English Nationalism in 'The Battle of Maldon' and 'The Battle of Brunanburh'

[Erpingham]

Another article on culturally-constructed Englishness, this time focusing on a later period by looking at the Brunanburgh and Maldon poems.

[Prufrock]

There's a quite astounding naivety to some of the current politically-charged terminology. I'm sure it would have been a great relief to Birhtnoth and companions to know that pan- (or perhaps post-) culturalists of the 21st Century would realise that any 'othering' of the Vikings was merely a literary convention, and that the whole Maldon shebang was a put up show in the service of nationalistic propaganda and pro-monarchical, pro-ecclesiastical myth-making!

[Erpingham]

that the whole Maldon shebang was a put up show in the service of nationalistic propaganda and pro-monarchical, pro-ecclesiastical myth-making!

To paraphrase Beyond the Fringe

"I want you to lay down your life, Byrhtnoth. We need a futile gesture at this stage. It will raise the whole tone of the war. "?

While I did find the article a bit shallow, I do believe the author is saying whatever happened at Maldon, it was presented to the people as a nationalistic, pro-monarchical, pro-ecclesiastical affair, rather than an army was sacrificed for propoganda purposes.  I've read other commentators say it was anti-monarchical, as it contains implied criticism of royal policy of paying the Vikings to go away. 

[Prufrock]

"I want you to lay down your life, Byrhtnoth. We need a futile gesture at this stage. It will raise the whole tone of the war. "?

More like of course the Vikings were 'other'. They were there to rape, kill and plunder, and not necessarily in that order! It was understood. There was little need for alleged subtle appeals to patriotism or religion to get that point across.

And the poem is far more a comment on bonds between lord and retainer - and right behaviour in relation to that - than it is nationalistic or patriotic. The article is very much of its time and the current climate, and I think I'll shut up there.

[Jim Webster]

"I want you to lay down your life, Byrhtnoth. We need a futile gesture at this stage. It will raise the whole tone of the war. "?

More like of course the Vikings were 'other'. They were there to rape, kill and plunder, and not necessarily in that order! It was understood. There was little need for alleged subtle appeals to patriotism or religion to get that point across.

And the poem is far more a comment on bonds between lord and retainer - and right behaviour in relation to that - than it is nationalistic or patriotic. The article is very much of its time and the current climate, and I think I'll shut up there.

stuck me as an article very much of its own era
Also got me pondering English nationalism. Given the regionalism of this country, did English Nationalism really start about the time of the Napoleonic wars? 

Jim

[Erpingham]

"I want you to lay down your life, Byrhtnoth. We need a futile gesture at this stage. It will raise the whole tone of the war. "?

More like of course the Vikings were 'other'. They were there to rape, kill and plunder, and not necessarily in that order! It was understood. There was little need for alleged subtle appeals to patriotism or religion to get that point across.

And the poem is far more a comment on bonds between lord and retainer - and right behaviour in relation to that - than it is nationalistic or patriotic.

It does depend who you think the audience is and when it was written.  In the early 11th century, there would be competing candidates to rule England.  Some of them would be the other in this narrative and some would be the native English. Some of the native aristocracy might even be tempted to abandon their countrymen, their king and the church and even betray the bond between lord and retainer.  Time, perhaps, to reinforce their resolve?

The article is very much of its time and the current climate, and I think I'll shut up there.

To me, it lacks anthropological and historical context.  It doesn't really justify its claim to fit the poems in the cultural creation of national identity either, IMO.  However, it is interesting to see comments on military affairs from a less usual disciplines.

[Erpingham]

Also got me pondering English nationalism. Given the regionalism of this country, did English Nationalism really start about the time of the Napoleonic wars? 

Jim

Depends on what you mean by nationalism, of course.  But forging a single national identity I'd go for the second half of the 14th century, when English starts being an official language.  This marks the point, I think, when the top folks consciously accept an English identity as opposed to being French but across the Channel.  It's sort of ironic that the Hundred Years' War is about the English king's rights in France yet it needs a stronger English identity to get everyone behind the war.

[Prufrock]

Sorry Anthony; it was remiss of me to not have thanked you for posting the article. It's interesting to read different perspectives. Having been a literature student in my time, I just happen to think the angle of approach is more political than literary. There are plenty of things you can say about Maldon as a text in support of an interpretation of the social order, but it's a local and hierarchical order of kinship and oath-friendship which scales up or down, not a Ph.D-potential nationalistic or patriotic worldview applicable in 2017. I find the assumption that ethnicity should be more of an aspect indicative of a lack of general understanding of the commingling of peoples in that time and that part of the world. I do need to read the Brunenburgh text as well though to see whether my view is justified or just a fast-twitch response

[Mark G]

Interesting thought Anthony, but surely the whole of the wars of the roses undermines it.

I think the reformation is the maker - a distinctly English church. 

It's hard to accept a linguistic argument that includes Bristol, Liverpool and Newcastle.

[Erpingham]

I think the reformation is the maker - a distinctly English church. 

Certainly a key point.

It's hard to accept a linguistic argument that includes Bristol, Liverpool and Newcastle.

Until my daughter went to Uni in Bristol, she thought all southerners were posh   But she came to love the place.  Don't you love English regionalism?  A neighbour came round the other day and, when told I come from Northamptonshire, said "Ah, the West Midlands".  Fortunately, she corrected herself before I threw her out.

[Patrick Waterson]

I would point to three occasions when England forged a single national identity, insofar as regional proclivities permitted.

1) Aethelstan's reconquest.

2) Edward III's reign and the whole Hundred Years War thing.

3) Good Queen Bess and the Spanish threat.  Arguably one could trace English unity to the beginning of the Tudor dynasty, but it took a while for England to become a Protestant country, which became a key unifying feature thereafter, even if not for everyone.

[Mark G]

I would suggest that the 100 years war version owes more to tudor revisionism than genuine national.pride.

Not really my era, but it reads more like a feudal thing than a national undertaking.

[Anton]

As an article it revealed quite a lot about the author's very modern pre-occupations. 

As to the emergence of a pan polity sense of Englishness I'd have thought Aethelstan would be a good candidate for consolidating it.

I see the Norman Conquest as a severe check to the promotion of the idea of Englishness.

I'm not sure about the 100 Years War either. It provided a living and loot for the soldiers but their leaders were pretty much the same fellows as those of the French.  Not much scope for an ethnic take on things there. That said it's not my period.

The Tudors, who I do know about, for their contemporaries were a terrifying bunch who all seem to have attracted rebellions and plots galore.  I'd struggle to see them as promoting a unified idea of Englishness, not least because they impoverished large sections of the English population. 

The Tudor Church innovations were very divisive and a quick scan of the later Methodists complaints gives an idea of the CoE's failure to embed as a universally popular token of Englishness. 

Protestantism in its many forms did take but of course not for everyone.

As an off topic aside if anyone fancies reading a good historical novel set in the Tudor period Death of a Fox by Garret is worth the time.

[Patrick Waterson]

The point about Edward III and the Hundred Years War is that the country ceased to be primarily Normans on top and Saxons below with different law codes and languages and instead became fundamentally a polity with a shared culture and language (even if the top persons retained Norman descent).  The least ethnically influenced feature was the of course the Free Companies, wherein demobilised soldiers on both sides found they shared more in common with each other than the governments which had abandoned them.  These however operated during peacetime: with the resumption of war, the Free Companies parted along national lines and rejoined their own rulers/paymasters.

The Tudors began unifying England from the Roses down; an absence of successful claimants to the throne ensured their dynasty would become a dynasty; Henry VII's ordinances about castles and retinues ensured nobody would be able to back a claimant to the throne with any meaningful force and Henry VIII gave England its signature identity by putting the monarch at the head of the church.  He also had a go at the common enemy, France, although his inept generalship and profligate expenditure made that somewhat counterproductive.  Under his son Edward and daughter Mary (not to mention in his own reign) blood was shed to determine which religion would prevail in England, but it was a question of which religion would prevail rather than which region would prevail.  Protestantism and Catholicism, although largely regionally based, were struggling for the soul of the country and not heading attempts at regional secession.  (The Irish of course did things differently ...)

Under Queen Elizabeth I, this all coalesced.  Under the threat of Spanish invasion, English Protestants and Catholics (whom Elizabeth had watched but did not persecute) rallied behind the Crown, as did all parts of the realm, even the Bristol gunsmiths and merchants who had supplied many of the First Armada's guns.  (It would not become 'this sceptred isle' until on Elizabeth's death James I by invitation brought the Stuart dynasty south, by which time England was a sufficiently cohesive entity to survive a century of Stuarts.  Death of a Fox, by the way, which I have and agree is worth a read, is set in the early Stuart period with Elizabethan flashbacks.)

[Erpingham]

The point about Edward III and the Hundred Years War is that the country ceased to be primarily Normans on top and Saxons below with different law codes and languages and instead became fundamentally a polity with a shared culture and language (even if the top persons retained Norman descent).  The least ethnically influenced feature was the of course the Free Companies, wherein demobilised soldiers on both sides found they shared more in common with each other than the governments which had abandoned them.  These however operated during peacetime: with the resumption of war, the Free Companies parted along national lines and rejoined their own rulers/paymasters.

There is a lot to explore in the English identity of the 14th and 15th centuries.  We shift to using English routinely at all levels of society (though the aristocracy will remain bi-lingual throughout, because French was an international language, unlike English).  English becomes a literary language and a discrete English literature develops.  The need for the king to summon parliament to get his war budget approved needs a buy in from the Commons, not just the Lords so the war becomes in some sense a national project.  There is an interesting debate when a dual Anglo-French monarchy becomes a real possibility in the early 15th century where Parliament is concerned that the two kingdoms are ruled separately and English laws and customs are not impinged on by French ones.

The Free Companies are an interesting case.  Most English companies refused contractually to fight the king of England.  English condottiere in Italy were reluctant to fight each other.  John Hawkwood was a loyal subject of Richard II who was happy to carry out diplomatic work for "the old country".