crews. All the ships ran aground as the tide ebbed, with six English ships separated from their compatriots and the stranded Danes.
The surviving Danes regrouped and crossed the flats to the beached English ships and joined battle. As the tide rose the Danish ships floated off first, attributed to their shallower draught, and the three ships which had first run aground escaped, but two of these ran aground again on the Sussex coast. Their crews were captured and taken to Winchester, where Alfred ordered them to be hanged. The remaining vessel limped around the coast to East Anglia. (4)
'Before the summer of 896 was over, Alfred's new model fleet, manned by a mixed crew of Englishmen and professional Frisian sailors, had an opportunity to prove its worth against an enemy fleet of six ships that had wreaked havoc on the Isle of Wight and along the southern coast as far as Devon. In the naval engagement that ensued, Alfred's fleet won, but did so in spite of, rather than because of, the new ship design.' (8)
The beaching of the Danish ships is attributed to resting the rowers or foraging rather than as an intended raiding party. The English attack on the Danish ships afloat is described as interception, with the English vessels lashing the Viking ships to their own and boarding them.
As the tide ebbed, it is said that the motivation for the onslaught as the Danes returned to their beached ships was preferring to attack the three English ships grounded nearby rather than chance fighting all nine as the tide rose, when they would have been significantly outnumbered. (8)
Discussion of Alfred's unique position as a ruler and naval commander, and his investment in the ships as comparable to that of fortifying the burhs, leading him to approach the building of new ships from a new perspective.
The form of Alfred's ships is discussed and some conclusions drawn. 'The nature of naval warfare, typically in coastal and often in inland waters, placed a premium on shallow draught and the ability to use oars as well as sail.'
Their larger size disadvantaged the new English fleet against the Danes in 896 and the locale of the fight is taken to be within a river, with the ships grounded on the banks on either side. The 896 record is noted as being unique in its detail but likely to be representative of contemporary naval warfare. Thereafter the Chronicle mentions no further naval action or the great ships themselves. (9)
The battle of 895 at the River Lea, from which a number of Danish ships were captured and brought to London, suggests some possible inspiration for Alfred's orders to build his new ships. (5)
Interpretation of battle site:
The discussions of location below are based on interpreting the modern-day harbour layouts and take no account of any historical changes to the coastline in each place, which may or may not alter the analysis.
The locales mentioned of the Isle of Wight, Sussex, and Winchester suggest that the battle took place somewhere off Hampshire or West Sussex, but this is not necessarily conclusive. The Danes are said to have carried out their raids as far west as Devon, so the battle location is likely to be delimited by Devon to the west and Sussex to the east. The Anglo-Saxon Chronicle specifies an 'utermere', 'bay', 'mutha', interpreted by Magoun (3) as 'river-harbour', (translated by Whitelock (2) as 'estuary') and an 'ufeweard mutha' or 'upper harbour'. There was a 'deop' or water channel.
It has also been suggested that the Danes were unable to 'row out round' Sussex and that the headland of Selsey Bill is indicated by this (3). Whitelock sees this as that they were unable to 'row past Sussex'. It does not seem credible that the wounded Danes were able to row very far, notwithstanding the wounded crew who made it as far as East Anglia. At this point the flood tide would have been to their advantage, but in being wounded they may not have been able to manage their vessels around Selsey Bill, so this is quite credible, particularly since currents are strong around this prominent headland and the prevailing winds are from the south-west (7). These circumstantial details suggest that the battle took place in a harbour or estuary relatively close to Sussex.
Source (4) interprets the location of the battle as Poole Harbour, but also suggests the Exe, and the basis for the identification with Poole Harbour in this source is not justified in the text.
Poole Harbour does not sit directly within an outer bay as described in the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle, although Studland Bay lies immediately to the south-west, so could conceivably be the 'outer bay' referred to. The mouth of the harbour is narrow and the harbour within could be interpreted as the 'upper harbour' beyond. It is full of sandbanks, but a difficulty arises with the narrowness of the harbour entrance, although this would have been easy to blockade by Alfred's new ships. It could also be consistent with groups of ships on opposite sides near but unable to reach one another: however, it is difficult to see how ships in this situation managed to slip out of a narrow entrance, which was blockaded, albeit by ships which had themselves run aground, although this is possible.
A more serious difficulty presents itself in terms of the fact that the wounded Danes were unable to 'row past Sussex'. If they were wounded then navigating from as far west as Devon, or at least Poole, as far east as the Solent or around the Isle of Wight would have been a feat in itself, and would have increased the difficulties facing the wounded crew of the sole ship who eventually made it back to East Anglia. [The origin of the intelligence among English of this ship's arrival back in Danish-controlled territory is intriguing. Perhaps it was seen further up the coast.] At all events, the wounded crews evidently made it 'thus far and no further' and this particular incident is a strong factor in considering harbours further east and nearer to Sussex.
Turning to the present-day harbours of Portsmouth or Chichester, they would have been accessible from a base in the Isle of Wight and yet be close to Sussex. Both have many sandbanks and are broadly consistent with the Anglo-Saxon descriptions of a bay, mouth, and upper harbour, as interpreted by Magoun in (3).
Southampton is also another possibility: it has an estuary, as translated by Whitelock (2), but, though having sandbanks along its banks and an inland harbour, also being relatively close to Winchester, in its favour for the despatch of the prisoners, has a wide mouth which it is difficult to envisage is consistent with the initial blockade. It is noted as a Saxon settlement in (6) by 825, when the name is first attested in writing as Homtun (Hamtun).
By contrast, Portsmouth (first attested by name in the annal for 501 in the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle (6), albeit this was retrospectively inserted) is an enclosed harbour with a single narrow entrance easily blockaded, but with an upper harbour and access to a minor river. It would thus be consistent with Magoun's suggestion in (3) that the vessels which escaped did so because the tide reached them first, i.e. they were on the outer edge of the sandbanks. However, it does not lie within an outer bay, if Magoun's suggestion is correct, unless the prominences of Gilkicker Point to the west and Southsea Point to the east are interpreted as forming an 'outer bay' of sorts.
Chichester and Langstone harbours, however, while having many sandbanks, and being at the western edge of Sussex, each with relatively narrow mouths, are joined by water and form a dual outlet to the sea around Hayling Island, which could possibly have provided a means of escape despite the blockade, using a deep water channel always covered even at ebb tide. This 'double harbour' may also go some way towards explaining the 'outer harbour' and 'inner harbour' perhaps as viewed laterally, i.e. one further west, and one further east, although it is acknowledged that this interpretation may be tenuous. Chichester itself was recorded for the first time in writing in an annal of the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle in the years preceding this battle (894-5) (6), thus suggesting an Anglo-Saxon settlement attractive to raiders on foot from the beached Danish ships.
The present entrance to Langstone harbour, to the west, is narrow and would have been easily blockadable, the entrance to Chichester harbour less so. The modern entrance to Chichester harbour would be wide enough for ships to slip out and escape the blockade, but this interpretation may change depending on the coastline in the Anglo-Saxon period. Neither lies in an outer bay, although both are estuarine in form, and could also be interpreted as having 'upper' or 'inner' harbours. Chichester, moreover, has a well-known bar at the entrance, which is a navigation hazard, and both Chichester and Langstone harbours have strong tidal currents, noted in (7), which may explain why some of the ships grounded awkwardly.
Magoun notes that the English were clearly not accustomed to handling their new ships (3), and this may be another factor in their grounding.
There are also several channels finding an outlet from Chichester, which could conceivably be interpreted as rivers or providing access thereto, and a riverine access towards Fishbourne.
The final difficulty in identifying the place of loss is based on the issue of access between the stranded ships at low water in order for the fight on foot to take place. Magoun interprets this as a long sand spit or similar (3). It would be possible, although awkward, to cross mud in the inter-tidal zone in order to fight, but the proximity of Hayling Island may solve that difficulty.
It is possible that some of the blockading ships were: either towards the eastern end of Langstone harbour to the west, and thus on the western side of Hayling Island; or towards the western end of Chichester harbour and therefore on the eastern side of Hayling Island. Some of the Danes were also on this side of the blockading ships, perhaps 'around the corner', on the landward side, while the English ships were to the seaward side as described in (2), although it is difficult to see how the English therefore did not float off first, unless the English had gone further into the harbour to pursue the Danes further up the estuary, a possibility also suggested by Magoun (3).
Possibly it was because they were lying 'awkwardly' rather than necessarily further inland. On both sides of the Island the western and eastern points today terminate in prominent spits, paralleled by opposing spits on either side of the appropriate harbour, in both Langstone and Chichester. The Danes could then have crossed the spits on foot at low tide to access the English ships which were on shore on the same side of the channel, or 'cut across a corner' of Hayling Island.
It is also possible that the English ships had manoeuvred further inland, for example on the 'inner' side of one of the spits, while the Danes lay on the 'outer' and seaward side of the same spit, which would explain why the flood tide reached the Danes first.
However, it is also possible that the greater draught of the English ships meant that they were unable to manoeuvre so easily, while the shallower draught of their enemies meant that they floated off first, and this would therefore have less bearing on whether the English were further up the harbour or on the landward side of a spit.
No solution, therefore, is entirely satisfactory. However, Chichester harbour appears to fulfil most of the criteria, not least in proximity towards Selsey Bill and therefore the Danes being unable subsequently to negotiate the Sussex coast, regardless of the Bill or not. The location, therefore, has been suggested as Chichester harbour, but this is for representational purposes only and should not be taken as representing the definitive location of the battle.
The two ships which were cast ashore in Sussex off Selsey Bill are recorded at 1494569 and 1494605. The wrecks which happened on the south coast that summer, apart from the war, are recorded at 1494609. (5)
|