The Aberlemno Kirkyard Stone In Scotland And The Battle Of Nechtansmere

The carved standing stones in the village of Aberlemno, Scotland, are beautiful pieces of artwork left behind by the Picts. In particular, the stone known as Aberlemno II tells a significant story. On one side, the stone displays a brilliant cross, but on the reverse, is carved several scenes from a battle of vital importance to the creation of what would become Scotland—the Battle of Nechtansmere.

The prime written source of information on the Battle of Nechtansmere, also known as the Battle of Dun Nechtain, comes from the Northumbrian monk named Bede (c. 673-735), who would have been about 12 years old when the battle occurred. Bede wrote about the battle in his lauded work, the Ecclesiastical History of the English People.

According to Bede, King Ecgfrith of Northumbria made the fateful decision to march his army north in 685 to do battle with the Picts. The Picts were an ancient people of northern Britain who were, at the time, competing for supremacy in the north against the Britons and the Scots. The main leader of the Picts in 685 was a man named Bridei map Bili (alternatively Brude mac Bile, or Brude/Bridei III), the king of Fortriu. He mobilized a force of Picts and quickly maneuvered himself to intercept the Northumbrians. King Bridei possibly also gained the help of an interesting kingdom of Britons centered in the Dumbarton Rock region—known by impressive names, such as the Kingdom of the Rock, Strathclyde, or Alt Clut.

According to Bede, the army of Bridei map Bili found the Northumbrians and lured them deeper into Pictish territory, toward a narrow mountain pass. Finally, the Picts ambushed the Northumbrian army in the Battle of Nechtansmere, somewhere near the modern town of Forfar, within Angus, Scotland. In the ensuing massacre, King Ecgfrith was killed, along with the majority of his army.

The Battle of Nechtansmere was a turning point in the history of the British Isles. The battle halted the expansion of the Anglo-Saxon kingdoms to the north, and also served as a clear sign that the Kingdom of Northumbria was in decline. Sometime during the 8th century, the Picts erected the Aberlemno II stone, commemorating the victory of Bridei map Bili over King Ecgfrith and the Northumbrians.

  (Pictish stone in the churchyard at Aberlemno Parish Church (the stone is sometimes known as Aberlemno II). The battle scene depicted is generally accepted to be that of the Battle of Nechtansmere. [Public Domain] via Creative Commons)

Written by C. Keith Hansley.

Sources:

• Bede’s Ecclesiastical History of the English People (and relevant letters), translated by Leo Sherley-Pride, R. E. Latham and D. H. Farmer. New York: Penguin Classics, 2003. 
• Vanished Kingdoms: The Rise and Fall of States and Nations by Norman Davies. New York: Viking (Penguin Group), 2011. 
• http://www.oxfordreference.com/view/10.1093/oi/authority.20110803100226775 
• https://www.ancient.eu/Battle_of_Dun_Nectain/ 
• http://www.ancient-scotland.co.uk/site.php?a=2 
• https://www.historyscotland.com/articles/on-this-day-in-history/the-battle-of-nechtansmere-was-fought-on-this-day-in-history 
• https://www.historicenvironment.scot/visit-a-place/places/aberlemno-sculptured-stones/ 
• https://www.britannica.com/biography/Ecgfrith 
• https://www.britannica.com/place/Strathclyde 
• http://www.encyclopedia.com/history/modern-europe/wars-and-battles/battle-nechtansmere  

Dating The Timeline In Classical History

In ancient Greece and Rome, the different events of the past were not dated by individual years, but by the reigns of world leaders, set in a chronological order. For example, an ancient Athenian would likely have said that the Peloponnesian War began during the tenure of the archon, Pythodorus. Similarly, ancient Romans would probably date the death of Augustus’ able admiral, Agrippa, to the consulship of Valerius and Publius Sulpicius. Thankfully, some of these leaders had set periods of rule, or calculable events such as solar eclipses, during their reign. As a result, modern scholars can date the start of the Peloponnesian War to around 431BCE/BC and the death of Agrippa to 12 BCE/BC.

The use of reigns for dating, instead of a list of years, does not mean that the ancients had no concept of seasons and months—in fact, the months used in the modern Western world are descended from ancient Rome. Yet, calendars often varied from region to region; for example, over 300 different month names were used in ancient Greece. Furthermore, the regions did not agree on when the New Year began and put their selection of months in different orders. As a result, it was simply easier for ancient historians to date their topics by the reigns in which the events occurred.

Yet, some historians from the distant past did want to make their system of dating more precise. The Athenian historian, Thucydides, was probably the first to do this, and it took some creativity on his part to make his ambition come true. To increase the accuracy of the dating that he included in his History of the Peloponnesian War, Thucydides divided his timeline of the war into solar years, and narrowed it further by dividing the solar years into summer and winter seasons. As a result, he could write that a certain event occurred in the summer of the third solar year after the start of the Peloponnesian War.

Thankfully for modern readers from the West, Dionysius Exiguus (c. 470-544 CE/AD) and Bede (673-735 CE/AD) standardized and simplified the yearly timeline by scaling the dating of years from the approximate time of Jesus’ birth. Due to Bede, especially, the use of “A.D.” and “B.C.”, or more recently, “CE” and “BCE” has become the common method in the West for dating historical events.

Written by C. Keith Hansely.

Top picture attribution: (The Acropolis at Athens, by Leo von Klenze (1784–1864), [Public Domain] via Creative Commons).

Sources:

• History of the Peloponnesian War by Thucydides, translated by Rex Warner and introduced by M. I. Finley. New York: Penguin Classics, 1972.  
• The Roman History by Cassius Dio, translated by Ian Scott-Kilvert. New York: Penguin Classics, 1987.

Who Was Ambrosius Aurelianus in 5th-Century Britain?

Around the year 495, an army of Britons and assimilated Romans won a decisive victory over a force of Anglo-Saxons on a battlefield either in Bath, Badbury Hill or Dorset. This battle, known as the Battle of Badon Hill, was said to have been masterminded by a man who went by the name Ambrosius Aurelianus. The battle, itself, is deemed to be fairly historical, but the man who led the Britons to victory has been buried under myth and legend.

In the 6th century, a monk named Gildas wrote that Ambrosius Aurelianus was a man possibly descended from Roman royalty, who became a king of Britain and was a major rival to Vortigern, another quasi-mythical figure said to have been High-King of the Britons at the time. Gildas also attributed the victory of the Britons at Mount Badon (or Badon Hill) to Ambrosius’ leadership.

Later, another monk by the name of Bede (c. 673-735) also wrote about the reign of Ambrosius. Bede did not connect him to Vortigern, but his account of the king aligned with Gildas in most other areas. He wrote that Ambrosius Aurelianus was born from Roman royalty, and that he rallied together an army of Britons to defend against the influx of Anglo-Saxons. Like Gildas, Bede also claimed that Ambrosius won the day at the Battle of Badon Hill.

By the 8th and 9th century, another writer named Nennius reintroduced the narrative of a rivalry between Ambrosius Aurelianus and Vortigern. From there he elaborated, claiming that Ambrosius had the gift of prophecy. When Geoffrey of Monmouth took up the story in the 12th century, the reign of Ambrosius had bloomed into an elaborate folk tale. Geoffrey wrote that Ambrosius Aurelianus was the brother of Utherpendragon—making him the uncle of the legendary King Arthur. Geoffrey went on to claim that Ambrosius eventually defeated and killed Vortigern. The victorious king then turned against the Anglo-Saxons and defeated them in battle, after which an assassin brought his reign to an end with the use of poison.

So, who really was Ambrosius Aurelianus? In short, we don’t know for sure. Yet, like most myths and legends, there is often a sliver of truth hidden under all of the extravagant folklore.

Written by C. Keith Hansley.

Top picture attribution: (Detail of miniature from the New Minster Charter, 966, showing King Edgar flanked by the Virgin Mary and St Peter, [Public Domain] via Creative Commons).

Sources:

• Bede’s Ecclesiastical History of the English People (and relevant letters), translated by Leo Sherley-Pride, R. E. Latham and D. H. Farmer (Penguin Classics, 2003).  
• The History of the Kings of Britain by Geoffrey of Monmouth, translated by Lewis Thorpe. New York: Penguin Classics, 1966. 
• http://www.englishmonarchs.co.uk/celts_17.html 
• http://www.newworldencyclopedia.org/entry/Ambrosius_Aurelianus  
• http://www.vortigernstudies.org.uk/artgue/guestsheila2.htm 
• http://www.britannia.com/history/biographies/ambros.html 

King Penda of Mercia—The Kingslayer of 7th-Century Britain

The two best early sources of information on Penda of Mercia are The Ecclesiastical History of the English People by Bede and the History of the Britons, written by Nennius. The latter author wrote in more detail about Penda, yet, in his own way, Bede clearly characterized the man’s bloody reign.

Even though King Penda was never a major focal point of any of Bede’s chapters, readers cannot help but notice that the man’s name had a habit of appearing whenever Bede described the death of other 7th-century kings. To set the scene, imagine Bede writing about a saintly Christian king of Northumbria—then, seemingly out of nowhere, Penda arrives with an army and slaughters the opposing king in a bloody battle. That is the general way King Penda’s name appears in Bede’s History. Even so, Bede had to write down Penda’s name quite often. After all, Penda’s military campaigns led to the deaths of at least five separate kings.

Penda became the ruler of Mercia (English midlands) in the 620s or early 630s, after the death of King Ceorl (or Cearl) of Mercia. When he ascended to the Mercian throne, not all was to his liking. Although Penda was the ruler of Mercia, Northumbria was technically in control of the region. Despite being subservient to the Kingdom of Northumbria and not yet officially holding the title “king,” Penda did not give up on his own ambitions.

Upon becoming ruler of Mercia, Penda immediately moved for independence.  He began by making strong alliances while also attacking weak targets. In this way, Penda seized Hwicce (approximately Gloucestershire) from the Kingdom of Wessex and formulated a powerful alliance with Cadwallon, the king of Gwynedd. In 633 CE, the combined forces of Cadwallon and Penda faced King Edwin of Northumbria in the Battle of Hatfield Chase. During the battle, King Edwin was killed, throwing Northumbria into instability. With the Northumbrians in chaos, Cadwallon proceeded to ravage the Northumbrian countryside, and Penda succeeded in asserting himself as the independent king of Mercia.

Next, in the 630s or possibly the 640s, King Penda set his sights on East Anglia. There, King Ecgric and the retired (but respected) King Sigebert of East Anglia defended against the Mercian advance. Nevertheless, Penda’s campaign was a great success, and both Ecgric and Sigebert were slain, bringing Penda’s monarch kill-count to at least three.

Around this time, a new ruler in Northumbria was quickly bringing his kingdom back to order. Oswald, a nephew of the slain King Edwin, had returned from exile and claimed the throne of Northumbria. In 634, he killed Penda’s ally, Cadwallon of Gwynedd, and brought the Kingdom of Northumbria back to normalcy. After the initial threats to his kingdom were defeated, King Oswald eventually set out for revenge against Mercia. In 642, King Oswald and the Northumbrians met Penda and his allies in a battle near Owestry, in Shropshire. King Oswald died in the battle, with Penda killing his fourth known king. Following the battle, Penda seized even more Northumbrian land, including the regions of modern Elmet and Lindsey.

With Northumbria momentarily put back in its place, King Penda sought out opportunities in the various kingdoms that bordered his realm. He attacked Wessex and East Anglia, again, and in his campaign against the latter kingdom, he killed his fifth king, this time it was the East Anglian King Anna, who met his end around 654.

Riding upon this wave of successive victories, King Penda likely was feeling invincible. After all, in his military campaigns Penda had killed a minimum of five kings, with two from Northumbria and three from East Anglia. Nevertheless, King Penda wanted even more and decided to launch another military campaign against his greatest rival, the Kingdom of Northumbria. As the proverb goes, those who live by the sword, die by the sword. This saying applied perfectly to King Penda. Spending almost his entire reign in perpetual war, King Penda ultimately died on the battlefield. In 655, King Penda led his army against King Oswiu of Northumbria, brother of the slain King Oswald. The two forces finally clashed at the Battle of the Winwaed River. After asserting Mercia’s independence and making his kingdom a major power in Britain, King Penda died in battle somewhere near Leeds.

Written by C. Keith Hansley.

Top picture attribution: (Anglo-Saxon helmet from the Sutton Hoo ship burial, c. 7th century, [Public Domain] via Creative Commons).

Source:

• Bede’s Ecclesiastical History of the English People (and relevant letters), translated by Leo Sherley-Pride, R. E. Latham and D. H. Farmer (Penguin Classics, 2003).  
• http://www.earlybritishkingdoms.com/adversaries/bios/penda.html 
• http://www.historic-uk.com/HistoryUK/HistoryofEngland/Kings-Queens-of-Mercia/  
• https://www.britannica.com/biography/Penda 
• http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/11/15/on-this-day-britains-last-great-pagan-king-is-struck-down-by-chr/  
• http://www.britishmuseum.org/research/search_the_collection_database/term_details.aspx?bioId=180596 
• http://www.historyofwar.org/articles/people_penda.html 

Laurentius, The Second Archbishop Of Canterbury, Supposedly Was Whipped Into Action By The Long-Dead Apostle Peter

In 604, Laurentius (also known as Laurence) became the second archbishop of Canterbury. When he took his prestigious position, the future of the Catholic Church in Britain must have looked bright—two major kings, Æthelbert (or Ethelbert) of Kent and Saberht of Essex, had converted to Christianity, supporting and protecting the religion in their realms.

Yet, twelve years later, Laurentius’ worst nightmares became reality. In 616, both Æthelbert and Saberht died simultaneously. Even worse, the heirs to their kingdoms were all pagans. Adding insult to injury, the new king in Kent even married his own stepmother, which was against the rules of the church. As Catholicism in Kent and Essex began to be flooded by “heathen” pressure, many of Laurentius’ bishops decided to flee from Britain and return to France. Some of the most skilled churchmen quickly left the country, including Melitus and Justus, the future third and fourth archbishops of Canterbury.

Laurentius, himself, apparently made up his mind that a Catholic Church in England was a lost cause, and decided to stay one last night before leaving the British Isles, for good. He planned to spend his final night in a church that was dedicated to the two apostles, Peter and Paul. This decision was either his best or his worst idea, depending on your reaction to the weird finale of this story.

Unfortunately, the archbishop of Canterbury would not sleep peacefully in that church. No, not by far. According to Venerable Bede (673-735 CE), the long-dead apostle Peter—one of the leaders of Jesus’ apostles and supposedly the first bishop of Rome—was extremely displeased with Laurentius. As the story goes, Peter was so irked by the actions of Laurentius that he personally descended from heaven to set the archbishop of Canterbury back on the right path.

What followed was weird. Peter appeared before Laurentius and chastised the priest for abandoning his flock, while others (Peter included) had faced martyrdom for their religion. While criticizing the archbishop with accusations such as these, the apostle supposedly struck Laurentius with savage blows from a heavy whip, or scourge. By morning, the bizarre mystical beating had convinced Archbishop Laurentius to remain in Britain.

Laurentius immediately sought, and obtained, an audience with the pagan king of Kent, Eadbald (r. 616-640), the son of Æthelbert. When he stood before King Eadbald, the sore and tired archbishop described the miraculous punishment that he had experienced during the night. According to Bede, he then dramatically removed his robe and let the king look upon his holy welts, in all of their bruised glory. As the story goes, King Eadbald was convinced by the sight and immediately converted, promising to follow and protect the Catholic Church.

Written by C. Keith Hansley.

Top picture attribution: (Archbishop of Canterbury (probably Edmund), Illustrations from the Nuremberg Chronicle, by Hartmann Schedel (1440-1514), [Public Domain] via Creative Commons)

Sources:

•   Bede’s Ecclesiastical History of the English People (and relevant letters), translated by Leo Sherley-Pride, R. E. Latham and D. H. Farmer (Penguin Classics, 2003). 
• http://www.historic-uk.com/HistoryUK/HistoryofEngland/Archbishops-of-Canterbury/  
• https://www.britannica.com/biography/Saint-Laurentius-of-Canterbury 
• https://www.britannica.com/biography/Eadbald  
• https://www.britannica.com/biography/Saberht

The Myths And Legends Behind Ireland’s Lack Of Snakes

(Left: Bede illustrated by James Doyle Penrose (1862-1932), center: Common snake depicted in the book of M. C. Cooke (Mordecai Cubitt), c. 1893, right: St. Patrick from the Smith Museum of Stained Glass Windows, all [Public Domain] via Creative Commons and Flickr)

An interesting fact about Ireland is that it has no native snake population, besides those found in zoos or kept as pets. From what scientists have determined, the lack of snakes in Ireland dates back before the end of the last major Ice Age around 8,000 BCE. During the Ice Age, the climate in Ireland was deadly to snakes, and by the time the temperature became more hospitable, snakes still had not been able to migrate to the Emerald Isle before rising water (caused by glacial shifts and melts at the end of the Ice Age) separated it from the rest of Britain around 6,500 BCE. England is said to have been connected to mainland Europe for a few extra thousand years (until around 4,500 BCE), allowing it to be populated by species such as grass snakes, smooth snakes and adders. Ireland, however, remained snakeless, without even a hint of fossil evidence to be found, suggesting that no native snake species have ever lived in Ireland.

Science, even though it has the facts in this case, definitely does not have the special flair present in the folklore, myth and legend that was developed by ancient and medieval people to explain the absence of snakes in Ireland. The more popular of the tales is the miraculous feat attributed to the 5th-century apostle to Ireland, St. Patrick. As the story goes, St. Patrick managed to corral all of the snakes of Ireland together and drive them entirely off a cliff into the depths of the ocean.

The story of St. Patrick clearing Ireland of snakes was probably not known to another important clergyman of the British Isles, named Bede (673-735 CE). Venerable Bede made no mention of St. Patrick in his Ecclesiastical History of the English People—instead, he thought a man named Palladius was the most important missionary to Ireland. As a result, Bede included his own theories (containing nothing to do with St. Patrick) as to why Ireland has no snakes. Some readers of Bede’s history think he wrote the passage with a sense of sarcasm, which he, indeed, was known to use on occasion. Yet, the statements are still up for interpretation. This is the peculiar passage in Bede’s History that suggests that Ireland has a mystical resistance to snakes and all things poisonous.

“There are no reptiles, and no snake can exist there; for although often brought over from Britain, as soon as the ship nears land, they breathe the scent of its air, and die. In fact, almost everything in this isle confers immunity to poison, and I have seen that folk suffering from snake-bite have drunk water in which scrapings from the leaves of books from Ireland have been steeped, and that this remedy checked the spreading poison and reduced the swelling” (Bede’s Ecclesiastical History of the English People, Chapter 1).

Written by C. Keith Hansley.

Sources:

• Bede’s Ecclesiastical History of the English People (and relevant letters), translated by Leo Sherley-Pride, R. E. Latham and D. H. Farmer. New York: Penguin Classics, 2003.  
• http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2008/03/080313-snakes-ireland_2.html 
• https://www.irishcentral.com/roots/history/the-real-reason-why-there-arent-any-snakes-in-ireland-sorry-st-patrick  
• https://www.britannica.com/biography/Saint-Patrick