Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

OA12T2 t1_isgu65o wrote

Just started watching the last kingdom - cool find. After watching a few episodes so far, wondered why the English let the Danes come in and basically set up shop. Was England not a power house at that time to stop them?

Edit: thanks for everyone’s responses and sharing knowledge

103

EvidenceInternal2115 t1_isgwaea wrote

England didn't really exist back then, there were a few different kingdoms making up what is now England, chief among them were Wessex, Mercia, East Anglia, Northumbria and Kent.

So when the vikings came, they didn't come upon a united "england" as it were, but a bunch of powerhungry warlords/kings fighting amongst themselves, if they weren't fighting the british/welsh. And even sometimes within the kingdoms itself, civil war or power struggles within their own ranks wasn't exactly uncommon either.

216

AppleDane t1_ishfnvc wrote

If the Vikings were to attack one of the other kingdoms, that was a huge plus. That mean you could relax a bit, and possibly gain some territory. Until, of course, the Vikings attacked YOU.

79

Hukthak t1_isho2c2 wrote

First they came for the Northumbrians, but I did not speak out...

104

Sex_E_Searcher t1_isgzfui wrote

The individual polities in what is now England had very small armies - a few hundred would be large for a powerful king. Really, they were best described as warbands. In dire situations, they'd call up the peasants in a levy known as the Fyrd.

When the Vikingrs arrived with the Great Heathen Army, they numbered in the thousands. The only way the English kind could match their numbers was with the Fyrd, and that would be pitting peasants against hardened Vikingrs.

So, the Anglo-Saxons struggled for some time against the Vikingrs and the polities they set up on the island, with Alfred the Great ultimately making massive changes to the way his society functioned, in order to have garrisoned forts prepared for them at all times. It worked, mostly, except for the times that it didn't, but it was more effective than what they had before.

114

Trackmaster15 t1_ish4ntf wrote

Its funny how lords and kings basically had the one pragmatic purpose for peasants: to "protect" them. But really, the lords and kings just conscripted peasants to fight their wars anyway.

24

OtisTetraxReigns t1_ishezus wrote

Probably not as often as you think. It’s not prudent to send all the people that grow your food off to die.

69

YishuTheBoosted t1_ishpq12 wrote

Textbook mistake in age of empires.

24

TheLastPromethean t1_isiaf4n wrote

Nah bro, I'll just Wolololo some of your villagers to replenish my workforce. Pro gamer move right there.

15

Dokutah_Dokutah t1_isivnxi wrote

I counter your monk with at least 2 archers to kill him quick before he converts any.

4

Trackmaster15 t1_ishf5ks wrote

Then they're not getting protection. My point is that the "protection" that they offer is coming from themselves. And the king or lord has no claims to the peasants food without giving them something in return.

4

TastyVictory t1_ishhvgo wrote

Think of it as a modern day draft. Its only used for desperate times. The peasants were protected by not being sent off to war unless the alternative was everyone would be brutally killed any way.

22

mehvermore t1_isiq3z1 wrote

Peasants were tenant workers. Being able to live off their lords' land was what they were getting in exchange for the burden of serfdom. Not that it was a fair system by any means, but protection was at most a distant secondary consideration in the "contract" between a peasant and their lord.

6

borednord t1_isimzgf wrote

You seem to be under the misconception that kings and lords ruled over peasants in some sort of mutual contract of protection?

1

Trackmaster15 t1_isj2xsw wrote

I was not under any misconception. You seem to have not learned about this historic fact. You might need to take some courses on feudalism.

0

borednord t1_isjfqqm wrote

There is no need for hostility my friend. I offered a question as your take on Lords providing some sort of service in return for goods from peasants is a take that is mistaken on many levels as regards to the concept of feudalism.

Simply put a lords "claim" to a peasants food was "I am instated by God" and "I let you work my land and you give me your food". Rather your take on peasants providing food for a ruling caste is better described as manoralism and really has nothing to do with the term feudalism, as that describes the relationship of vassalage and should be further distinguished by geographical constaints, as feudalism in England is different from France, and the rest of europe.

4

GirthIgnorer t1_isj5443 wrote

Idk everyone seems to be owning you for your dumb reductionist take all over this thread, maybe go hit the books for a couple years yourself

−1

Sex_E_Searcher t1_ishl3um wrote

It was not very common to do so. Peasants were not skilled fighters and you'd need to equip them. Most medieval armies were small and consisted of full time soldiers and nobles.

10

Alaknog t1_isivg5g wrote

Many times this "peasants" is equipped by themselves and know how fight too. They just not do this full time job.

1

Sgt_Colon t1_isiugi1 wrote

Those that comprised the fyrd would have been ceorls, free men that owed service as part of their social standing (and according rights and wealth) and as a continuation from earlier 'germanic' society.

2

arebee20 t1_isisrjr wrote

Also you just give some Viking lords land and christianize them to get them to flip to your side and they bring their army with them

2

inbruges99 t1_isgwkyq wrote

“England” as a singular entity didn’t exist at the time. It was several kingdoms (like in the Last Kingdom) and even within those kingdoms it was very decentralised. But really it’s impossible to fully answer your question in a Reddit comment.

33

Blueshirt38 t1_ish599y wrote

Totally don't expect a dissertation on the ancient history of a kingdom, but could you point to some good sources to do the reading ourselves? This subject and timeframe has become a great interest of mine lately.

13

EvidenceInternal2115 t1_ishbw0c wrote

There is a really good podcast called "the british history podcast" that goes into great detail on the history of britian starting from prehistory , and pretty much the entire anglo-saxon history is covered as they just hit the William the conqueror era. Which marks the end of the anglo saxon era.

Otherwise just reading up on the kings and kingdoms of that era on wikipedia will also give you a pretty decent picture. And you can always check the sources there.

25

MalayaJinny t1_isicu4t wrote

I would also recommend the same podcast. Very detailed and thorough description of this time frame.

8

Ok-Train-6693 t1_isl41s9 wrote

An army of Englishmen conquered Normandy in 1091. The AS Chronicle continued to about 1154. So the transition was complicated.

1

Saxon2060 t1_isjqcu3 wrote

For a good introduction to basically any frigging thing you can think of, "A Very Brief Introduction to:" series from Oxford University Press. They're written by leading academics in their field and could fit in a front pocket of your jeans.

There is A Very Brief Introduction to The Anglo-Saxons.

3

swan0 t1_ish2wz1 wrote

Unless the reddit comment is on /r/askhistorians of course

7

2635northpark t1_ishehqd wrote

Last Kingdom, I just received it. Hope it's good.

6

Holidaywhobiewhatie t1_isj70rr wrote

The show is great. The books by Bernard Cornwell are even better.

2

Refreshingpudding t1_isk1po6 wrote

Warlord chronicles are better written and tighter paced. The alt king Arthur story is fun

−1

Ok-Train-6693 t1_islgm6b wrote

I suspect that the House of Wessex was originally a cadet branch of the House of Cornwall, which incidentally outlived it as a ruling dynasty.

1

StatikSquid t1_ish85r9 wrote

I finished the Last Kingdom and played the game Assassin's Creed Valhalla, both which feature real locations and real people from that era.

As people already mentioned, post-Roman Britannia was a series of Anglo-Saxon kingdoms all fighting for power.

If you read up the history on Alfred the Great, it'll fall in line with the plot for the the show.

15

Pilscy t1_isifmp1 wrote

Ac Valhalla brought a newfound love for Viking history for me. Well actually Witcher 3 but it was skellige that caused me wanna get into the Viking games and eventually buying ac Valhalla.

Currently watching Vikings. Then I’ll start last kingdom

4

Pepperonidogfart t1_isin88e wrote

Vikings is not a history show. The beginning is decently close to events but it really goes off the rails after ragnar. Last kingdom though.. actually not bad aside from uthred being an insert to follow along with the real events.

15

Lil_Mcgee t1_isjlsr2 wrote

The events depicted in Vikings are much more based in legend than real verifiable history anyway.

Not denying that the show goes off the rails a bit, it's just that the concept of a historically accurate Viking show isn't all that feasible in the first place. This is somewhat the case for any historical fiction but it's especially true when it comes to pre-modern societies who weren't known for writing down their histories.

3

Pilscy t1_isjbkn1 wrote

Yeah I seen a lot of people say this. They said Vikings become another show after a while and it’s not historically accurate

1

StatikSquid t1_isjd8a0 wrote

Uhtred is based on Uhtred the Bold, who was an ealderman of Northumbria. But the big difference here is the Uhtred the Bold was born like 150 years after the events of the show.

I haven't seen vikings, but now I'm disappointed that it's not historical. Ironic given the show was basically the History Channel's small glimpse of redemption after they went all in on reality tv.

1

Ok-Train-6693 t1_islgy3q wrote

The real Uhtred the Bold lived several generations later, that’s true. He was related to the ancestors of the Nevilles.

1

chickenwithclothes t1_isjadtv wrote

Give the History of England podcast a listen. David Crowther help this period make sense to me

1

SkepticalVir t1_isj1vyp wrote

Truly clueless comment. Why don’t you go do some independent digging on some subjects and come to the answer yourself.

−4