PREFACE

Today, we take for granted that everyone has a 'surname', but this was not always the case...

Surnames were introduced at different times and in different cultures. In China for example, surnames were first used in the year 2852 BC.

In England and much of Europe the introduction of surnames began much later - around 1000 AD. Surnames were used at this time only by those of a high social status who felt the need to use an additional name (surname), so they could be distinguished from another who had the same "Christian" or "first" name.

Inevitably, as the centuries passed, towns and cities in England grew and it soon became clear that 'commoners' would need to have surnames too...After all, a surname, together with a 'Christian' name, was the only way of legally identifying someone at that time. Surnames were also needed so that people could prove their ownership of land and other property.

So what had started out as an aristocratic desire, in England, had (over 3 centuries) filtered down to every level of society. And by the end of the 14th century, everyone in England had a surname.

Originally a person's relationship with another person created a surname for the individual. For example, the surname Johnson probably originated as "John's son" and later shortened to "Johnson". Other surnames identified where a person may have lived, or their occupation. For example, the surname of Nottingham (a location Nottingham, England) indicated where the person lived. Or, the surname Blacksmith (the 'Blacksmith' trade) indicated what the person did for a living.  The Barrs family name began in Old Normandy as de La Barre, then changed to Barre, and was translated to English as Barres and Barrs between 1100 AD and 1500 AD. Some historical accounts say that Barre meant "Keeper of the Gate or Town."  Some accounts say that it means "Dweller at or near the Entrance of a City or Town." Everard des Barres was Grandmaster of the Knights Templar from 1146 to 1149. The Order was consecrated to the protection of pilgrims and the defense of the Holy Land.

What do you think BARRS means? What does BARRS mean to you?

So, How Were Surnames Created?

Another very popular way of creating surnames, at that time, was by describing a person's character or appearance, such as the surname of 'Bright' or 'Joy'.

Nowadays, of course, there is no need for new surnames to be created (with the exception of 'hyphenated' names) as surnames are now simply passed from one generation to the next. But, again, this was not always the case, especially when surnames were first introduced. For example: William Farmer may have been a 'Farmer' (By his trade). But his son might have been called Peter Williamson! (From the father's Christian name "William" by adding the word "son.") This confusing state of affairs (In England at least.) was eventually changed into the hereditary process we know today i.e. where a surname is simply passed from one generation to the next.

Surnames are an interesting reminder of the past. They tell us much more about our ancestors and family history than we may at first realize.

Did You Know?

Fact #1: In Turkey, surnames didn't become mandatory until 1935.

Fact #2: Many of the surnames we know today are just misspellings of original surnames. (Over the centuries, as surnames were recorded, writers and officials would often write the name down incorrectly...thereby creating a new surname.)

Fact #3: The 'Vikings' believed in name magic and that a person's soul was represented or symbolized by his name (for this reason, Vikings deliberately used the names of famous chiefs or family friends, when naming their children).

Fact #4: Many Swedish surnames reflect the Swede's love of nature, incorporating words such as: berg ("mountain") or blom ("flower").

THANKS! I want to thank all the researchers, authors and Barrs who have contributed to the research, content and writing of this CD-ROM book.  I want to especially dedicate this family history book to my mother, Evia Adetha Bell-Barrs/Knouse, who began researching our family genealogy long before computers and the Internet were invented. And, I wish to thank my devoted wife of 48 years (NOV 1957 - NOV 2005), Priscilla Lee Jones-Barrs, for her help sorting old pictures and attaching names and dates. Thanks everyone!

This book has been written for educational purposed only and is intended for Barrs family member's use.

Al Barrs, Jr.

Copyrighted© by Al Barrs, Jr. March 11, 1999-2005 albarrs@wfeca.net Greenwood, Florida 32443-1839 USA. Rev. October 19, 2005

FORWARD

FEELING THE LIVES OF OUR ANCESTORS

How many times have you found an ancestor and wondered what they were like; what made them laugh, what made them cry, or what made them give up farming in England and move to "The Colonies in America" or to North Carolina, or South Carolina farm country to be exact.

What was the Revolutionary War like for our ancestors?  What was the Civil War like for them? What was the war to end all wars, World War I, like and what was World War II like, not for the generals, but for the young farm boys and clerks on both sides and especially the Barrs men and women. How about the Korean Conflict or the Vietnam War?  We Barrs had veterans of all these wars in our family.  Some probably fought in the famous Battle of Hastings in England. 

We know that several family members, who were farmers in North Carolina, fought in the Revolutionary War.  They enlisted in Dobbs and other North Carolina counties.  North Carolina was where some of the most vicious fighting took place during the Revolutionary War. We know that our line of Barrs fought in The Lines of George Washington's army and they served in the state and county militias of North Carolina.  At least two of my Barrs ancestors and two Bell ancestors fought in the Revolutionary War from North Carolina.  More may have fought but I haven't verified the data yet.

And, there were also Morgans, Newman and Green's of my family who fought in the American Revolutionary War.  We also know that another line of Barrs residing in South Carolina and Savannah Georgia fought with the British to preserve The Colonies for England. We know that both of these Barrs families originated in Warwickshire England so were probably related. 

A James Barrs of South Carolina and East Georgia was sentenced in Warwickshire England in 1767 to The Colonies for 14 years for stealing sheep. He arrived in Charles Town South Carolina's seaport in 1768. 

John Barrs born March 5, 1727 in Toft Hamlet Warwickshire England, who is our most direct and earliest ancestor in America, arrived about 1750 with his new bride Sarah Spears, which he had married in 1749 in the St. Peter and St. Paul Parish Church of Aston Juxta in Birmingham, Warwickshire, England. John Barrs purchased plantation land and is known to have sold land in 1755-56 in the present day Lenoir County NC, which was within Johnson-Dobbs and today Lenoir County North Carolina.

This John Barrs' Great-Great Grand Son and my Great-Great Grand Father James Campbell Barrs and his only living brother, William W. Barrs, his oldest son John Henry L. Barrs and a cousin James M. Barrs fought in the American War Between the States, for the Confederate States of America. We know that James M. Barrs enlisted in the “Wakulla Tigers” Regiment. He was wounded at the Battle of Gettysburg on July 2, 1863. He recovered and returned to Leon, Wakulla County Florida where he married Elizabeth Prince and returned to farming until his death.

One of my lines of Barrs from Day, Lafayette County Florida, Pvt. Howard Gadsen Barrs of Company A, 158 Engineering Battalion, even survived the infamous Bataan Death March in the Philippine Islands during WW II. What a story he could have told us. I remember his talking about his experience briefly with my Father 'Fonso' (Alfonso) Barrs, Sr. On and on the stories go!

What was it like to marry young, move to a wilderness full of Native American "savages" and wild predatory animals, such as Red Wolf, Panther, and Bear, and be expected to provide for a new wife and a growing family with an axe, saw, plow, musket and no hospital or doctor within miles? It is now too late for many of us to ask our pioneer ancestors these questions? Of course it is, but you can ask your oldest living relatives what their lives were like and what they remember their parents and grand parents said about their lives and what they were told by their parents and grand parents about the "good ole days."

You too can take pencil or computer in hand and write an autobiography ...even if you aren't a writer. I did!

With luck your story will be passed down from generation to generation. If you write a biography of your ancestral grandparents, your grandchildren could have an idea of what life was like for them -- a span of perhaps five generations.

Your children, while young, might think of you as dull; mine did. But your great-grandchildren, assuming one finds a copy of your autobiography in an old trunk in an attic sometime in the future, might find you life fascinating and uplifting.

And, maybe they too, like you, will want to learn more, research and write more about your any our family's history.

I know at least one of my own grand children outwardly began to feel that they really were somebody worthy when he learned that his ancestral grand fathers on both sides of my family fought in the American Revolutionary War. 

You grand children or future grand children too will experience an attitudinal change for the better when they learn about your ancestors, where they came from, how they got to America and how they lived and died.  Some facts may not be uplifting but even outlaws and scoundrels have a story to tell and they are often fascinating stories to pass along before you take them to the grave with you.

Some people have a hard time thinking of anything to say and write. Some ramble along for hours at the slightest provocation...like I do.  Family reunions are a great place to get older relatives talking about the "good ole days." I have learned much from family members who attend our Barrs family reunions, such as Mr. Corris Herndon. Mr. Herndon of Homerville, Georgia is an encyclopedia of information about his and our family and gives of it freely.  He was a gold mine of Barrs family history information and stories, but unfortunately he passed away in 2001 taking much family history with him. 

I'm that second type of person, I like to do research and write now that I have retired from business. My career as a corporate manager, training designer and training executive required that I do a lot of writing so it comes easy and natural to me.  But, not when I was a kid!  I hate to write just like you may.  Relax! Go ahead and don't worry about mistakes. Just get the story down on paper. I strongly believe the ability to communicate effectively to others is more important than the grammar one uses.  Go ahead and communicate!

On the other hand many individuals don't feel comfortable putting their thoughts and feeling on paper. If you are one of those individuals who doesn't want to write or type, go to the store and buy a small tape or video recorder.  Very few of us write the same way we talk anyway so don't be concerned about how you might sound.  Do it! Do it today. Tomorrow may be to late to take action.

I have written many pages of general and specific information about my relatives and ancestors. No, it's not organized yet, but it will be there if something should happen to me.  My wife, Priscilla (Priscilla Lee Jones-Barrs)...I call her "Sue," or one or more of our 3 daughters, Debbie Lee, Susan Elaine or Terri Ann, or grand children can sort it all out and continue the documentation of our own individual family history.  Your relatives can do the same. And, you can organize the effort.

And, indeed we are lucky; my mother Evia Adetha Bell-Barrs/Knouse began writing a Barrs/Bell/Morgan/Newman/Green/Toole/Fielding family history many years ago and well before I become interested in "my" family heritage. Short family member stories are important too. 

Take for example the knowledge that I call my wife "Sue" when her name is Priscilla Lee. Actually her nickname comes from her father Marvin Eldon Jones, Sr. He said when Priscilla was a baby she would run around the house looking like she was doing the "Susie-Q."  The Susie-Q was an early 20th century dance. When we started dating in 1954, I believe it was, I named my old 1950 Ford sedan “Suzie-Q.”  The name just stuck.

Now Priscilla is “Sue” to me and most other folks. Some ask if Priscilla is my first wife when I introduce Sue.  I say, "yes”, Priscilla was my first wife and Sue is my first wife and no I'm not a bigamist, her given name is Priscilla, but I call her Sue and then we have to tell the story related above. Our Great-Great Grand Children won't know this story if its not told and put down in writing for them to read and tell their grandchildren.

So now you have the simple and short story of how a family member got, or earned, their nickname. You too can write about your family connections and add to all of our family's collective history records.  Today is not to late to begin!

Following are a series of questions about your life.  If you answer all of these questions in complete sentences you will have a start on writing an autobiography. That's how easy it really is. If you answer each question with a couple of paragraphs you will have thirty or more pages of heirloom more valuable than its weight in gold to your descendants.

When I was younger I could never think of enough to say. I was bashful and withdrawn. I can remember sitting in a classroom after a long summer, sweating over the annual essay assignment to answer the teacher's question "What did you do over the summer vacation?" 

My teacher, who tried valiantly to develop my prose style and handwriting, would not accept the simple answer.  She wanted detail.  Now that I'm an old geezer my problem is just the reverse. I ramble on for pages at the slightest excuse, while my children yawn from boredom.  But as I did as a child, I know they to will someday get over that disengagement and appreciate reading about their family heritage and history.

I was surprised to find that some adults still have problems thinking of enough to say. In the course of gathering genealogical information I've asked my older relatives to write a short memoir. Some of them asked for a guide. Not outright but they say something like, "Oh, what sort of things do you want to know about?" Give them a list of open-ended questions so they will have to respond with a statement rather than a "yes" or "no" answer.

The short answer comes from putting yourself in someone else's shoes. What information would you have liked your great-great-grand parents to have written and left about themselves for you and your children to read and discuss? I sometimes stop, when I'm tracing some ancestor who was married at a young age and lived six days from civilization to wonder...what was their every-day life really like?

Did they dance at their wedding? Did friends and neighbors gather in the hard-packed dirt between the house and the barn, to make merry with a couple of jugs and a fiddle? Or, was it a solemn religious service conducted in a log or clapboard church, as quiet and subdued as a Quaker meeting?

What was it like for a great-great grandmother to start keeping house at a young age in a log cabin with a dirt floor? What was it like for the groom, to be so young and yet to have been expected to provide for a wife and a young family with a mule and plow, a crosscut saw, a double-bladed ax and an old musket?

What follows this exchange may be a long answer. But that's good! The following are some things I would like to know about my Barrs/Bell/ Morgan/Newman/Toole/Campbell/Grissman and other ancestors.

These questions are just a guide. No one will want to answer all of them. For almost any category (occupation, schooling, religion, courtship, military service, etc.) or any age (child, teenager, young adult, young married, middle aged) you could ask yourself first, what was an ordinary day like? Again the answer might seem boring now, but probably won't be to your great-grandchildren.

My grandparents didn't think hitching up a horse and buggy to go into town for supplies, or helping grandma's mother cook for a cotton or tobacco harvest crew, or butchering hogs in the chill of autumn was all that interesting.

When I tell my children and grandchildren the stories they told me they are hearing about what life was like 100 years ago.

After the ordinary part and again for each period and category, ask what were the most exciting things that happened, the proudest moment, the funniest events and the saddest moment of their lives? Don't forget those anecdotes that were horribly embarrassing at the time but funny when we look back on them. These lighten-up "your" family story.

Childhood and School Days

Where and when were you born: In a hospital, at home or in a taxicab or a buggy? (My children remember their mother telling them about when our youngest daughter, Terri Ann was overdue I took their mom for a long car ride over a bumpy road up and down hills around Tallahassee, Florida.  Don't laugh it worked!)

Where and when did you go to school (elementary, high school, college, trade school, and/or graduate school)? What did you major in?  What were your favorite subjects? Why were they your favorites?

What were your favorite hobbies, sports, amusements, social groups, (Such as the Scouts, 4-H Club, FFA, Key Club, etc.) as a child, as an adolescent, a teen-ager or a young adult?

What would a typical school day, Saturday, Sunday have been like as a child, teenager, young adult or older person many years ago? Chores, for instance, have changed a lot since children had to fetch water, chop kindling and hold a leg while Dad butchered a hog. I know a man whose teenager has to delete all the temporary files from the family's computers once a week, since his younger children "draw" a lot but aren't trusted with the file manager.  Times have changed!

Did you get an allowance? If you had an after school or summer job, what did you do? What did you like about it? What did you dislike about it? What was the funniest thing that happened on the job? How much did you earn? What would that buy in terms of what things cost today? What did you spend your earnings on?

Where did you live as a child, a teen-ager, a young adult and an adult? Have you written down a chronological account of your family's moves? These are important facts when tracking a family's genealogical history. What were the houses like in which your family lived? What were the towns and neighborhoods like? What were the people like? What do you remember liking and disliking about it? Did you have a bike? 

How long did it take to learn to ride your bike and how many timed did you fall? As an adult, why did you pick the places you chose to live (Specific apartments, neighborhoods, cities and regions)?

What was the most exciting thing that happened to you as a child, teen-ager and young adult or adult? And, what were the three most, five most, seven most exciting things you have experienced during your lifetime?

Romance, Work, Play and Family History

Where and how did you and your spouse meet? What attracted you to each other? Do you have a favorite incident from your courtship that was either funny in the ordinary way or embarrassing then but funny now that some years have passed?

What was your wedding like? Where and when was it held? Was this typical for the time? Did you dance? What did people wear? (Those of you who changed out of a rented tuxedo into a powder blue polyester leisure suit for the reception will want to skip this one.) Are there pictures of the wedding?  Where are they?  Who has the family pictures? Who has the family Bible? What seemingly terrible thing happened at your wedding?

My bride lost her vale and was heart broke before she even go to the church, but she got over it quickly when her high heel got caught in the heating system grate in the aisle as she began solemnly walking down to the pulpit. She kept thinking, "Disasters come in threes...what will happen next?"  Forth six years later she laughs about it and is still looking for number three.

Military service - Did you serve? When and where did you serve? Why did you choose a particular branch of service, if you had a choice? What were the most exciting things that happened to you in the service, the funniest and the most frightening? This particular section can get intense if you are interviewing a WW II, Korean Police Action or Vietnam War veteran. Try to be sensitive to their feelings and emotions.

If your relative is willing, ask about his or her reactions to the war effort at home while you were in service. There will probably not be many funny anecdotes here regardless of what war or non-war period they may have served our Country. It is they who have fought for and guaranteed our freedom and we only want to remember their sacrifice.

Occupation - what did you do? Why did you choose a particular occupation as a career? What did you especially like and dislike about the job(s) you performed? What are some of the things that you are proudest of having accomplished? What was your starting salary for your first full-time job? How much was that in terms of a "starter" home or a car? (Inflation being what it is, most of us started working at wages that seem ridiculously low today.) Asking how much a car, house or whatever cost back then gives our grand children a perspective of our economic situation when we were young and living in the "good ole days." You may only have earned $2,000 a year at a variety of part time and summer jobs while in college, but it was probably enough to cover room, board, tuition, books and living expenses. Not so today.

What did you do outside your job as an adult? Why did you do it? What did you like or dislike about it?  What were the funny, proud and sad events you experienced? Don't ask for just volunteer work but hobbies, recreation, travel and so on.

Do you bird watch, water ski, play the banjo, hunt, fish, garden, teach Sunday school, volunteer at the library, collect stamps, refinish antiques, garden or rebuild old cars? What?

What historical events have you witnessed in person, heard over the radio or seen on television? How did you, your friends and neighbors react to these events?

Religion, Children, History

Religion - Why did you choose your particular denomination, if you did? What did you like and/or dislike about it?  What was the funniest thing that ever happened to you in church? What was the most awe-inspiring thing you remember happening to you at church? What was your proudest moment? What was your saddest moment? What was the top church event you can recall? List things that were horribly embarrassing but funny now that a few years have passed?

Children - where and when were they born? How did you pick their names? What were they like as infants, toddlers and adults?

Most of the questions here are as open and optional as I could phrase them. Each parent writing this information will have to come up with at least one anecdote about each of their children, for the great grandchildren to someday chuckle over.

Larger events, personal perspective - What do you notice is the biggest change in the world today from the world you knew, or thought you knew, as a child? What one, three or five things can you remember being invented in your lifetime that people today take for granted? I remember having no electrical power in our farmhouse and no television.

(The first time I saw a television set the horizontal hold was off; it was showing a boxing match. The top half of the screen showed the boxer's legs, the bottom half their heads, arms and chests. I thought there was a special double-decked boxing arena, and the TV was showing two matches at once.)

Eating - Holidays and Hard Times

Boy, can those Barrs women cook! Food and cooking makes memories and binds families together. How did you celebrate Easter, Thanksgiving and Christmas? What did you eat? Who cooked and how was it cooked? Did your father cook? How did you decorate the house, if you did? Did you do anything special for breakfast, lunch or dinner on your birthday on the weekend or on Sunday? Did your mom have birthday parties for you?

If you are writing an autobiography, and are a United States of America citizen between 25 and 50, there is a good chance Super Bowl Sunday is one of your major holidays. If you are English, there is a good chance the Cricket Matches is one of your major events. Don't forget to describe it. Did your family celebrate any holidays that were special to your religious or ethnic heritage? This would be a good place to ask about heirloom recipes, too. What was your favorite meal, apart from the holidays?

Not everyone had steak every Saturday night when they were growing up. Describe your hard times. Maybe your children and grand children will appreciate what they have today if you do. 

Maybe, just maybe, they will pick up their room without being told. If you lived in the county on a farm when did your parents take you to town?  How often did you get to go to town? What did you do in town?  Was there a theatre or a 5 and 10¢ Store? What did it cost to see a movie?  What kind of movies did you see?  Was there a "serial" shown every Saturday like when I was young?

The Unknown Side

The next question is one I ask at dinner parties a lot. "What have you done that no one would guess you had ever done?" They may surprise you and tell you something no one else ever knew about them. Your deed doesn't have to be a grand death-defying stunt. It can just be something to make your grandchildren say, "Wow - I never knew that!" Something like the individual who contacted me recently asking if I could help trace their father's heritage. Their father was in his late seventies and they were surprised when he told them one day out of the blue that he was born a Barrs and that he had been given to the couple that raised him when he was only five years old. He had never mentioned that he was born a Barrs in all those years. What a surprise to his children.

There are a lot of subjects that don't fit any of the above topics very well. Many of them are what I call the "best" and "worst" of questions. What is the best meal you have ever eaten? What was the worst meal? What are the ten best, for that matter, and three worst meals you ever had? What was the best vacation you and your family ever took? What was the worst vacation? What was the nicest act of human kindness you've performed or benefited from?

What was the most beautiful sunset, sunrise, creek, river, lake, waterfall, and rolling hillside covered with wildflowers, etc. you have ever seen? What was the most fancy party or prom you have ever attended? Did you have a Sweet Sixteen Party or Coming Out Party? What was the most fun you ever had in a single day...in your entire life?

Now that I know my heritage I am proud of it and of the Barrs family.

Now, make a list of your own questions. Then ask them every chance you get.  When your grandparents are gone the knowledge they held is gone with them unless you actively gather and record it.  Now isn't to late to begin!

Get cracking and good luck...Al BarrsThis CD-ROM Barrs Family History book and its accompanying addendum, family picture album and other documents were written and assembled for education purposes only and is not for sale.  Many hours have been devoted to retracing the routes and steps of our Barrs ancestors and surname derivatives.  Here we follow their journey from Scandinavian Denmark to Old Normandy, to France, to England and finally to America and the United States of America.

We do not wish to have the Barrs trail ever grow cold again so are making this offer and challenge to you and your descendants.

Here is my challenge to you...  I will waive my Copyright (©) to any Barrs family member, no matter which line, if you will agree to do the following 3 things:

1. Use the family information gathering master form, located in the addendum section of this book, to gather your Barrs family information. Make copies and gather all the information you can about your direct line of Barrs as far back as you possibly can. Then add your information to the Addendum section of this Barrs Family History Book. Make this CD-ROM book your family history book.

2.  Then, make one copy for each of your children and ask them to do what you have agreed to do in number 1 above.

3.  Finally, I ask that you agree to find and attend Barrs Family Reunions and make other Barrs aware of this book and where they can obtain a copy for their children.

 Feel free to contact me at…

Quail Ridge Farm

4731 Georgia Road

Greenwood, Florida 32443-1839 U.S.A.

Have you ever read history and wondered if your ancestors were involved in a particular event?  If you have, find out more here... Dream the good dream!

Families are like trees.  They put down roots and grow limbs, twigs, leaves and flowers. All trees have roots.  Some roots grow straight down, deep into the subsoil, and are called taproots.  Some roots spread diagonally outward from the trunk of the tree to gather scarce nutrients.  The Barrs family tree too has prospered and grown deep taproots and outward feeder roots from its small but sturdy trunk through the centuries.  (Note the Barrs Coat of Arms helmet crest. It may not have belonged to one of our ancestors, but it is appropriate.  It's a chopped down tree that won't die as depicted by the fresh growth of a sturdy limb and green leaves that continue to live and grown.)  Leaves die and fall to the ground as time passes each year.

Aptly the Barrs family motto was and still is 'FORTITUDE!'

Our relatively small family has spread from Europe to England to the United States and many other countries around the World.  From its germination in Scandinavian, probably Denmark Europe to Old Normandy and France the Barrs family tree sprouted many hundreds of years ago.  In England it grew into a sturdy but small tree. And, in America it has grown and spread its branches. 

Considering family size the Barrs family is small compared to other families. Take for example the fact that the Barrs family surname is the 19,822nd most popular name in the United States of America.  This may also be due to the large numbers of female Barrs who took their husband's surname and are all but lost to history. But the Barrs family has been and is tough and resolute in its will to survive and prosper.  The word "Fortitude" is aptly attached to our Barrs heritage.

It's important to have an understanding of where our family and family surname came from in order to visualize their lives, feelings, occupations and experiences. To understand the countries, people, times and social groups and communities they lived in, and yes even where they have died and are buried is to experience life, as they knew it. We must ask ourselves many questions and seek answers from history and loved ones if we are to understand and be able to visualize what life was like in those "good ole days." 

What were the times, in which each generation lived, like for our ancestors?  How did they live?  What did they eat? What types of housing did they live in?  What types of clothing did they make and wear?  What was the weather like?  Why and when did they live in and emigrate from one area to another?  What were their occupations? How many were farmers? How many farm today?

How did they get from Europe to Great Briton...to America? Why did they immigrate? Was it famine, war or just the urge to see what was over the next mountain or across the next ocean?  What did they do first when they arrived in Briton and America?  Were they free people, warriors, indentured slaves, criminals, wealthy, poor, and so on? Could they do as they chose or were they under the control of others, such as a lord, a king, a dictator, a church, or a family leader?  Why did they make the decision to leave Europe and settle in England and later America?

The European de La Barre family was probably Huguenot.  Huguenots were the forerunners of the Methodist movement in the United States of America. John Wesley was their leader in America. The Barrs have a number of men who were named after notable individuals, for example John Wesley Barrs brother of Great Grandfather Isaac Newton Barrs.

The Huguenot's beliefs didn't sit well with competing Church leaders either. To escape the great French massacre of 1572 the Huguenots (Methodist today) fled across the English Channel and found temporary refuge in Briton, today the United Kingdom.

Following is a historical perspective on the areas in Europe, England and America in which we first find the family surname de La Barre in Old Normandy, later to become Barre and Barres in France and then in England de Bars, Barres and later Barrs and in the United States of America Barrs as well.

Why did other Barre settle in south central England and become Barres and finally Barrs? Let us explore together our long family history not as individuals but as a family.  Individual Barrs are important to other individual Barrs but The Barrs Family is important to all we Barrs regardless of whether or not we can make family line connections today.

Remember at one time there was one person who called himself your surname...de La Barre, Barres, de Bars, Bares, Barr and finally today Barrs.

The Barrs family surname history begins in Old Normandy in Belgium, which is now a part of France.  Where our ancestors came from to Normandy we do not know exactly because families did not begin to use surnames until around 1000 AD.  We do know that early Vikings farmers settled Old Normandy after cold springs and summers made it impossible to grow crops in Scandinavia.  We also know the majority of these farmers were from Denmark. We know that many Barrs have been farmers in England and America. Many still farm. Were our early Barrs ancestors Viking farmers and part-time warriors too?

Did any Barrs ancestors accompany Leif Erickson or Eric the Red, the well documented Viking explorer father and son team, to Greenland and North America well before Columbus sailed the ocean blue?  Maybe...maybe not, but it's something to think, talk and dream about today. Someone made the trip to America with these brave ancient sailors and explorers. To my knowledge there is no record of farming during Leaf Erickson and Eric the Red’s voyages to America.

Before the concept of surnames emerged, and because family units were so scattered, only Christian or first names had been used. And, these Christian names were often reflective of physical traits, occupations, locations or prowess.  Some historical accounts say that Barre meant "Keeper of the Gate or Town."  Some accounts say that it means "Dweller At, Or Near, the Entrance of o City or Town."  What do you think the meaning of 'Barre' or 'Barrs' is? 

 We do know from history that family groups lived in isolated villages normally surrounded by a wooden stockade.  So, these assertions may very well be close to the true.  We also have learned that at least one Barrs family member's motto was "FORTITUDE" which also reflects the guardian of a stockaded village or town. Were our ancestors warriors before they became farmers and businessmen?  Were they both? From where did they come to Denmark from?

Were they farmers who were pressed into military service by rulers and kings? Probably!
So far I have not been successful in learning whether or not our family came to the Old Normandy region from someplace north of Normandy, from Scandinavian countries; south of Normandy, from Spain, France or Italy; or from the west, from Germany, Russia or other mid-European regions.  We only know that Viking farmers from Denmark first settled Old Normandy. So, this is where I have chosen to pick up the story of our BARRS family line.

We all must keep searching for our ultimate BARRS family roots for our children and grand children's sake.

THE VIKINGS (793 AD-1066 AD)

The Viking Era (Viking Farmers)

The Viking era began with the sacking of the monastery at Lindisfarne in 793 AD and ended in 1066 AD at the Battle of Stanford Bridge where King Harald Hardråde was killed.  These two bloody events mark the opening and closing of an era in Nordic history, which featured dramatic social change. This came to be known as "The Viking Era."  When it started, paganism dominated and the countries were fragmented into countless chiefdoms and minor kingdoms.

When the Viking Era ended, power had been vested in the king and church. For the first time in history we see a west European type society emerging.

Modern written records in Western Europe describe the Vikings as robbers and pirates who burned, pillaged and raped. Laying waste monasteries and churches, they terrorized Christian Europe.  Yes, but they did more.

Arabian sources describe them cruising along the Russian rivers to the Black and Caspian Seas, trading and pillaging as they went. Viking sorties also reached into the Mediterranean Sea.

Danish kings succeeded in conquering England at the latter stages of the Viking Era. The Viking Chieftain Rollo established his own kingdom in Normandy.  Neither before, nor since in European history have the Nordic peoples exercised such political importance.

PEACEFUL ASPECTS OF THE VIKING ERA

Excavations of towns and settlements have provided new insight into daily life, crafts and trade. A powerful surge in trading took place in Europe during the 700’s and the first towns where established in Scandinavia. During the period 800-900 AD, the Vikings played a central role in the burgeoning commercial trade, which was drawing Europe together. Cities like York in northern England and Dublin in Ireland were Scandinavian communities. Toft is a Viking term for "homestead." The Barrs lived many years in Toft Hamlet in Warwickshire.

WIDESPREAD EMIGRATION

Compared to population size, there was a scarcity of resources in many parts of the Nordic region. Voyages to the south, east and west gave the peoples an opportunity to seek out new and better living conditions. So the Vikings by the thousands hunted out places where they could settle and farm.

With the aid of the sword, they established themselves in Normandy and England. Other places the Vikings came across were already sparsely populated, like the Hebrides, Shetlands and the Orkney Islands.

The Vikings were the first settlers on Iceland, the Faeroe Islands and Greenland.

Archaeological excavations have shown that the Vikings also attempted to settle in Newfoundland. Their lack of success was probably due to conflicts with the native population, i.e. Native Americans.

THE BEST OF SHIPS

The art of shipbuilding was well developed but in the 700’s a technological breakthrough was achieved which was to affect marauding raids, commercial voyages and emigration.

KEEL BOATS APPEAR

With the discovery, the Viking ships could now be developed to carry sail. They were faster and better suited to sail than any other ship of that time. The Viking ships also had the advantage that they could navigate shallow waters. They could therefore slip easily up rivers and onto shallow shorelines.

Thanks to Vestvagoy: © Vestvågøy Kommune, August 1995

THE ANGLO-SAXON INVASION OF BRITON

History of BARRS before 1000 AD

Now, for a Barrs family history lesson to help our young Barrs visualize and understand where and how their Barrs families may have originated, lived, loved and died in those long ago and far away places that are to often forgotten and over looked today in our family's culture and history. The story begins in about the year 400 AD.

The English are coming!

Rome had dominated and ruled Briton before 410 AD. In 410 AD the Roman legions were recalled to defend Rome against barbarian attacks. Britain was left to fend for herself. (The rulers of Britain after 410 AD are referred to as 'Tyrants' because their authority had no legitimacy in the Roman's eyes.) Having no standing armies left the British people were left open to attack from the Picts (probably by sea from down the east coast of England.). 

The Picts are described in one late Roman source as a sea-going people and just like the Saxons. With this situation existing in Britain we find the following:

' In the year 449 AD Mauricius and Valentinian obtained the Kingdom and reigned for seven years. In their days Hengest and Horsa, invited by Vortigern King of the Britons, came to Britain at a place called Ebbsfleet at first to help the Britons, but later they fought against the King. The King ordered them to fight against the Picts, and so they did and had victory wherever they came. They then sent to Angeln [i.e. Denmark]; ordered them to send them more aid and to be told of the worthlessness of the Britons and of the excellence of the land. They sent them more aid. These men came from three nations of Germany: from the Old Saxons, from the Angles, from the Jutes. From the Jutes came the people of Kent and the people of the Isle of Wight, that is the race that now dwells in the Isle of Wight, and the race among the West Saxons that is still called the race of the Jutes. From the Old Saxons came the East Saxons and South Saxons and West Saxons. From Angel, which has stood waste ever since between the Jutes and the Saxons, came the East Angles, Middle Angles, Mercians and all the Northumbrians.'

This account, of the migrations from Germany following the collapse of the Roman Empire, is taken from the Anglo-Saxon Chronicles and it describes how the later Anglo-Saxons saw the first arrival of their people in Briton.

Since then and until quite recently, it has remained the accepted view of what happened. However, recent researches have shown it to be wrong in almost every detail. It is even uncertain whether Hengest and Horsa ever existed or whether they were actually the same person.  Although Hengest may have been the first Germanic chieftain of Kent, he was probably no more than a Warlord.

The first Germanic King was probably his son Oisc, giving the Kentish Royal House the name of the 'Oiscingas.'  While it may be true that a British King (who may or may not have been called Vortigern) employed Germanic mercenaries to help him in his battles against the Picts (or perhaps just another British King), it would certainly not be the first instance of Germanic settlers in Britain.

It is known that the Romans had stationed Germanic troops in Britain since at least the third century. It is also known that some of these troops settled in Britain and Germanic pirates were raiding Britain from at least this date too. So the 'excellence of the land' would have already been well known on the European continent.

Archaeology has shown that by the late fourth century Germanic mercenaries were to be found settled all along the east coast of Britain, and along the banks of the Thames River at least as far as Oxfordshire.

The British 'tyrants' also feared a Roman invasion from Gaul would remove them, so some of the Saxons stationed in southern England may have been a guard against Roman military intervention. This was a far cry from the old view that the Britons missed the presence of the Roman Legions. It is also known that the peoples who made up the 'Anglo-Saxons' were far more varied than just the three groups mentioned.

For ease of reference I will use the name 'Anglo-Saxon' to refer to those Germanic people who settled in Britain, even though this is not what they would have thought of themselves as at this time. Certainly there were Jutes (probably not exclusively from Jutland as many people think, but also from the Frankish Rhineland), Saxons (from northern Germany) and Angles (from southern Denmark).

These may have formed the bulk of the migrating people, but there were also Frisians (from the Low Countries). The Frisian language shared in all the more important sound changes which distinguish English from German on one hand and the Scandinavian languages on the other, Geats (from Gotland and south-east Sweden), Franks (from northern France and central Germany), Wends (from the southern Baltic lands), Swedes, Norwegians, and many others contributed.

Even the totally violent nature of their arrival is now thought to have been exaggerated.  While it is certainly true that the newcomers did fight against the Britons (As the Invaders called them, the "Wealas" - an Old English word meaning slave or foreigner.). In many regions much of the settlement was peaceful with farmers and craftsmen integrating themselves into existing communities. The number of the invaders was certainly large and they certainly did affect the nature of British society, even to the extent of replacing the primary language. But they did not wipe out the native population.

One current school of thought is that the graves found in Anglo-Saxon cemeteries with no grave goods may in fact belong to Britons living along side 'Anglo-Saxons', and the lack of grave goods represents the different burial customs of these Britons.

If this is true the number of Germanic peoples may not have been as great as many people think. The Germanic people have only replacing the middle and upper echelons of the British society. It is also thought that some of the 'Anglo-Saxon' burials may actually be native Britons who adopted the ways of the 'Anglo-Saxons', just as they had done several centuries earlier with the Romans.  

It is most likely that a mixture of all these situations happened. In some places the native Britons were almost entirely replaced by the newcomers. In some places the two nationalities lived side by side, and in other places the population remained almost exclusively British, although these British people gradually adopted the ways and language of the invaders.

Whatever the nature of the influx of Germanic peoples, we know that it did not happen overnight and that it was not entirely peaceful. Fifty years after the traditional arrival of Hengest and Horsa there was still fighting going on for control of the land.

Some of this was between the Britons and the invaders.  This was the time of Ambrosius Aurelianus (probably the King Arthur of legend) a Romano-British chieftain. Some of the fighting was between different Germanic tribes with each group struggling for supremacy.

Around the year 500 AD the Britons (probably under the leadership of Ambrosius Aurelianus) won a great battle at Mons Badonicus (Mount Badon). This victory halted the tide of Germanic invaders to such an extent that several continental sources show the Germanic expansion switched to northern Frankia (including Germanic peoples leaving England). It also appears that many Britons left Britain for northern Gaul and turned the peninsula of Armorica into what is called Brittany. For about a half century there was relative peace with the British having total rule over the western half of the country and Germanic rule in the east. It seems probable that the Britons may even have won back some parts of central England from the invaders. (A fact the Anglo-Saxon Chronicles seem to gloss over.)

By the middle of the fifth century the Germans started a second wave of colonization that ended with most of lowland Britain falling under the control of many Germanic 'Kings' (Most of the later Kingdoms were founded during this period.).

The British culture was relegated to the western fringes of the country in Dumnonia (Devon and Cornwall) and Wales. The name of which is derived from the word "wealas" mentioned above. In the north there was the British Kingdom of Strathclyde and the independent British Kingdom of Elmet, which stretched westwards for many miles from the marshes at the head of the Humber, and separated the Angles of the northern Midlands from those of the Plain of York.

This division allowed the occasional King to gain supremacy over the other tribes (Old English Bretwalda). They became known as the 'King of all England South of the Humber'. The first of these Kings was Elle, King of Sussex from 477 AD. The second King was Ceawlin, King of Wessex from 560 AD. It is also the reason Germanic people living north of the Humber are recorded as the Nordanhymbroron gens, or Northumbrians, while the Germanic people living between the Humber and the Channel are referred to as Sutangli, or southern English (the earliest case of the North/South divide).

The Northumbrian Angles were divided into two main tribes: the Dere (Deirans) and Bernice (Bernicians). The southern English comprised the Lindisfaran (Kingdom of Lindsey which may have been founded as a combined British/Germanic Kingdom several decades before the traditional Germanic invasion).

The Mierce (Mercians), the Eastengle (East Angles), the Eastseaxe (Essex), the West Seaxe (Wessex), the Suthseaxe (Sussex), the Middelseaxan (Middlesex), the Cantware (Men of Kent), Wihtland (people of the Isle of Wight), Hwicce (Gloucestershire, Worcestershire and western Warwickshire) and a loose confederation of small tribes known as the Middle Angles in central England came into existence during this period.

The Germanic peoples who, in the days of the Roman Empire, had occupied territory stretching from Scandinavia to the Danube River, from Gaul to beyond the Vistula, shared a common heritage.

Although similar in many ways to the Celtic people, their culture was distinctly different. For example, they spoke various dialects of a Germanic language (not the Gallic language of the Celts) and they worshipped the Norman, not the Roman or Celtic, gods.

The war-oriented, Teutonic lifestyle had become traditional among the tribes. They shared, according to Tacitus, veneration for the prophetic powers of women and a predilection for feasting and drinking. The Germans who settled in Britain transmitted these traditional features of Teutonic culture to their descendants.  Anglo-Saxons celebrated them to such an extent that one can find the ancient themes in literary works composed as late as the tenth century AD, long after the disappearance of a tribal society.

Various German societies demonstrably retained features in common although they settled over a wide geographical area during a long period of time. And, they nourished their 'barbarian' culture despite the proximity of the Roman Empire.

This lack of change is useful to us when studying the early Germanic immigrants, since their illiteracy for a century and a half, after settlement, inevitably leaves a gap in the British historical record, a gap that can be filled, at least partially, by written accounts from outside observers (Tacitus' Germania gives us many details of life amongst the Germanic tribes, as do other classical texts).

CLOTHING AND APPEARANCE

OF THE PAGAN ANGLO-SAXONS

There is very little direct evidence of the types of clothing the early 'Anglo-Saxons' wore. The surviving textiles are only fragmentary (usually in a mineralized form on metal artifacts) and there is little or no pictorial or literary evidence from Briton. Fortunately we do have records of the continental Germanic peoples, both from surviving garments and late Roman pictorial and literary representations. The link between the early 'Anglo-Saxons' and their continental relatives can easily be shown from the high degree of similarity between burials, pottery, jewelry, etc.

Men's Clothing

Continental evidence indicates that a short cloak or cape, made of skin or fur (usually sheepskin), was an important feature of Germanic men's costume. Caesar and Tacitus mention this garment as being sometime the only garment worn, and Iron Age discoveries from Danish peat bogs would seem to confirm their observations (although it is considered unlikely that the early 'Anglo-Saxons' would have gone naked except for a cloak).

They seem to have worn the fur-side inwards, skin-side out and secured them by lacing, sewing, tying, or by securing wooden or leather toggles through loops of leather (i.e. they did not require pins or brooches). Cloth cloaks, short or knee length, were also common. These cloaks were not tailored, but consisted of a square or rectangle of cloth that was clasped at one shoulder, usually the right shoulder.

Cloaks would be woven in one piece on an upright loom. Often, to begin and end the weaving, tablet woven borders would be used. Similar borders could also be woven-in at the sides, thus edging the garment all the way around. Particularly noteworthy are the large and luxurious cloaks found in the peat bogs of Thorsbjerg, Denmark and Vehenmoor, Germany. Both were of a complex weave and dyed with precious dyes in different colors.

The edges of the Thorsbjerg garment were braided on more than one hundred tablets, the Vehenmoor on about one hundred and forty six, and both had elaborate fringes. The Thorsbjerg garment was about 66'' (1.68m) wide and 93'' (2.36m) long, the Vehenmoor 69'' (1.75m) by about 112'' (2.85m).

They were worn by folding the material lengthwise and pinning it on the right shoulder. It is very probable that the richest Anglo-Saxons wore voluminous cloaks of this kind; less luxurious versions would also have been common. They are versatile and practical since unpinning and unfolding them turns them into blankets.

A different type of cloak in use by the Germanic peoples was a poncho type garment with a central hole for the head. There are no representations of a man's poncho in Anglo-Saxon art (although some women in late Anglo-Saxon England seem to have worn a poncho like garment) and no direct evidence exists that it was worn in Anglo-Saxon England, but it is certainly a type of garment that might be known, if uncommon.

Another type of outer garment, possibly worn by the early Germanic settlers, was the hooded robe, known to modern scholars as the 'Gallic coat.'  It seems likely that cloaks could be made from skin or textile and could vary in size from small capes to large voluminous cloaks of the Thorsbjerg / Vehenmoor type.

There are many Old English words for these outer garments and both sexes could wear the hacele (a cloak which might be hooded), the mentel and the sciccels (which could be made of fur). Men wore the fur crusene and heden (which could be hooded) and the rocc (which could be made of fur or skin). Men wore the ofer-slop. So was the loþa (which could be made of shaggy fabric and used as a coverlet as well as a cloak). There is no evidence to which sex wore the rift (a cloak or curtain) and the sciccing.

We can be fairly certain the Germanic settlers wore trousers. The wearing of trousers had long distinguished the 'barbarians' from the Greeks and Romans (Although the Romans eventually adopted the wearing of trousers too.). They were sometimes worn beneath a tunic and sometimes worn only with a cloak. They were fastened around the waist with a belt. Pictorial representations often show them to be rather loose; the slack material was gathered round the waist and it hung in folds around the legs.

However, the examples known from archaeology are all much more closely fitting, more akin to the tight fitting leg coverings shown in later Anglo-Saxon manuscripts, so it seems that whether the trousers were tight or loose was primarily a matter of personal choice or tribal tradition. Trousers at this time seemed to have been ankle length, with the shorter trousers only remaining as undergarments.

Some high quality trousers seem to have had feet and belt loops in them, while others did not. Some examples have slits at the ankles to allow for the narrowness of the trousers. Trousers were referred to as brec (short trousers) and braccas (breeches or long trousers).

Trousers were bound to the legs by leggings or garters, several of which have been found in continental excavations. Two types are known from linguistic evidence that corresponds well with the archaeological finds.

First a legging proper, or stocking, made of woven fabric or leather; second a strip of fabric which could be used to tie on the leggings or confining the loose folds of the trousers (as well as covering up the ankle slit), or which could be wound around the shin and foot for warmth and protection, much like 'puttees' and probably known as strapulas or winingas.

Also known from archaeology are rectangles of cloth wound around the lower leg and tied in place with strings or ribbons. These may well be the gaiter like garment known as hosa, in which case the ribbons would be the hose-bend or wining known from linguistic sources. These may also have been made of leather since we know of the word leder-hosa.

However, it is also likely that the word hosa could also be used for the stocking like garment (especially when considering their similarity to the later medieval leg coverings known as 'hose'), in which case the hose-bend and wining could refer to the garter holding them up. A few Anglo-Saxon men may have been in the habit of carrying their knives or tools stuck into their leggings since a few small knives and tools have been found at the lower legs of skeletons in Anglo-Saxon graves.

Most men also wore a tunic, girdled at the waist and usually with long sleeves. These tunics are usually mid-thigh to knee length. On the excavated examples these sleeves are usually long enough to be folded back into a cuff (as on some Celtic tunics) or pushed back from the wrist in folds (as in later Anglo-Saxon examples), and often have the last few inches of the sleeve seams left open at the wrist to allow the hands to pass through (there are no examples of wrist clasps from male graves, so the slits may have been closed by tying, sewing, or left open). Some of these tunics also have the last few inches of the side seam left un-joined, to allow for easier movement. The neck openings on these early tunics were just slits or oval openings. Tunics were often decorated with tablet woven borders, but the ornate decoration of tunics like those of the late Roman type appears not to have been used.

Tunics at this time appear to have been known by the names cyrtel (It was probably the shorter type of tunic) and pad. It also seems that some men, possibly only the rich, wore a linen undershirt (at this time most linen was probably imported from mainland Europe and/or Ireland). This would be similar to the over-tunic (it is uncertain whether it would be worn outside the trousers or tucked into them), but made of undecorated linen. Words for this garment include cemes, ham, hemeðe, serc and smoc.

Belts were worn both to hold up the trousers and to girdle the tunic. Most belts were of leather and were fastened by buckles, although woven girdles could also be worn. Most belts were utilitarian items and were often used to hang items of equipment from, although some belt ornaments are known. All belts were not fastened with buckles.

Many would have been 'tie-belts' where one end of the leather belt is tied through a loop in the other end (a belt of this type was found on the body of the 'Tollund Man' in Denmark. It is likely that a plain belt (perhaps only a tie-belt) was used to support the trousers (where it would not be seen) while a more decorative belt was used over the tunic (where it would be more visible). Items like knives and pouches probably hung from the trouser belt rather than the tunic belt.

A few elaborate belts of the late Roman military type were still used, although most were plain, narrow (1.25" and less) leather belts.  Belts were known by the Old English words belt or fetel. Leather pouches known as fetels (to carry fire starting materials, not money) were also sometimes worn on the belt, and could often have a fire-steel attached to the front. Continental evidence suggests that these would be worn at the back of the belt.

Headgear is almost unknown in this country at this time, although there are rare examples on the continent. Probably hooded cloak, or the versatile rectangular cloak pulled over the head, provided protection against bad weather. The words hæt and hufe may have been applied to men's headgear, and the word hod probably signified a hood.

Women's Clothing

Women's costume in this period is a lot easier to reconstruct than men's, since it seems to have involved much jewelry that helps determine the whole costume's appearance. There are consistent features of all early Anglo-Saxon women's costume, although there are also several regional variations.

These are usually referred to as the Anglian, Saxon and Kentish or Jutish styles (and certainly their distribution coincides with Bede's description of which people settled where.

The basic item of clothing was a 'peplos' dress. This is usually a tubular garment (although it can be just a rectangle of cloth) clasped at the shoulders by a pair of brooches, leaving the arms uncovered. This type of garment has been worn by women in countless cultures from the earliest times and was clearly a feature of Germanic costume for many centuries. Excavated examples vary in size from 54" (1.37m) to 66" (1.68m) in height and 94" (2.40m) to 106" (2.68m) in circumference.

It is interesting to note that these measurements correspond closely to the measurements of the two cloaks mentioned above, so the cloaks could have been worn as open sided peplos dresses (it also gives us a clue as to the size and type of loom in use).

The height of these dresses would mean that the top of the dress would have to be folded over into a cape and/or the dress would have to be heavily bloused over a girdle, both features seen in continental pictorial representations. There are numerous ways of wearing a peplos dress, involving anything from one to three brooches, although two is definitely the most common number. It seems the early Germanic settlers were fond of a symmetrical look and most of the pairs of brooches are identical, or at least very similar. The girdle is usually worn around the waist or hips, although at least one source shows the women wearing the gown pulled in just below the breasts, then hanging loose, an arrangement which may have been comfortable during early pregnancy. The folds of the gown usually conceal the belt, but a few sources show a second visible belt. This garment was usually worn ankle length, although, if worn over an under-dress, it may sometimes have been worn calf length.

These garments were often edged with tablet weave, at least at the top edge, and probably sometimes also at the bottom. The style of brooches worn seem to form a regional pattern: quoit brooches were worn only south of the Thames and, like the equal armed brooch, were known only in the earliest period.

Radiate headed brooches, bird-shaped brooches and inlaid brooches were largely characteristic of Kent. Cruciform brooches were particularly popular in Anglian areas; the Northumbrian Angles especially favored annular brooches. Saucer brooches were most popular in Saxon areas, as were disc brooches.

Long brooches, in all their forms seem to have been fairly universal. (For more details on these terms see the jewelry section. Some poorer female graves have lacked the pairs of shoulder brooches, and it is probable that in these cases the two edges were sewn together, rather than pinned with brooches.

Peplos gowns were usually made of wool, although a few were made of linen. We do not know what name was given to this garment, although slop and wealca are the most likely.

In warm weather the peplos gown would have been worn on its own, but in cold weather, or on special occasions, an under-dress would have been worn. The style of this seems to have varied, in some cases perhaps only being a bodice, and in others being a full length 'gown'. The sleeves also seem to have varied in length from almost non-existent to full length.

The main types seem to be: a bodice with long, tight sleeves with an aperture at the front closed by a brooch, with the peplos fastened to this by another central brooch. (There may have also been a full-length version of this garment, or it may have been worn with a 'petticoat.'

This style is most often represented in Anglian areas, where wrist clasps were used to fasten the sleeves (this is a custom which seems to be almost exclusive to Anglian women), although a version without the wrist clasps may well have been worn in other areas. Another type would be a full length sleeveless, or short sleeved, under-dress (perhaps pleated like later Scandinavian examples), similar to the man's tunic and reaching to somewhere between the knee and ankle.

This garment seems to be more typical of the Saxon woman, although it may have been worn under, and in addition to, the bodice mentioned above. Finally, there is some continental pictorial evidence to suggest that a long 'petticoat' may have been worn under the peplos.

This would probably have taken the form of a cylinder of cloth worn around the waist or hips, drawn tight with a drawstring around the top edge. These undergarments would usually have been of linen or fine wool. There are several Old English words for undergarments but it is unclear which of them refer to women's garments. The words are cemes, ham, hemeðe, scyrte, serc and smoc.

The costume of Anglo-Saxon women in Pagan times was certainly girdled or belted, as demonstrated by the survival of the leather or textile from which the belt was made, by the numerous preservations in situ of fasteners such as buckles, and the regular discovery of objects at the hip or waist which had obviously been attached to belts.

Women's belts seem to have been fastened by many different ways including buckles, tie-belts, knotting, or perhaps, toggles. Many items hung from the belt including knives, shears, keys, toilet implements, cosmetic tools (tweezers, brushes, etc.), amulets, spindles, pouches, etc.

As well as the under-dress and peplos, many women also wore cloaks, capes or shawls. Cloaks would have been of the square or rectangular type worn by the men, although some representations show the cloak fastened centrally on women, rather than just at the shoulder. Shorter capes and shawls could also have been worn.

Names for outer garments are many, and it is not usually clear which men and which wore by women, but they include loþa, rift, mentel, hacele, ofer-slop, pad and sciccing.

The crusene and heden were of fur or skin, the rocc and sciccels could also be of fur. One cloak type garment exclusive to women seems to be the hwitel, which was made of white (undyed) wool and was probably fringed.

There is no evidence that in the Pagan period women habitually covered their heads like the later Anglo-Saxon women, but a number of types of headgear are known. A cloak or shawl could easily be drawn up over the head, to form a hood, and rectangular scarves, sometimes fringed are known from archaeology. Caps or hairnets of a technique known as sprang are known from pictorial and archaeological sources, often covering plaits or braids of hair.

Pictorial and archaeological evidence also suggest the use of veils, often of linen, draped loosely over unbound hair. A veil is prone to slip, or be blown by the wind, so if a veil was to be worn it would either have a band over it to secure it, or a fixed base, such as a braid of hair and/or a cap, could be used to pin it to. A few wealthy Kentish women were buried with gold brocaded fillets (perhaps known by the Latin word vitta, or the Old English words nostle, snod and þwæle), a fashion imported from the Frankish Kingdom.

Possibly women in humbler circumstances wore fillets made entirely of textile which has since rotted away. The linguistic evidence suggests a wider range of headgear than archaeology and sculpture.

The word hæt (hat) was in use as were cuffie (loose fitting hood or scarf) and scyfel (some kind of cap or hat). The binde, a fillet, seems to have been worn by married women.

We do not know how Anglo-Saxon women kept their legs warm, they may have simply added extra layers of gowns and petticoats, or they could have used some other method. They probably would have made use of short linen trousers (brec) and puttee type leg bindings (hose-bendas, winingas).

Women's costume in Kent, where settlement seems to have been mainly by Jutes and Frisians from the Frankish areas, seems to have been different from the Germanic norm, at least amongst the upper classes.

Apart from the gold brocaded fillets mentioned above (which may have been restricted to those of royal birth), it appears they may also have worn an open fronted robe, fastened with brooches at the chest and/or waist over, or in place of, the peplos gown.

It seems that a pair of brooches may also have sometimes been used to pin the two sides of the robe open, revealing the garment beneath. From the lowest brooch a silver caged crystal ball, often with a perforated silver spoon, would hang, in addition to the items normally found hanging from the belt. The exact purpose of this ball and spoon is uncertain, and it is usually ascribed ritual significance. A buckled belt and abundance of jewelry are also common features of Kentish costume.

The veil was also a common part of Kentish costume, and it is very likely to have covered the ears since earrings have been found, but worn on necklaces rather than in the ears. This style of headdress may have come from the continent, where Christianity was influencing dress and lifestyle. This costume is more typical of Frankish than English styles, and has its ultimate source in Byzantium.

The strong Frankish influence is probably caused by a combination of the Kentish Jutes Frankish origin and their closeness to the Frankish Empire. However, differences between the Kentish and Frankish costumes show that Kentish costume was not a slavish following of Frankish fashion, just that a number of Frankish, ultimately Byzantine, trends influenced Kentish women in the upper strata of society.

Footwear

Shoes would generally be round-toed, felt soled and reach to the ankle or just below. Probably sandals of the Iron Age and late Roman type were still being used, although enclosed shoes of one-piece construction seem to make their first appearance in this period. Shoes were stitched or laced together with leather thongs, not nailed as with some Roman examples. Shoes would be of leather or rawhide.

There are many words for footwear, some of which seem to describe a particular type, but it is now unclear exactly which words represent which type of footwear. These words include scoh ('shoe', a low ankle-boot, shoe or slipper), swiftlere (a rawhide shoe), hemming, rifeling, the bag-like socc and a thonged sandal called a crinc (perhaps similar to the open topped Iron Age footwear). As far as we know these shoe types could be worn by either sex. 

Appearance

We have little information on the appearance of the early Germanic settlers, but we do have quite a lot about their continental counterparts who were quite similar. Tacitus who is generally considered reliable) tells us:

'For clothing all wear a cloak, fastened with a clasp, or in its absence, a thorn: they spend whole days on a hearth round the fire with no other covering. The richest men are distinguished by the wearing of under-clothes; not loose like those of the Parthians and Sarmatians, but drawn tight, throwing each limb into relief.'

'They wear also the skins of wild beasts, the tribes adjoining the riverbank in a casual fashion, the further tribes with more attention, since they cannot depend on traders for clothing. The beasts for this purpose are selected, and the hides so taken are checkered with the pied skins of creatures native to the outer ocean and its unknown waters.

The women have the same dress as the men, except that very often trailing linen garments, striped with purple, are in use for women: the upper part of this costume does not widen into sleeves: their arms and shoulders are therefore bare, as is the adjoining portion of the breast.'

It seems that men's hairstyles, at least amongst the warriors, varied from tribe to tribe. Tacitus tells us that the warriors of the Chatti, a western tribe, allowed their hair and beard to grow until they killed an enemy. The Swabians tied their hair up in a knot at the side of the head, a hairstyle well attested from both Roman sculptures and archaeology. Tacitus tells us that the style was the mark of the freeman.

He observed that young men who were not Swabian were also copying the style.

This variety of hairstyles is also shown on many Roman sculptures showing Germanic tribesmen. Sidonius, writing in the fifth century, confirms that the Swabian style was still in use by then, and suggests it had spread to other classes as well as other tribes (it is interesting to note that even in Anglo-Saxon England closely cropped hair was the sign of a slave).

Sidonius also adds to Tacitus' observations: 'Here in Bordeaux we see the blue-eyed Saxon afraid of the land, accustomed as he is to the sea; along the extreme edges of his pate the razor, refusing to restrain its bite, pushes back the frontier of his hair and, with the growth thus clipped to the skin, his head is reduced and his face enlarged.'

Sidonius also describes Frankish warriors: He said, '...on the crown of whose red pates lies the hair that has been drawn towards the front, while the neck, exposed by the loss of its covering, shows bright.

Their eyes are faint and pale, with a glimmer of grayish blue. Their faces are shaven all round, and instead of beards they have thin moustaches that they run through with a comb.

Close fitting garments confine the tall limbs of the men, they are drawn up high so as to expose the knees, and a broad belt supports their narrow middle.'

Sidonius also writes of Frankish servants with 'oily top knots', perhaps similar to the Swabian knot. Evidence of early Anglo-Saxon hairstyles being extremely rare, Sidonius' and Tacitus' observations are interesting. Also of interest is the similarity of Sidonius' description of the Frankish warrior's hairstyle with the 'Norman' styles shown on the Bayeux Tapestry some six centuries later!

The many combs found in Anglo-Saxon contexts (mainly settlements, not burials) suggest that care of the hair was important, and the many tweezers, shears, etc. found in burials show that personal grooming was also valued. Since most of the settlers were intending to devote themselves to agriculture and colonization, it is probable that the more extravagant hairstyles of their kinsmen were left behind, except perhaps, by some of the warriors.

The un-cropped wildness of the Chatti and the knots of the Swabians were after all, as Tacitus tells us, largely designed to frighten the enemy. Probably the Anglo-Saxons cut their hair fairly short, as the Franks did; by the sixth century long hair seems to have been a style confined to the Merovingian kings in Frankia. Our only direct evidence for the early Anglo-Saxons comes from highly stylized faces and figures on jewelry. Luxuriant moustaches are suggested on some faces, occasionally with a beard, but most are clean shaved. Hair is occasionally shoulder length, but is usually collar length or shorter (hardly the hairy barbarians many Victorian scholars would have us believe!)

Women's hair was worn long (but not necessarily un cut and un-styled), sometimes loose but often plaited. Some representations show the hair drawn back from the face, presumably into a plait or ponytail. It is uncertain whether a ponytail would be tied back with some kind of fastening, or whether it would be knotted as was done in Scandinavia. Some continental sculptures show quite elegant coiffures and ringlets on Germanic women. A pair of ponytails, fastened behind each ear is often also represented.

CLOTHING AND APPEARANCE OF THE EARLY CHRISTIAN ANGLO-SAXONS

(600-800 AD)

At the beginning of this time in England there would have been two schools of thought on clothing. In those areas where Christianity was not widespread people would have continued to wear clothes of the type worn in the pagan period. However in Christian areas, during the seventh century, there was a change in costume.

This was a development the Anglo-Saxons seem to have shared with all the Germanic and Germanized peoples of Europe, with the exception of the Scandinavians and Visigoths. It reflects the discontinuation of links with the North and the increasing influence of the Frankish Empire and, through the Empire, the Mediterranean world, especially Byzantium. The Church's criticism of Northumbrian dress for being 'too Pagan' in the eighth century suggests that these changes were not entirely spontaneous, but strongly encouraged by the Roman Church.

Although during this period there is a big decrease in the number of burials with grave goods, it seems the converts were reluctant totally abandon the customs of their ancestors, and they left us sufficient grave-goods to deduce that fashion was changing.

The relatively small numbers of furnished burials form a homogeneous group, showing that regional variations in costume had, to a large extent, disappeared (except in Northumbria). During this period we also find the first insular representations of people, and thus have our first pictures of clothing.

The spread of Christian learning also starts to provide literary evidence, but this can sometimes be more confusing than helpful. For example, Aldhelm, writing in the late seventh century, criticised the elaborate dress of nuns (and perhaps also monks) at Barking in Essex. Many modern scholars have translated Aldhelm's Latin description.

'Subucula bissina, tunica coccinea sive iacintina, capitum et manicae sericis clavatae; galliculae rubricatis pellibus ambiuuntur; antiae frontis et temporum cincinni calamistro crispantur; pulla capitis velamina candidis et coloratis mafortibus cedunt, quae vittarium nexibus assutae talotenus prolixius dependunt'

It seems that each one manages to give the passage a different meaning. The following three examples clearly demonstrate this problem:

'This sort of glamorisation for either sex consists in fine linen shirts, in scarlet or blue tunics, in necklines and sleeves embroidered with silk; their shoes are trimmed with red dyed leather; the hair of their forelocks and the curls at their temples are crimped with a curling iron; dark gray veils for the head give way to bright and coloured head-dresses, which are sewn with interlacings of ribbons and hang down as far as the ankles.' (Michael Lapidge)

'In both sexes this kind of costume consists of an undergarment of the finest cloth, a red or blue tunic, a head-dress and sleeves with silk borders; their shoes are adorned with red dyed skins; the locks on their temples and foreheads are curled by the curlers. In the place of dark head coverings they wear white and colored veils which hang down richly to the feet and are held in place by ribbons sewn on to them.' (Sir. David Wilson)

He wrote in part '...a linen shirt; a scarlet or violet tunic, hooded, and sleeves striped in purple with silks; the garments are encircled with dark red furs ... dark gray veils for the head yield to white and coloured wimples which hang down from the grips of filets as far as the ankles.' (Gale Owen-Crocker)

When dealing with modern translations we are always at the mercy of the translator it seems.

Men's Clothing

The evidence available suggests that men's costume underwent fewer changes than women's in this period, although there were some innovations. There is much evidence to suggest that by the eighth-century the dress of the Anglo-Saxons 'south of the Humber' was very similar to that worn in the Frankish Empire.

It is also known that there was a strong cross-channel trade in clothing, particularly cloaks. Although we have no complete descriptions of clothing from England, there are several from Charlemagne's Frankia in the eighth-century. Einhard described Charlemagne's habitual costume:

"He wore the national dress of the Franks. Next to his skin he had a linen shirt and linen drawers; and then long hose and a tunic edged with silk. He wore shoes on his feet and bands of cloth wound round his legs. In winter he protected his chest and shoulders with a jerkin [thorax] made of otter skins or ermine. He wrapped himself in a blue cloak and always had a sword strapped to his side."

The Monk of St. Gall gives a similar, but more detailed description:

"The dress and equipment of the Old Franks was as follows. Their boots were gilded on the outside and decorated with leather laces more than four feet long.

The wrappings round their legs were scarlet. Underneath these they wore linen garments on their legs and thighs of the same color, but with elaborate embroidery. Long leather thongs were cross-gartered over these wrappings and linen garments, in and out, in front and behind.'

'Next came a white linen shirt, round which was buckled a sword-belt... The last item of their clothing was a cloak, either white or blue, in the shape of a double square. This was so arranged that, when it was placed over the shoulders, it reached to the feet in front and behind, but hardly came down to the knees at the side.'

While both these descriptions are of the dress of wealthy men, the clothing of poorer people would have been similar, if less ornate.

It is also a very good description of contemporary Anglo-Saxon dress, although there is no evidence of the 'cross-gartering' of the second description ever having been worn in England.

As in the earliest times a cloak or cape continued to be an important part of men's clothing. Anglo-Saxon cloaks of this period were usually rectangular, like that in the description of Frankish dress, although hooded cloaks are occasionally represented. Throughout Europe cloaks were becoming less voluminous, with most representations of cloaks from England shown reaching from just below the waist to mid calf.

Despite this general shortening, some people, one of the more notable being Charlemagne himself, still preferred the older style large cloaks. He disliked the striped Goulish cloaks that were being imported into his realm by Frisian merchants, because they were short. In his own words:

"What is the use of these little napkins? ... I can't cover myself with them in bed. When I am on horseback I can't protect myself from the winds and the rain. When I go off to empty my bowels, I catch cold because my backside is frozen." And in a letter to King Offa of Mercia about the trade of English cloaks for Frankish building stone: "But as you have intimated your wishes considering the length of the stones, so our people make a demand about the size if the cloaks, that you may order them to be such as used to come to us in former times."

From the eighth-century onwards illustrations show the cloak was almost invariably fastened at the right shoulder with a disc brooch, and the brooches that survive from southern England are consistently disc-shaped, although in the seventh century other types may have been used.

We do not know the name of every variety of cloak current at this time, but the words mentel and sciccels were in common use, and the word hacele was sometimes used to describe a hooded cloak.

It is possible that in Anglian areas, where there were still quite strong links with Scandinavia, that a sort of short, belted jacket may have been worn by some of the wealthier men. This garment is shown on the decorative plates from the Sutton Hoo helmet, and from several sources in Scandinavia, particularly Sweden.

It has also been suggested that this garment may have had some connection with the cult of Wotan, or may represent some form of armor. The trousers worn in this period were always of the tight fitting type seen in earlier centuries. A few illustrations from northern Britain show figures wearing only close fitting knee breeches, without a covering tunic, but it is unclear whether this fashion was Irish, Pictish or Northumbrian. However, the fashion of wearing trousers without a tunic seems to have been a particularly Scandinavian one.

The word brec was used to mean either a loincloth or short trousers, while the words bræcce and braccas were used for trousers of the longer sort.

The 'puttee' style of leggings seen in earlier centuries continued to be used; although the horizontal garters and cross gartering seen on the continent is not evidenced from this country. The 'puttee' style leg bindings were known as winningas.

Art of this period shows that the tunic of this era was worn belted or girdled at the waist with a full skirt reaching to just above the knee. In many illustrations the skirt, and sometimes the forearms, of the tunic are shown in a different color and texture to the body. This may represent the sleeves and skirt being made of a different material, or, more likely, a shorter tunic was worn over the longer one. This may be like the fur lined waistcoat [thorax] worn by Charlemagne, and was probably the garment known by the name breost-rocc. Some of the tunics have plain, close-fitting sleeves, other sleeves have a corrugated or pleated appearance, much as is seen in later Anglo-Saxon manuscript illustrations.

This corrugated appearance was achieved by having over-long, tight fitting sleeves, which when pushed back wrinkle up on the forearm. Most of the tunics of this period have round neck openings for the head. The lower hem of the skirt was probably cut wide and straight, giving the inverted 'U' shape to the hem of the skirt seen on many of the figures of this period.

The tunic was often decorated with a contrasting band or stripe at the wrist or hem. This contrasting band was sometimes a piece of decorative braid, sometimes just a contrasting piece of textile. The eighth century chronicler Paulus Diaconus, when writing of the garments of the Langobards, compares them to the garments of the Anglo-Saxons:

"Indeed their clothes were roomy and especially linen as the Anglo-Saxons were accustomed to have, embellished with rather wide borders woven in various colors."

The Anglo-Saxon word cyrtel was almost certainly applied to the tunic, with the newer Latin loan tunece coming into use as a synonym. This garment was almost certainly derived from the tunica talaris or tunica dalmatica of the Byzantine world.

Longer tunics and gowns in the Christian tradition of the late Roman Empire appear to have been worn by people of note in the Frankish kingdoms for special occasions, and are usually referred to by the Latin term longa tunica. This garment generally reached to the mid-calf or ankle. This style of tunic was thought of as 'old-fashioned.'  It is often shown being worn by biblical characters to emphasise the fact that the events in the illustration took place a long time in the past. Although seen in England in later centuries, this style of tunic was probably not worn by Anglo-Saxons in the seventh to ninth centuries.

There is much linguistic evidence for a linen undershirt, worn under the tunic, but unfortunately, there is no clear evidence from the art of the period. In Old English it could be called cemes, ham or scyrte.

Although belts were undoubtedly worn to hold up trousers and at the waist of the tunic, the evidence for them is small. Small items, such as knives and other small tools, were worn at the belt. Pouches are almost never seen. This is probably because the pouch was normally a simple drawstring bag worn attached to the trouser belt, so would be hidden by the tunic. However, in the seventh century there was a fashion for decorated 'purses' with stiffened Flaps. Some of these were extremely highly decorated, and many had a 'strike-a-light' (fire steel) attached to them. In some cases a small knife was attached to the purse too. These purses appear to have normally been worn on the hip or at the back of the belt. Although buckled belts were still used many belts were leather or textile 'tie belts'. The words gyrdel, belt and fetel were all used for belts.

There is no surviving headgear from this period, and in the few representations available it is unclear whether the head covering is meant to represent a pointed cap or a conical helmet. A few hooded cloaks are known, however. Occasionally men are shown wearing some sort of fillet, but this fashion is mostly restricted to Angels!

There is evidence to suggest that loincloths were worn beneath the other clothing. They generally took the form of short, unbelted skirts or linen shorts.

The words gyrdel, brec (this word is the ancestor of the modern word 'breeches', and seems principally to have signified short trousers covering the loins or extending down the thigh), underwrædel and wæd-brec all appear to have been used to denote a loincloth.

Women's Clothing

The change in women's clothing at this time was far more drastic than that of men. The 'peplos' dress of earlier times, with its pair of shoulder brooches with its festoon of beads started to disappear in the seventh century and by the eighth century had completely vanished. A similar change had taken place when the Franks had been converted to Christianity a century earlier.

This change seems to have been taken for granted by most writers, and the only reference to it comes from the biography of St Radegund, daughter of the King of Thuringia. We hear that she kept her 'barbaric costume' even after she had become Queen of the Franks, testifying that the fashion change had already taken place in sixth century Frankia. The evidence for this new style of clothing is very limited, but seems to be a modified version of Byzantine dress, which may have been transmitted via Frankia, but which may also have owed something to the religious works of art of Mediterranean origin which were coming to England under the influence of Christianity.

As we have seen above, Aldhelm, in his work De Virgnitate, written in the late seventh- or early eighth century, criticizes the overly elaborate clothing worn by women in holy orders (is was written as a reprimand for the nuns of Barking), and in the process gives our only surviving written description of such clothing, a general translation of which is:

"...Linen undershirts, a red or blue tunic, a hood and sleeves with (purple) silk stripes or borders; the garments [it is unclear at this point whether the word Aldhelm uses to describe the garment means 'shoes' or 'small cloak'] are encircled in dark red furs; the hair on their temples and forelocks are crimped with a curling iron; dark gray veils for the head yield to white and colored head-dresses which hang down from the grip of fillets as far as the ankles."

The main part of a Christian woman's costume at this time was an ankle length tunic or overdress, like a longer version of the man's tunic, but seems often to have been worn unbelted at the start of the period. This dress would generally have been made of wool although some wealthier women may have worn linen versions. These tunics usually had a round neck opening.

The sleeves of this tunic were usually fairly wide and reached either to just above the elbow, or to the mid-forearm, although some appear to have had tight fitting wrist length sleeves similar to those worn by men.

Wealthy noblewomen might have broad boarders of embroidery or braid at the cuffs and hem of these dresses and in some cases another broadband running from the neck to the hem at center front. In the case of extremely wealthy women the entire tunic may have been of patterned cloth or covered in embroidery. This tunic was cut very wide, and was probably based on the tunica colobium or tunica dalmatica of late Roman and Byzantine fashion. In England this garment was referred to as a cyrtel, although the Latin loan word tunica was borrowed into English as tunece.

Beneath the overdress the woman wore a plainer linen under-tunic or under-dress. This dress was also like an ankle length version of the male tunic, with a round neck and sleeves that were tighter on the forearm, and reached to the wrist. These tunics were usually less baggy than the overdress, and would have generally been worn belted. They were generally of undyed linen, although a broad decorative band of contrasting color textile, braid or embroidery was often used at the wrist. On rare occasions it seems that this dress may have been worn with a hooded cloak rather than the overdress described above.

This garment was probably based on the late Roman/Byzantine tunica talaris. In Old English the name for this garment appears to have been ham.

Although a few buckled belts are known (particularly in Kent) from the seventh century, women's belts seem usually to have been simple braid 'tie-belts,' occasionally ornamented with strap ends (these would generally only have been used if the overdress was not being worn). Although some of these strap ends are decorated, their main function was probably not ornamental, but to stop the ends of the braid from fraying.

The habit of wearing personal objects suspended from the belt seems to have declined, although long chatelaine chains and small metal containers (once thought to be thread-boxes, but now believed to be reliquaries) were still sometimes worn hanging at the waist, and also perhaps shears, spindles, keys and combs.

Remains of leather and textile in seventh century graves suggest that pouches, made of one or both materials, were carried. This may have been a substitute for the habit of suspending personal items from the belt. There is almost no evidence for women's belts from the eighth century onwards, and what little there is suggests that the habit of wearing items hanging from the belt finally disappeared at around this time.

Those items, which a woman needed, appear to have generally been carried in a bag with a shoulder strap rather than in a pouch or on the belt. The word gyrdels seems to have been used for the woman's belt.

A few women appear to have worn cloaks similar to those worn by men. However, this is rare and most women seem to have worn semicircular, or perhaps triangular, capes or shawls that could rest on the shoulders, and be pulled up to cover the head when necessary. Some seem even to have included a hood, which could be pointed at the back. Occasionally these are shown fastened at the neck or chest with a disc-brooch. They may also have been pinned to the overdress at the neck or with a pair of pins at the shoulders, or worn unfastened. Sometimes the ends were brought around the chest and thrown back over the shoulders. This garment was derived from the Byzantine palla, and in England was probably called a hacele.

It is likely that headgear for women was becoming more common by the seventh century. It seems that Christian morality (based on St Paul's edicts) was influential in this respect. By the eighth century it seems that all women wore head coverings.

It appears that most women wore a close fitted cap. (Perhaps similar to the slightly later caps from York and Dublin.) Sometime they left the hair at the forehead and temples visible. For wealthier women this may have had a padded or rolled edge, which may have been striped or embroidered. (This type of head covering is well known from Byzantine sources.)

Although this was sometimes worn on its own, the hood/cloak and or a veil would usually cover it. Judging by Aldhelm's comments this veil could be extremely colorful and voluminous.

The veil would generally be pinned to the cap, although it could also be fastened with fillets or ribbons, or pinned to the shoulders of the overdress or cape, perhaps using a set of the linked dress-pins known from this period. The few surviving fragments of veils suggest they were usually of fine linen or wool, sometimes so fine as to be almost gauze. The cap was probably known as a hod or healsted, while the veil was known as a scyfel, wimpel or orel. The fillet or ribbon was called a þwæle, nostle or snod.

Many wealthy female graves of the seventh and early eighth century have contained ornate necklaces, with many pendants, and often a central cross. Many of these involve the use of much gold and garnet or amethyst, although slightly less ornate versions use gold and silver wire rings around glass beads.

These were almost certainly a symbol of rank, and were derived from the superhumeral, the broad, jeweled collar worn by women of the Byzantine court.

There is no evidence of women wearing underwear or leg coverings in this period, but this does not mean that they were not worn, only that no evidence has survived.

Northumbrian Fashions

Literary evidence suggests that Northumbrian costume and hairstyles in the eighth century differed from the fashions adopted elsewhere in England. In a letter written to King Ethelred of Northumbria in 793 AD Alcuin made the following comment:

"Consider the dress, the way of wearing the hair, the luxurious habits of the princes and people. Look at your trimming of beard and hair, in which you have wished to resemble the Pagans."

The context from which this quotation is taken makes it clear that the 'Pagans' were in fact the Vikings, who had raided Lindisfarne earlier that same year. It seems that the extravagant fashions of dress and hair resembled the Pagan Germanic fashions of the Vikings, rather than the 'Christian' fashions of the Anglo-Saxons and Franks.

It seems unlikely that the Northumbrians were actually copying the Vikings, rather that they had retained much of the older Germanic fashions rather than the newer continental ones. These similarities to 'Pagan' fashions had also been noted in 787 by the papal legate on a visit to the kingdom.

It is quite likely that the nominally Anglian population of Northumbria included many people of Celtic stock, and that they dressed like Britons rather than like the Anglo-Saxons of other kingdoms. (There was much similarity between early British costume and that of the Pagan Germans.) In a tenth century translation of the Lindisfarne Gospels, the Latin word pallium [cloak] is translated with the word bratt, a word of Celtic, not Germanic, origin. Remote from cross channel trade and the influence of the Frankish Empire, the Northumbrians were affected little by the costume changes which followed the conversion of other Anglo-Saxon kingdoms. This left them wearing a distinctly northern costume, more closely resembling the dress of their Viking enemies than their friendlier kinsmen in Wessex or their neighbors in the Carolingian Empire.

Footwear

There does not seem to be any distinction made between men and women's shoes at this time. Archaeological finds demonstrate that leather shoes were made by the turn-shoe method, by which the sole and upper were joined together inside out, and then turned right side out. The typical shoe was ankle high, usually fastened by a drawstring or lace, although by the mid ninth century a triangular Flap and toggle were used too. Low 'slippers' are also known. Some shoes had a band of decorative stitching running from the ankle to the toe. Rawhide shoes also probably continued to be used.

WARFARE IN ANGLO-SAXON ENGLAND

(400 - 900 AD)

Many modern writers to describe the Anglo-Saxon army use the Old English word fyrd. Indeed this is one of its meanings, although the word here is equally valid. In its oldest form the word fyrd had meant 'a journey or expedition'. However, the exact meaning of the word, like the nature of the armies it is used to describe, changed a great deal between the times the first Germanic settlers left their homelands and the time of King Alfred.

The Anglo-Saxon period was a violent one. Warfare dominated its history and shaped the nature of its governance. Indeed, war was the natural state in the Germanic homelands and the patchwork of tribal kingdoms that composed pre-Viking England. Chieftains engaged in a seemingly endless struggle against foreign enemies and rival kinsmen for authority, power and tribute. Even after Christianity had supplied them with an ideology of kingship that did not depend on success in battle these petty wars continued until they were ended by the Viking invasions. From 793 AD until the last years of William the Conqueror's rule, England was under constant threat, and often attack, from the Northmen.

In order to understand the nature of the armies that fought in these battles, many historians in the nineteenth and first half of the twentieth century looked to classical authors, particularly the 1st century Roman Author Tacitus.

Tacitus, in his book Germania, gives much detail of how the German tribes organized their military forces, and many historians used the fact that the tribes Tacitus was writing about were the forebears of the early Germanic invaders to explain the nature of the Anglo-Saxon fyrd. But are the tribal customs of barbarian people really a good basis for the nature of a nation removed by almost 1000 years?

More recent research has shown that the nature of the fyrd changed a great deal in the 969 AD years between the time of Tacitus' writing and the battle of Hastings.

For many years there was much debate amongst scholars as to whether the fyrd consisted of nobleman warriors who fought for the king in return for land and privileges (peasants farmed and aristocrats fought), or whether the fyrd consisted of a general levy of all able bodied men in a ceorl (peasant) based economy.

In 1962 AD Hollister proposed an ingenious solution: there had been not one but two types of fyrd. There had been a "select fyrd", a force of professional, noble land-owning warriors, and a second levy, the "great fyrd" - the nation in arms.

This view, because of its elegant simplicity, soon achieved the status of orthodoxy amongst most historians, and is the view put forward in many of the more general books on the period published today. However, continued research has shown this view to be incorrect. Hollister coined the terms "great fyrd" and "select fyrd" because there was no equivalent terminology in contemporary Old English or Latin.

Current research shows that the Anglo-Saxon fyrd was a constantly developing organization, and its nature changes as you go through the Anglo-Saxon period.

From what little we know of the customs and nature of the early German settlers in this country, we can be fairly sure that much of what Tacitus wrote about the first century Germans still applied to their fourth, fifth and early sixth century descendants. The early tribes were military in nature, consisting mainly of free warrior families and tenant farmers, free and not free, ruled by a tribal chief or king. These tribes were often grouped together in nations, sometimes under the rule of a 'high-king.'

Tacitus tells us:

'They choose their kings for their noble birth, their leaders for their valor. The power even of the kings is not absolute or arbitrary. As for the leaders, it is their example rather than their authority that wins them special admiration - for their energy, their distinction, or their presence in the van of fight...'

'No business, public or private, is transacted except in arms. But it is the rule that no one shall take up arms until the tribe has attested that he is likely to make good. When the time comes, one of the chiefs or the father or a kinsman equips the young warrior with shield and spear in the public council.'

'This with the Germans is the equivalent of our toga - the first public distinction of youth. They cease to rank merely as members of the household and are now members of the tribe.'

' Conspicuous ancestry or great services rendered by their fathers can win the rank of chief for boys still in their teens. They are attached to the other chiefs, who are more mature and approved, and no one blushes to be seen thus in the ranks of the companions.'

This order of companions has even its different grades, as determined by the leader, and there is intense rivalry among the companions for the first place by the chief, amongst the chiefs for the most numerous and enthusiastic companions. Dignity and power alike consist in being continually attended by a corps of chosen youths. This gives you consideration in peacetime and security in war. Nor is it only in a man's own nation that he can win fame by the superior number and quality of his companions, but in neighboring states as well. Chiefs are courted by embassies and complimented by gifts, and they often virtually decide wars by the mere weight of their reputation.

'On the field of battle it is a disgrace to the chief to be surpassed in valor by his companions, to the companions not to come up to the valor of their chief. As for leaving a battle alive after your chief has fallen, that means lifelong infamy and shame. To defend and protect him, to put down one's own acts of heroism to his credit - that is what they really mean by allegiance.'

'The chiefs fight for victory, the companions for their chief. Many noble youths, if the land of their birth is stagnating in a protracted peace, deliberately seek out other tribes, where some war is afoot.'

'The Germans have no taste for peace; renown is easier won among perils, and you cannot maintain a large body of companions except by violence and war. The companions are prodigal in their demands on the generosity of their chiefs. It is always 'give me that war-horse' or 'give me that bloody and vicious spear'. As for meals with their plentiful, if homely, fare, they count simply as pay. Such open-handedness must have war and plunder to feed it.'

We know from other parts of Tacitus' writings that the tribe's farmers supported chief and his warriors in return for protection from the depravations of enemy tribes. At need, the chief was able to call out all able-bodied freemen in defense of the tribe's lands, although usually he relied only on his warrior 'companions.' These companions were fed and housed by the chief, and would receive payment in war-gear and food (the only use of precious metals by the Germans in Tacitus' time was for trading with the Roman Empire).

How were these 'companions' equipped? Again Tacitus can help us here:

'Only a very few use swords or lances. The spears that they carry - frameae is the native word - have short and narrow heads, but are so sharp and easy to handle, that the same weapon serves at need for close or distant fighting. The horseman asks no more than his shield and spear, but the infantry have also javelins to shower, several per man, and they can hurl them to a great distance; for they are either naked or only lightly clad in their cloaks.'

'There is nothing ostentatious in their turn out. Only the shields are picked out with carefully selected colors. Few have body armor; only here and there will you see a helmet of metal or hide. Their horses are not distinguished either for beauty or for speed, nor are they trained in Roman fashion to execute various turns.'

'They ride them straight ahead or with a single swing to the right, keeping the wheeling line so perfect that no one drops behind the rest. On general survey, their strength is seen to lie rather in their infantry, and that is why they combine the two arms in battle.

The men who they select from the whole force and station in the van are fleet of foot and fit admirably into cavalry action. The number of these chosen men is exactly fixed. A hundred are drawn from each district, and 'the hundred' is the name they bear at home.'

From this description it would seem that the warriors were primarily infantry with a small amount of cavalry support. They would generally be armed only with spear(s) and shield, although a few of the greatest/most well off might possess a sword, helm or, rarely, body armor. Archaeology bears this out, and probably most of the swords, helms and mail-shirts originated within the Roman Empire, reaching the Germans either by trade or as spoils of war.

The relative commonness and scarcity of the various types of arms and armor is well borne out by finds from sacrificial bogs where votive offerings of the arms and armor of defeated enemies were often made. In these finds shields and spears (and surprisingly often bows and arrows) are by far the most common, with swords, helms and armor all being much more rare. Up until the fourth century most of these swords, helms and mail-shirts are of Roman type, although from the fifth century onwards distinctly German type swords become more common.

By the time of the invasion of Britain in the fifth century the Germans had become so heavily dependant on their infantry that one British writer tells us that 'they know not the use of cavalry.' The armies coming to this country were usually far smaller than their Roman predecessors. Most of the accounts tell of the armies arriving in only two or three ships, and as ships of this time generally carried no more than 50-60 men, most of these armies probably only numbered 100 to 200 men.

Despite the small size of these armies, the Germans were able to carve themselves out many small kingdoms, killing, driving off or enslaving the native population as they went, but it should be remembered that they did not always have things their own way.

This was the time of Arthur who, through his use of Roman cavalry tactics against the Germanic infantry, was able to defeat the invaders so handily; they were unable to advance any further for almost fifty years.

However, by the end of the sixth century the Germanic, or as they were then starting to call themselves, Angelisc (Anglo-Saxon) invaders had taken over much of lowland Britain and carved out many small Kingdoms of varying strengths and hierarchies much as they had in Germany.

War was endemic to the kingdoms of sixth, seventh and eighth century Britain. An Anglo-Saxon ruler of this period was above all else a warlord, a dryhten, as the Old-English sources put it. His primary duty was to protect his people against the depredations of their neighbors and to lead them on expeditions (fyrds) of plunder and conquest. As we hear in Beowulf (who lived at this time) about Scyld (literally 'shield'), the mythical founder of the Danish royal line:

'Scyld Sceafing often deprived his enemies, many tribes of men, of their mead-benches. He terrified his foes; yet he, as a boy, had been found as a waif; fate made amends for that. He prospered under heaven, won praise and honor, until the men of every neighboring tribe, across the whale's way, were obliged to obey him and pay him tribute. He was a good king!'

Scyld was a good king because he was lord of a mighty war-band that profited from his leadership. As long as he lived, his people were safe and he enjoyed tribute from the surrounding tribes. This portrait is no mere convention of a heroic genre.

Even the early Anglo-Saxon monks, when writing about the Anglo-Saxon kings of this time, show that this was not a heroic ideal, but the way a king ruled.

It is noteworthy that the early sources use the language of personal lordship to express the obligations owed a king. When Wiglaf followed Beowulf into combat against the dragon, he did not speak of his duty to 'king and country,' but of the responsibility of a retainer to serve and protect his lord. In fact, amongst the early Anglo-Saxons a king was simply the lord of the nobles.

Even the term cyning [king] literally only means 'of the kin' and denoted a member of the royal line, while the office of king was expressed by the titles hlaford [loaf- or land-lord] and dryhten [war-lord].

The æðeling [prince or nobleman] who was chosen for the office of king was merely the member of the royal line who could command the largest war-band. This fact helps to explain the many 'civil wars' which took place in the early Anglo-Saxon kingdoms, and why a king who gained his position by force could so quickly be accepted by his subjects.

A seventh- or eighth-century king most often came to his throne through violence or through the threat of violence, and kept his crown by warding off domestic and foreign rivals.

Peace was simply the aftermath of one war and the prelude to another. In violent times such as these, it was necessary that a king secure (in the words of the Beowulf poet) 'beloved companions to stand by him, people to serve him when war comes.' But what obliged men in seventh century England to attend a king's army, and what sort of men were they?

As the kingdoms developed in England the ceorl (peasant) had come to receive a more important position than in the Germanic homelands, but did he replace the nobleman in forming the bulk of the king's army (a view held by many nineteenth and early twentieth century historians).

Careful study of contemporary sources has shown that although the ceorl, as a freeman, had the right to bear arms, he would rarely have joined the king's fyrd. The word fyrd had, by this time, acquired a distinctly martial connotation, and had come to mean "armed expedition or force."

It is clear that the king's companions or, to use the Old English term, Gesiðas were still drawn from aristocratic warrior families, but now the gift-giving seen in earlier times had undergone something of a change. Now, in addition to war-gear, gifts of valuable items (a lord is often referred to as a 'giver of rings' in literature) were given too, or most sought after of all, land.

In Anglo-Saxon England a gift was not given freely, and a gift was expected in return in the form of service. When a warrior took up service with a lord he was required to 'love all that his lord loved, and to hate all that he hated.' Neither gift was 'complete' - gift and counter-gift sustained one another. For example, although it was customary for a warrior to receive an estate for life (either his own or his lord's), it was not a certainty. If one failed in his duty to the king the royal grant could be forfeited. Thus the king's gift was as open-ended as his retainer counter-gift of service; the former was continually renewed and confirmed by the latter.

To receive land from one's lord was a sign of special favor. A landed estate was a symbolic as well as an economic gift. It differed from other gifts in that its possession signified a new, higher status for the warrior within the king's retinue. Consequently, by the seventh century we see the emergence of different classes of warrior noble - the geoguð (youth) and duguð (proven warrior).

The former were young, unmarried warriors, often the sons of duguð, who, having as yet no land of their own, resided with their lord, attending and accompanying him as he progressed through his estates, much as the 'companions' of Tacitus' day had done. When a gesið of this sort had proved himself to his lord's satisfaction, he received from him a suitable endowment of land, perhaps even the land his father had held from the lord. This made him into a duguð.

He ceased to dwell in his lord's household, although he still attended his councils; rather, he lived upon the donated estate, married, raised a family, and maintained a household of his own. In order to improve his standing the duguð would often raise military retainers of his own, probably from amongst the more prosperous ceorls on his estates (this is how the name geneat [companion] originated to describe men from the top portion of the cierlisc class) and other geoguð who had not yet sworn themselves to some other lord.

These estates are often referred to a scir (shire) in the early records. This military following was known as the lord's hearðweru or hirð [household or 'hearth' troops].

When a king assembled his army, the duguð were expected to answer his summons at the head of their retinues, much as they would attend his court in time of peace. The fyrd would thus have been the king's household warriors (gesið) augmented by the followings of his landed retainers (duguð). If a warrior did not answer the king's summons, he could be penalized, as King Ine's (688-726) laws show:

' If a gesiðcund mon [nobleman] who holds land neglects military service, he shall pay 120 shillings and forfeit his land; [a nobleman] who holds no land shall pay 60 shillings; a cierlisc [peasant] shall pay 30 shillings as penalty for neglecting the fyrd.'

This clause does not prove that the early Anglo-Saxon fyrd was made up of peasant warriors, as some historians argue. Rather, it shows that some peasants fought alongside the nobility when the king summoned his army.

These ceorls were the peasants in the service of the king, or in the service of one of his duguð. When an Anglo-Saxon king of the sixth to eighth century chose to war, his retainers would follow him into battle, not out of duty to defend the 'nation' or the 'folk,' but because he was their lord. Similarly, their own men, also obliged by the bond of lordship, fought under them.

The size of these armies was quite small; King Ine defined the size of an army in his law code 

We use the term 'thieves' if the number of men does not exceed seven, 'band of marauders' [or 'war-band'] for a number between seven and thirty-five. Anything beyond this is an 'army' [here].

Although the exact size of armies of that time remain unknown, even the most powerful kings could probably not call upon warriors numbering more than the low hundreds.

Certainly in the late eighth century the æðeling Cyneherd considered his army of eighty-four men sufficiently large to attempt to seize the throne of Wessex.

When Centwine became king of the West Saxons in 676 AD, he drove his rival kinsman, Cædwalla, into exile. The exiled nobleman sought refuge in the 'desert places of Chiltern and the Weald' and gathered about himself a war-band. In time his following grew so large that he was able to plunder the lands of the South Saxons, and kill their king in the process. After nine years of brigandage, he turned back to Wessex and began to 'contend for the kingdom.'

The king's resources were no match for Cædwalla's.  When they met in battle the West Saxon fyrd was decisively defeated. It seems most likely that Cædwalla's victory was the triumph of one war-band over another, rather than the conquest of a 'nation.'

Time and again we are told in the sources that a new king had to defend his kingdom with tiny armies. Later in their reigns, these same kings having survived these attacks made 'while their kingdoms were still weak,' are found leading great armies. After all, victory meant tribute and land, and these in turn meant that a king could attract more warriors into his service.

How were these warriors equipped? Unfortunately, our only written sources for this period are the heroic tales such as Beowulf and the Finnesburh Fragment etc., but these are remarkably consistent in their descriptions. From the Finnesburh Fragment we hear:

'... Birds of battle screech, the gray wolf howls, spears rattle, shield answers shaft...  Then many a thegn, laden in gold, buckled on his sword-belt... The hollow shield called for bold men's hands, helmets burst...  Then Guðere withdrew, a wounded man; he said that his armor was almost useless, his byrnie [mail-shirt] broken, his helmet burst open.'

In Beowulf we hear many references to arms and armor such as:

'Then Hrothgar's thane leaped onto his horse and, brandishing a spear, galloped down to the shore; there, he asked at once: 'Warriors! Who are you, in your coats of mail, who have steered your tall ship over the sea-lanes to these shores?

Never have warriors, carrying their shields, come to this country in a more open manner. Nor were you assured of my leader's approval, my kinsmen's consent. I've never set eyes on a more noble man, a warrior in armor, than one among your band; he's no mere retainer, so ennobled by his weapons.'

'The boar crest, brightly gleaming, stood over their helmets: superbly tempered, plated with glowing gold, it guarded the lives of those grim warriors... Their byrnies were gleaming, the strong links of shining chain mail chinked together. When the sea-stained travelers had reached the hall itself in their fearsome armor, they placed their broad shields (worked so skillfully) against Heorot's wall. Then they sat on a bench; the brave men's armor sang. The seafarer's gear stood all together, a gray tipped forest of ash spears; that armed troop was well equipped with weapons...  In common we all share sword, helmet, byrnie, the trappings of war.'

These descriptions are borne out by archaeology. Male burials in the pagan period were often accompanied by war gear. On average around 47% of male burials from the pagan period contain weapons of some sort.

This figure has often been used to argue for the idea of a 'nation in arms', but has conveniently overlooked the fact that although spears were found in just over 86% of the accompanied burials, shields were found in only 44%.

As we have seen earlier, and as the literary evidence bears out, spear and shield made up the basic war-gear of an Anglo-Saxon warrior. It should be borne in mind that, although the spear was used in battle, it was also a tool of the hunt. Many of the interred spears probably represent hunting tools rather than weapons. As we start to look at other types of weapon, we find they are far less common than the spear and shield.

Swords are found in only about 12% of accompanied burials, axes in about 2% and seaxes only about 4%. (This makes for an interesting comparison with the Saxons' continental homelands where some 50 - 70% contained seaxes.) Armor and helmets, while not unknown are decidedly rare and are usually only found in the richest of burials.

Certainly in archaeology they seem to be far rarer than in literature, although the few examples we have agree remarkably well with the literal description.

This apparent rarity of armor and helmets may have more to do with burial customs than the scarcity of these items at the time. It appears that the pagan Anglo-Saxons believed in some warrior heaven, similar in nature to the Viking Valhalla. The grave goods were what they would need in this afterlife, and in order to fight the warrior needed weapons, but if death was only a 'temporary setback', why give them armor that could be far better used by their mortal counterparts?

It would seem likely from these sources that the kings and more important noblemen would possess a coat-of-mail and a crested helmet, a sword, shield and spear(s). Noblemen of middling rank may have possessed a helm, perhaps a sword, and a shield and spear(s). The lowest ranking warriors would have been equipped with just a shield and spear(s), and perhaps a secondary weapon such as an axe or seax.

The advent of Christianity in the seventh century was to bring about a change in the fyrd that would totally change its nature by the middle of the ninth century. As Christianity spread the monasteries needed land on which to build, and as we have already seen land tended to be given only for the lifetime of the king.

However, the monasteries needed a more secure arrangement than just the hope that the king's successor would maintain the donation. This was achieved through the introduction of a Roman system known as ius perpetuum, or as the Anglo-Saxons called it bocland [bookland].

Under this system the king gave the land to the Church in eternity, and the grant was recorded in writing [the book] and witnessed by important noblemen and churchmen so that the land could not be taken back in future. Although book-land was foreign in origin, it flourished in England because the notion a man gave so that he might receive was anything but foreign to the pagan English.

Book-land must have struck early Christian kings as a reasonable demand on the part of the Church. A Christian king gave a free gift to God in hope of receiving from Him an eternal gift - salvation.

While nothing that he could give to the Lord would be sufficient, for no man could be God's equal, just as no retainer could hope to be the equal of his lord, a king could at least respond with an eternal terrestrial gift, a perpetual grant of land and the rights over it.

This exchange of gifts confirmed the relationship of lordship that existed between a king and his Lord God in the same way as the relationship between a gesið and his lord.

How did book-land impinge upon the early fyrd arrangement? On the simplest level, what was given to the Church could not be used to endow warriors. As time went by more and more land was booked to the church, and many of the king's noblemen became disgruntled. Some of the noblemen offered to build abbeys and become the abbot on their land in return for the book-right, and this was often granted even if the noblemen didn't keep his end of the bargain. The holders of these early books, both genuine and spurious, enjoyed their tenures free from all service, including military service. And by giving the land in book-right, the king had removed it permanently from his control.

The kings faced a dilemma. This dilemma was first solved by the Mercian kings of the mid-eighth century, when King Æthelbald decreed that all the churches and monasteries in his realm were to be free from 'all public renders, works and charges, reserving only two things: the construction of bridges and the defense of fortifications against enemies.'

By the latter part of the eighth century book-right was being granted to secular as well as ecclesiastical men. In order to maintain his fyrd, King Offa of Mercia further refined Ethelbald's decree by giving land free of all service 'except for matters pertaining to expeditions [fyrd], and the construction of bridges and fortifications, which is necessary for the whole people and from which none ought to be excused.' By the mid ninth century these 'common burdens' (as they were often referred to) were being demanded in all the kingdoms.

In short the idea of military service as a condition of land tenure was a consequence of book-right. Under the traditional land-holding arrangement a stipulation of this sort would have been un-necessary - a holder of loan-land from the king was by definition a king's man, and his acceptance of an estate obliged him to respond with fidelity and service to his royal lord. Book-land tenure, a hereditary possession, was quite a different matter, for such a grant permanently removed the land from the king's control without assuring that future generations who owned the property would recognize the king or his successors as their lord. By imposing the 'common burdens', the king guaranteed military service from book-land and tied the holders of the book securely to the ruler of the tribe.

By this time the terms geoguð and duguð had been replaced with dreng (young warrior) and thegn (one who serves). The dreng still attended the king directly, while the thegn was usually the holder of book-land. By now, the term scir usually denoted more than just a single estate, and the thegn who held the scir was usually referred to as an ealdorman. Many of the lesser thegns within the scir would have held their land from the ealdorman in addition to those who held land directly from the king.

The Kingdom of England was forged in the furnace of Viking invasions. Quite simply, the depredations of the Danes aided Wessex by extinguishing all other royal lineages. By 900 AD only the house of Cerdic remained, and the kings of this dynasty found that their survival depended on a total reorganization of their realm, both administratively and militarily.

The Anglo-Saxon Chronicle entry for 871 AD gives us a good idea of the nature of the military system that Alfred inherited from his father and brothers.

'After describing six battles, the annals conclude with the observation that 'during that year nine general engagements were fought against the Danish army in the kingdom south of the Thames, besides the expeditions which the king's brother Alfred and single ealdormen and king's thegns often rode on, which were not counted.'

From this, and other sources, it would seem that the West Saxon military establishment consisted of three general types of army: the national host, shire forces led by individual ealdormen, and the war bands of individual thegns. The first of these is sometimes referred to as the folc, and was characterized by the personal leadership of the king. It would consist of the king with his own personal war-band, augmented by the war-bands of his ealdormen and thegns.

However, each of these territorial units was an army unto it self. An eighth- or ninth-century ealdorman could wage war on his own initiative and was expected to do so in defense of his scir. Just as the national host was made up of shire forces, so the shire forces were made up of the followings of individual local thegns. These thegns, in turn could mount raids of their own, but the sources unsurprisingly take little note of these small war-bands. None of these forces, not even the folc, was the 'nation in arms.' All were war-bands led by chieftains, whose troops were bound to them by personal ties as well as by the 'common burdens' imposed upon their land. In essence, they still remained the chief's following arrayed for battle.

Despite the lordship tie, Alfred's difficulties in 878 AD were due in no small part to his dependence upon the 'common burdens' for the defense of the kingdom. The growing importance of Bookland aggravated certain problems previously encountered in connection with the earlier landholding gesiðas. Quite simply it took time to summon and gather warriors from the various localities, and a highly mobile raiding force could devastate a region before the king's host could engage it in battle. Added to this was a second drawback.

Those who held Bookland were territorial lords with local interests, and were thus far more likely to seek terms with the Danish invaders, if by their timely submission they could save all or part of their inheritance.

After his victory at Edington in the spring of 878 AD, Alfred realized he could not rely upon the existing military system to counter the continuing Danish threat. If he was to survive and consolidate his hold upon Wessex, he would have to innovate, and innovate he did.

The king's adoption of Danish tactics in the winter of 878 AD, such as his use of strongholds and small mobile raiding parties to harry the lands of his enemies, was forced upon him by immediate circumstances.

Over the next twenty years of his reign, he was to revolutionize Anglo-Saxon military practice. Alfred answered the Danish threat by creating an impressive system of fortified burhs [boroughs] throughout his realm and by reforming the fyrd, changing it from a sporadic levy of king's men and their retinues into a standing force. This system, and its extension into Mercia, enabled his kingdom to survive and formed the basis for the re-conquest of the Danelaw by his son Edward and his grandson Æthelstan. He divided the fyrd into two rotating contingents designed to give some continuity to military actions. Rather than respond to Vikings with ad hoc levies of his local noblemen that were disbanded when the crisis had passed, the West Saxons would now always have a force in the field. As the Anglo-Saxon Chronicles tell us: 'The king divided his army into two, so that always half of its men were at home, half on service, apart from the men who guarded the boroughs.' Moreover, like the Danish heres [armies], Alfred's fyrd was to be composed of mounted warriors possessing the necessary mobility to pursue an enemy known for its elusiveness. The warriors who waited their turn 'at home' also filled a necessary defensive function.

It was essential that some king's thegns and their retainers remain behind to guard their lands and those of their neighbors on campaign against sudden raids, if for no other reason than the obvious one that landholders would have been reluctant to leave their estates and families totally undefended. The warriors who stayed behind do appear to have been obliged to join the garrisons of nearby burhs on local forays.

Alfred also had compelling administrative reasons for his division of the fyrd. The Anglo-Saxons did not draw much distinction between 'military' and 'police' actions. The same men who had led the king's hosts (His thegns, gerefa [reeves] and ealdormen.) did extract justice. The same mounted men who were responsible for the capture of lawbreakers were also responsible for the defense of the kingdom - there was a thin line between posse and army!

After all, the Danish invasions did not end ordinary criminal activity. In fact there is some evidence to suggest it may have increased.

Alfred's innovations did not affect the basic makeup of the fyrd, which remained composed of nobles and their lesser-born followers.

This is borne out from many sources; ordinary ceorls would generally be unable to afford the expensive horse required for fyrd service, the summoning of the fyrd left ordinary agricultural activities such as harvest unaffected, and not least, Alfred's own words. For Alfred society was divided three ways; beadsmen (gebedmen) prayed, warriors (fyrdmen) fought and workmen (weorcmen) labored, each a necessary, distinct class.

Several later period writers reiterated this idea. The Alfredian fyrd was designed to act in tandem with the burwaran, the permanent garrisons that the king settled in the newly built burhs. The size of the garrison in each burh varied according to the length of its walls (4 men for every 5½ yards), but an average one would have required a garrison of about 900 men. Because of this vast requirement for manpower, each burh was at the center of a large district specially created for its needs. The landholders in these 'burghal districts' were charged with providing the men necessary to maintain and garrison the burhs, on the basis of one man from every hide of their land. This appears to be in addition to the landowner's obligations to serve in the king's fyrd.

The scale of service demanded by Alfred and his descendants was unprecedented; the garrisons of the burhs alone represented a standing army of almost 30,000 without the fyrd. The days of winning kingdoms with only a few hundred men were gone.

How Alfred's fyrdmen were equipped is uncertain, although spears and shields still remained the prime weapons. It may well be that this was all the equipment the average burwaran would use, possibly supplied to him by his lord. The fyrdmen, on the other hand were a professional warrior class, drawn from amongst the wealthiest men in the country, expecting to face a well equipped, professional enemy army.

The evidence we have suggests that helmets, swords and mail-shirts had become much more common by the time of Alfred's reforms, and most of the fyrd would have been equipped with at least a helm and sword in addition to their spear, shield and horse. Many would also have possessed a mail-shirt. Some of the well off burwaran may also have been equipped in a similar way to the fyrd.

The innovations that Alfred introduced meant that within twenty years of his death most of the Danelaw had been re-conquered by the West Saxon kings and their Mercian allies. By the middle of the tenth century the last Danish king had been driven out of England and the West Saxon line now ruled the whole country.

ANGLO-SAXON WEAPONS AND ARMOR

This was a 'heroic' age: the surviving stories and poems make this clear. The greatest virtue was loyalty to one's lord: the warrior shared the spoils of battle, but he was also willing to die for his lord - indeed it was considered a disgrace to leave the field of battle if one's chief were dead. When the battle was over you chased down any fleeing foe and exacted blood vengeance for your own slain warriors.

This spirit is reflected in both the poetry and prose of the Anglo-Saxons, even long after Christianity had become firmly established in England. And war has left its remains in the archaeological record, in the form of innumerable weapons buried in the graves of warriors, and even on occasion, those of ceorls.

The size of an early Anglo-Saxon army was quite small - we often hear of armies arriving in only three to five ships, but these groups, at most only 150 - 250 warriors, were often enough to win entire kingdoms. In many cases a king may have had less than 50 warriors in his retinue. Anglo-Saxon battles were fairly solid affairs fought on foot; it is thought that Ambrosius Aurelianus' success against the Anglo-Saxons may have come from his use of Roman Cavalry tactics against them. (It is strange that the Germanic invaders did not use cavalry themselves, since in the first and second centuries the Romans recruited their cavalry from amongst the Germanic peoples.) Once the forces had met, the battle consisted of a hail of missile weapons followed by grim hand-to-hand fighting in a restricted area, the opposing sides hacking away at each other until one side was reduced to carrion or broke and fled.

Spears

The principle weapon of the Anglo-Saxons was the spear. Spearheads came in many styles (Swanton classified 21 different forms), but were usually leaf- or 'kite-' shaped and had a socket for attachment to the shaft. It was usually diamond-shaped or lentoid in cross section, while the socket that continued from the narrow neck of the spearhead was split on one side and usually had an iron rivet to attach it to the shaft, which was usually of ash.

Spearheads vary considerably in length from a few inches to two feet or more, and the basic forms change very little throughout the whole Anglo-Saxon period. The overall length of the spear was around 6'6" - 8' (2.00 - 2.50m), and the butt of the spear was often capped with a metal ferrule. Spears were used both for hand-to-hand combat and as javelins. There is a special type of spear occasionally found in an early Anglo-Saxon context (although more common on the continent) - the Angon.

This type of spear was closely related to the Roman pilum, but unlike its Roman counterpart, the angon was used for close combat as well as for throwing. Angons normally had a small, barbed head connected to the socket by a long metal shaft. This long metal shaft served the same purpose as the shaft of a pilum when used as a javelin, and when used in close combat would stop the head from being chopped off. Spears are found in around 86% of the Anglo-Saxon burials that contain weapons.

Scramaseaxes

Another relatively cheap weapon used during the sixth and seventh centuries was the single edged knife - the scramaseax. Scramaseax is a term covering a wide variety of knives from small eating knives to large combat weapons. For the sake of simplicity, the term scramaseax shall only be used to describe the weapon in this section. The typical scramaseax of the Migration period, as found on the Continent, is about 8 - 14" (20 - 35 cm) long with an asymmetrical tang. Large scramaseaxes do not appear in England until the latter part of the Pagan period, with the earlier types generally having blades of about 6-10" (15-30cm) in length.

The guard is generally insignificant, or even non-existent, but many of the early scramaseaxes had decorative pommels, often boat-shaped or lobed. By the ninth century very long scramaseaxes start to appear, more a single edged sword than a knife. The blades of these scramaseaxes are between 22 - 32" (55 - 80cm) long and very heavy, capable of delivering a horrendous cutting blow. This type of scramaseax is probably the type referred to as a langseax (O.E. 'long-knife') in contemporary sources.

Two basic forms of scrameseax were in use in England. The Germanic type has almost parallel edges, with a sharply angled back. A single narrow fuller sometimes runs down one side, or rarely both sides, of the blade, just below the back. This type is not usually seen any earlier than the seventh century. The Merovingian type has a more curved form, and often has one or more fullers on both sides of the blade.

This type first appears in England during the later fifth century, reaches a peak in the sixth century, and is gradually replaced by the Germanic type in the seventh and eighth centuries. Both types have blades of triangular section. Handles were usually of horn or wood.

Scramaseaxes were carried in a leather sheath at the warrior's thigh and the sheath was suspended from the belt by means of a series of small bronze loops. Some scramaseax scabbards appear to have been made of leather covered wooden laths, in a manner similar to sword scabbards. Many scramaseax scabbards have decorative chapes. Scramseaxes are found in around 5% of the Anglo-Saxon burials that contain weapons.

Swords

The weapon par excellence, but not a very common one, was a sword. The swords of the Pagan Saxon period were usually two-edged, broad-bladed, straight-edged swords of the type known as spatha, the type of sword in use in Celtic and Roman times. These blades were usually of diamond or lentoid section and sometimes have one or more fullers (grooves running down the length of the blade to lighten it). During the sixth century the fullered broadsword starts to take over from the spatha. There is little evidence for the hilts of the earliest Anglo-Saxon swords, but what there is shows that the swords in use were similar to those found in the bog deposits of southern Denmark.

These early forms had lower and upper guards and grips of wood, bone or horn rather than metal, and no real pommel - merely a large 'washer' over which the tang was riveted. Some continental examples in use from the third to sixth century were coated in silver foil, although so far none of the excavated English examples have been.

In the sixth century there is a new form that seems to have been adopted by all the Germanic peoples - it is found in Britain, Scandinavia, Germany, France, Italy and Hungary. Swords of this type are the first to feature a large metal pommel, rather than an oversized washer. The upper and lower guards seem often to have been made of wood, bone or horn, or often of a sandwich construction of layers of metal riveted to a central layer of organic material. Some do have all metal guards, but where this is the case they usually mimic the sandwich construction, complete with rivets. These swords are often very rich, with gilded (or even solid gold) metal parts. This form of hilt includes the 'ring-sword'.

These have an upper guard embellished with a ring and staple. In the earliest examples the ring is free running through the staple, while on later forms it is replaced by a single solid casting of the ring and staple. The significance of these rings is not really known, but since literary sources indicate that both rings and sword-hilts were considered worthy of having oaths sworn upon them, this may have been their function.

Some swords show signs of having had such rings removed, and so it is possible that they were personal to a particular owner and were removed if the sword were passed on to someone else. It is also possible that these were the rings given by kings in literature. The rings may have been an indication that a lord had rewarded a warrior.

During the later seventh and eighth centuries the organic parts of the upper and lower guards were gradually replaced with iron. During the eighth century a new type of pommel appears, usually divided in three, or sometimes five, 'lobes'. These pommels were sometimes of iron.

By the ninth century the guards and pommel were almost exclusively made of iron, often with decorative silver inlay. By now the lower guard was usually curved down towards the blade and the upper guard curved away from the hand.

Swords were precious objects, handed down from father to son, king to retainer, and swords were often thought to have greater virtue because they were old, or had belonged to some famous person of the past.

The best blades were made by pattern welding, a technique where rods of iron and steel are twisted together and welded into a single piece of metal. This is then hammered out to form the core of the blade, to which hard steel cutting edges are welded. This forms a very strong blade, and the pattern welded core gives a marbled pattern, hence the name. A pattern-welded sword was an object of great value. The poem Beowulf gives us some good descriptions:

"Then he took off his helmet and his corselet of iron, and gave them to his servant, with his superb, adorned sword ... he impaled the wondrous serpent, pinned it to the rock face with his patterned sword ... the iron blade was adorned with deadly, twig-like patterning, tempered with battle blood... the ancient treasure, the razor sharp ornamented sword..."

"Angrily the warrior hurled Hrunting [the name of the sword] away, the patterned sword with serpent patterns on its hilt; tempered and steel-edged ... an invincible sword wrought by the giants, massive and double edged ... the defender of the Scyldings grasped the ringed hilt, swung the ornamented sword ... the gold adorned sword hilt; the blade itself had melted, the patterned sword had burnt ...finest of blades, with twisted hilt and serpentine patterning ... his sword, gleaming and adorned, sank in up to the hilt."

The sword was carried in a scabbard, which was usually made of two thin laths of leather-covered wood. The mouth of the scabbard was sometimes ornamented with a metal band, and it was sometimes bound with a strip of metal and was tipped with a metal shape.

The scabbard was usually lined with fleece so that the natural grease of the sheep's wool would keep the blade from rusting. Many of the scabbards that have been excavated have shown signs of having a thin ribbon or tape, usually of linen, wrapped around the upper portion, but it is not clear what its purpose was.

Although swords were sometimes worn on waist belts, they were usually carried slung from the right shoulder on a baldric. The sword was normally worn with the hilt riding quite high, above the hip, with the scabbard hanging at an angle, rather than straight down. In some cases, strap distributors have been found in association with swords, and these were used with a Y-shaped baldric strap to hold the scabbard at an angle. Swords are found in around 12% of the Anglo-Saxon burials that contain weapons.

Axes

A few warriors used axes, but this was not a particularly common weapon. It is often hard to tell whether an axe found in a grave represents a weapon, or just a woodcutting axe. Of course it is possible that the same axe might be used for both purposes One special type of axe, not common, but found in sufficient numbers to show it was in use was the francisca, a type of short handled axe with an upward curving blade, probably originating amongst the Franks and designed primarily for throwing. Axes are found in around 3% of the Anglo-Saxon burials that contain weapons.

Bows and Arrows

Bows and arrows do seem to have been used, but to a lesser extent in England than on the continent. No bows have survived in England, although arrowheads do sometimes remain.

However, on the continent many bows have been found in the Saxon homelands, and it is likely that bows in England were of the same type. These bows were wooden longbows, ranging in length from 5' - 6'6" (150 - 200cm) and were usually of Yew. The arrows were usually tipped with iron heads, although many arrowheads of bone have also been found in Denmark. Bows or arrows are found in around 1% of the Anglo-Saxon burials that contain weapons.

Shields

The main defensive item of the Anglo-Saxon warrior was the shield. The Anglo-Saxon shield was of the center-grip type, and consisted of a round wooden board, often covered with leather or heavy cloth, with an iron boss in the center.

Often the grip was reinforced by an iron strip, which sometimes extended across the back of the shield to reinforce it. A few shields were bound at the rim with bronze, but most would have had a leather rim stitched on. Some of the shields were ornately decorated with ornate metal foils and studs or by painting. Most of the shields shown in early pictorial sources appear to be of the 'buckler' type, but this is possibly just an artistic convention so that details of the figures carrying them are not obscured.

Shields known from excavation vary in diameter from 16" - 36" (42 - 92cm), with the usual size being between 24" and 28" (60 and 70cm), but it has been observed that generally, the older and/or wealthier the person buried was, the larger their shield was.

It has also been noted that in the earlier part of the period the shields were generally of the smaller type, gradually becoming larger as the period progresses. It is interesting to note that continental examples of this type of shield tend to be larger, being 22 - 44" (57 - 112cm), the commonest size being around 36" (90cm). The shields were surprisingly thin, varying between 3/16 - ½" (5 - 12mm) in thickness, with most being around 5/16" (7mm).

Most poetry and prose from the period refers to Linden wood (lime) shields, but this timber only accounts for about 3% of the excavated examples; excavated examples have been found made of alder (37%), willow or poplar (37%), maple (10%), birch (7%), ash (3%) and oak (3%). Continental examples are almost exclusively of oak.

The shield boss was usually conical, with a wide Flange, secured to the shield by 5 rivets. They often had a small section of vertical or concave wall, and the boss is often tipped with a button which can sometimes be elaborately decorated with a silver or bronze plaque. Strangely, the hemispherical boss that was so common on the continent seems to have been almost entirely absent in England at this time. It is possible that a few of the poorest warrior's shields did not have a boss as this type are known on the continent, but are extremely rare.

Helmets

"The boar crest, brightly gleaming, stood over their helmets: superbly tempered, plated with glowing gold, it guarded the lives of those grim warriors... Displayed on his pyre, plain to see, were the bloody mail-shirt, the boars on the helmets, iron hard and gold clad..."

"Placed on the bench above each retainer, his crested helmet, his linked corselet and sturdy spear-shaft were plainly to be seen...when the ornamented sword, forged on the anvil, the razor sharp blade stained with blood, shears through the boar-crested helmets of the enemy...we shielded our heads in the fight, when soldiers clashed on foot, slashed at boar-crests...and his head was guarded by the gleaming helmet which was to explore the churning waters, stir their very depths;

gold decorated it, and it was hung around with chains as the weapon-smith had wrought it long before, wondrously shaped it and beset it with boar-images, so that afterwards no battle-blade could do it damage.

                                                   Extract from Beowulf

For most warriors the shield was the only protection, but wealthy warriors may also have worn a helmet. Unfortunately, surviving helmets from the fifth- and early sixth-centuries are unknown in Britain (the oldest helmets dating to the seventh century), but there are continental examples, especially from the Frankish kingdom. Those surviving there are of the late Roman type, constructed of four or more segments, and often having cheek-guards and mail aventails.

The earliest Anglo-Saxon settlers, particularly those who were serving in the shore forts or as foderati may have worn Roman style ridge helmets. Several helmets (or parts of them) of this type are known from Britain, including finds from the Saxon Shore Forts of Burgh Castle, Norfolk and Richborough, Kent.

This style of helmet was probably used both by Germanic mercenaries and native British troops, and could well have formed the model for later Anglo-Saxon helmets, such as the Pioneer helmet. Many archaeologists and military historians believe that these helmets may also have formed the models for the Scandinavian style of helmet found at Vendel, Valsgärde and Sutton Hoo.

A reconstructed Anglo-Saxon Helmets. From left to right: The Sutton Hoo Helmet (Reconstruction) from the late sixth/early seventh century; The 'Pioneer' Helmet (Reconstruction) from the early seventh century; The Benty Grange Helmet from the mid to late seventh century; The Coppergate Helmet from the late eighth century.

Domed helms with cheek-Flaps, neck-guards and sometimes face-guards and a crest or ridge are known from pictorial sources. This sort of helmet is known in England from the burial at Sutton Hoo, the Pioneer Helmet from Northamptonshire, the Coppergate Helmet from York, and fragments of crests from Rempstone in Nottinghamshire and Icklingham in Suffolk. This type of helmet is probably best known from the finds at Valsgärde and Vendel in Sweden.

Pictorial evidence shows helmets of all the types mentioned here. The evidence suggests that helmets were high status items, and as such were usually decorated to some degree, from the decorative silver rivets and crest of the Benty Grange helmet to the ornate decorations of the Sutton Hoo, Vendel and Valsgärde helmets, although the Pioneer Helmet is surprisingly plain.

During the Viking Invasions of the ninth century simple four-piece conical helmets seem to make their first appearance, gradually replacing the older types. These helmets could include a nasal bar and/or a mail aventail. This style of helmet seems to have been less ornately decorated than earlier styles

Body Armor

The more wealthy warriors may also have worn a mail-shirt or byrnie, which at this time was probably not much larger than a modern T-shirt, and certainly nowhere near as large as the later split hauberks. The mail shirt was probably worn over a leather jerkin or padded undergarment to prevent the mail links being forced into the body (the padded undergarment possibly did not make an appearance until the time of the Viking raids of the ninth century, when weapons seem generally to have got larger and heavier). It is possible that some of the less well off warriors may have worn leather helmets and jerkins for protection, although there is no direct evidence for this.

The mail of the period was made by cutting thin strips of iron from a piece of sheet, or drawing iron wire through a draw-plate, and winding this around a cylindrical former. It was then cut off with a chisel to form the links. The links would then be compressed so that the ends overlapped. Half of the links were then welded shut in the forge.

The other half had the ends of each link Flattened and then had holes punched in them. As the mail-shirt was assembled a punched ring was linked to four of the welded rings, a rivet was put through the hole to close the link. Finally the whole mail-shirt was likely to have been 'oil tempered' to make it stronger and give a small degree of rust proofing.

THE RELIGION OF THE PAGAN

ANGLO-SAXONS

The nature of the religion of the Germanic settlers is a very difficult subject, since it has to be pieced together from odd references from classical times and later Christian writings which obviously did not want to promote Pagan beliefs. Many modern historians look at the fact that four days of the week are named after Old Germanic deities, corresponding to four of the deities from later Scandinavian religion and shrug it off as being the same as the religion of the Pagan Vikings.

Unfortunately, it is not this simple. While it is true that they share many similarities, this attitude is about as valid as saying the Jewish faith and Christianity are the same thing just because they share the Old Testament. Although both the Early English and Viking religions have the same Germanic root, they were very different, and the Viking version had three more centuries of development than the English one. The early English religion had much in common with pre-Roman Celtic beliefs as well as later Scandinavian ones.

Unlike the later Scandinavian religion, the supreme deities in English faith were probably goddesses, not gods. The most important of these was Nerthus, the earth mother (the Harvest Queen of folk tradition). She looked after the fertility and well being of man and beast. It is unclear whether Frija or Frea is a separate goddess, or just another aspect of Nerthus, but she is usually associated with love, lust, yearning and friendship. Other important Goddesses were Eostre, goddess of the dawn, spring and new life (and whose name is given to the spring festival of the Christian faith - Easter), and Rheda or Hreð, a wælcyrie (valkyrie) and goddess of the winter.

Of the Gods of the early English we only know of three: Tir, Woden and Thunor (the Tyr, Oðin and Thor of Viking mythology). Woden seems to have been the most important of these three since most royal lines traced their descent from him, and he survived the Conversion as the lord of magic, the shaman and as the leader of the Wild Hunt. The Wild Hunt was originally made up of the souls of dead warriors riding to Valhalla to join Woden's host of champions, waiting for the last battle against the forces of destruction.

In modern German the Wild Hunt is also known as the Wild Army; in the middle ages, Germans called it Wuotaanes her, Woden's army. In later English folklore, it is usually taken to be the souls of the restless dead being hunted by the hounds of hell.

Rationalist explanations include the terrifying violence of spring and autumn gales and the cries of flocks of migrating geese. (It is also interesting to note that the wild hunt is also sometimes associated with Cernunnos, the antlered god of the Pagan Celtic faith). Tir was the god of glory and honor, and a favorite with warriors, but little is known of his early English personification, although the rune for Tiw is frequently used as a charm of protection.

Thunor was also popular amongst warriors, and of all the English gods was the closest to his Scandinavian counterpart. Although his symbol of the hammer was used in England, his commonest symbol was the fylfot cross (the swastika of modern times), which seems to have also symbolized both the sun and a shield.

Another god who was probably worshipped by the early English was Frey. Although there is little direct evidence, his usual symbol - the boar - is commonly associated with warriors (another similarity to Pagan Celtic times). Frey was a fertility god, 'ruler of rain and sunshine and thus of the produce of the earth'. The reason for the lack of evidence for Frey may be because his English personification was Ing, the son of Mannus (the father of mankind) and Nerthus (the divine mother).

However, the boar may also have been associated with the goddess Frija. If this were the case then its popularity with warriors would be explained by Tacitus's observation of one of the Suebic tribes:

'They worship the Mother of the Gods. As an emblem of the rite, they bear the shapes of wild boars. This boar avails more than weapons or human protection; it guarantees that the worshipper of the goddess is without fear even when surrounded by enemies.'

At Yuletide warriors made their vows for the coming year on a sacrificial boar (we still make New Year's resolutions), and before the turkey arrived, the boar's head had the place of honor at Yuletide feasts (and we still sing a carol that accompanied its processional entry into the feasting-hall).

To the early English, the world was full of lesser spirits as well as the great gods and goddesses. There were elves, ettins (Trolls), wælcyrian and a whole host of other supernatural beings (who all joined the earlier Celtic deities amongst the faerie folk).

The early English year was full of religious significance, and was divided into only two seasons: summer and winter. These were divided by moon-lives (months), six to each season; but the sun governed the year.

The two greatest festivals were at the two Solstices, Midsummer (Liða) and Midwinter (Geola or Yule). These times were so important that each was 'guarded' by two moons: Ærra Liða (the month before Midsummer) and Æftera Liða (the month after Midsummer) - June and July, and Ærra Geola and Æftera Geola Flanking Midwinter - December and January.

Winter began with the first full moon in October and was called Winterfylleþ. November was Blot-monaþ (Blood-month or the month of sacrifice) when the winter slaughtering of livestock took place and feasts were held in honor of the gods, to whom many of the livestock were sacrificed.

We know from Bede that the Midwinter festival, the most sacred night, when the New Year began, was called Modranect - Mothers' night. He says that it was so called from the ceremonies that took place then but he does not describe them, but it may well have been associated with the birth of Ing. It is easy to understand why Bede did not go into details about what happened on Modranect. If the English were already celebrating a young Lord, Ing son of Mannus, and his Divine Mother at the same time as the feast of the Nativity, the parallels would seem too close, even blasphemous, to a theologian like Bede.

February was called Sol-monaþ - mud-month, probably just a comment on the English weather at this time of year. Bede tells us that it was also popularly called the 'month of cakes' - mensis placentarum - 'which in that month the English offered to their gods'. Ploughing of the fields had begun, and the cakes (Latin placentae) were probably the loaves placed in the first furrow as an offering to Nerthus for a good harvest. March was Hreð-monaþ (Hreð's month), the last month of winter and its goddess Hreð.

Sacrifices were made to Hreð in this month. April was Eostre-monaþ (Eostre's month). Eostre's symbols were the hare and the egg, both seen as symbols of rebirth and the spring (many early English actually believed that hares laid eggs, since a hare's 'scratch' and a lapwing nest look the same and are both first seen in the spring!) - and still remembered today in the form of Easter eggs and the Easter bunny.

May was Þri-milce (three milkings) because, as Bede tells us 'in olden days in Britain, and also in Germany, from where the English came to Britain, there was such abundance that cattle were milked three times a day.' Was this a far memory of the easy days before the deterioration of the climate at the end of the Northern Bronze Age (500 - 400 BC), or just the perpetual belief that things were always better in the old days?

The power unleashed at the Midsummer Solstice must have been too strong and dangerous for Bede and his successors even to mention the rituals, although later sources tell us 'Midsummer Eve is counted or called the Witches Night and still in many places on St John's Night they make fires on the hills', so the rituals probably involved the lighting of bonfires (perhaps similar to the Beltain festivals of Celtic times). The Christian Church certainly felt it was a day needing special guardianship and put it under the protection of St John the Baptist, whose message was repentance of sins. August was Weod-monaþ (weed month), 'because they grow most in that month.' September was Halig-monaþ (holy month), the month of festivals in honor of Nerthus in her aspect as giver. This is the festival for which we have the best idea of the ritual, as Tacitus devotes a chapter of Germania to this festival, common to all the Germanic tribes:

'They worship in common Nerthus, that is the Earth Mother, and believe she intervenes in human affairs and goes on progress through the tribes. There is a sacred grove on an island of the ocean, and in the grove is a consecrated wagon covered with a cloth. Only one priest is allowed to touch it; he understands when the goddess is present in her shrine and follows with profound reverence when she is drawn away by cows.'

'Then there are days of rejoicing: the places she considers worthy to entertain her [i.e. the places where the cows pulling the driverless wagon choose to stop] keep holiday.

They do not go to war, do not use weapons, all iron is shut away - peace and quiet is much esteemed and loved at that time - until the same priest returns the goddess to her sanctuary when she has had enough of human company.

Directly the wagon, the covering clothe and, if you like to believe this, the goddess herself, are washed in a secluded lake. Slaves are the ministers; immediately the same lake swallows them. [They are drowned as soon as they have finished their tasks as lay folk may not see or touch the goddess and live] From this arises a mysterious terror and a pious ignorance about what that may be, which is only seen by those about to die.'

We also know that the sheaf was also a symbol of the goddess (the origin of the corn-dolly), and it seems that even after the conversion this ritual had not been forgotten. In September 1598 a German visitor traveling to Eton describes a country ritual he witnessed:

'We were returning to our lodging house; by lucky chance we fell in with the country-folk, celebrating their harvest home. The last sheaf had been crowned with flowers and they had attached it to a magnificently robed image, which perhaps they meant to represent Ceres [Ceres was the Roman name for a goddess of the fruitful earth and the harvest, and a much more widely known deity than Nerthus in the 16th century] They carried her hither and thither with much noise; men and women were sitting together on the wagon, men-servants and maid-servants shouting through the streets until they come to the barn.'

About 1,000 years after the conversion, the English still had a goddess of the fruitful earth, still riding a wagon, making random progress amidst public rejoicing. Servant-ministers were in attendance, although in the September of 1598 they were on their way to a more cheerful and less final end to the ceremonies. Even as late as the end of the 18th century, the antiquarian William Hutchinson reported meeting the Harvest Queen in Northumberland:

'I have seen in some places an image appareled in great finery, crowned with flowers, a sheaf of corn placed under her arm and a scythe in her hand, carried out of the village in the morning of the concluding reaping day, with music and much clamor of the reapers, into the field where it stands fixed to a pole all day, and when the reaping is done it is brought home in like manner.

This they call the Harvest Queen and it represents the Roman Ceres. [To classically educated scholars from one end of Europe to the other, all the old gods appeared in their Roman forms.]'

There is no physical evidence for temples or shrines in England, but this may well be because the early English shrines were not buildings, but sacred places. We know that King Rædwald put up a Christian altar in his family shrine, and that King Edwin's temple at Goodmanham was desecrated and burned at the orders of its own high priest, but nowhere do we have any direct evidence of these holy places being buildings. Yet the shrines and holy places of the old tradition can be seen everywhere in England. Tacitus says of the early Germans:

'They judge that gods cannot be contained inside walls nor can the greatness of the heavenly ones be represented in the likeness of any human face: they consecrate groves and woodland glades and call by the names of 'gods' that mystery which they only perceive by their sense of reverence.'

So the shrines were probably sacred groves and pools rather than buildings, and this would certainly seem to be borne out by the number of natural features bearing the names of gods, and the number of sacrificial bogs known from the continent.

The priests of the early English are an even more shadowy group than the deities, and really all we know about them is that they existed, were not allowed to ride any horse but a mare and could not bear arms (although the spear, the sacred weapon of Wodan, may have been used in some rituals). After this our knowledge of them is non-existent.

THE HORSE

IN EARLY GERMANIC CULTURE

The horse was an important animal to the early Germanic peoples of Europe. Finds from the North German peat bogs show that horses were sometimes sacrificed and their skins were hung on poles over the bog. For the first several hundred years AD horse offerings were important in pagan Germanic religious ceremonies. Piles of horse bones have been found in many North German bogs and burials.

Remains of the head, the lower part of the legs and in some cases the base of the tail are usually found. The ritual perhaps demanded that the Gods received the skin with the head, legs and tail while the participants in the ceremony ate the remainder.

The early Germanic warrior also used the horse. The Roman author Tacitus, writing in the first century AD, tells us:

"The horseman asks no more than his shield and spear, but the infantry have also javelins to shower, several per man, and they can hurl them to a great distance; ... Their horses are not distinguished either for beauty or for speed, nor are they trained in Roman fashion to execute various turns. They ride them straight ahead or with a single swing to the right, keeping the wheeling line so perfect that no one drops behind the rest.

On general survey, their strength is seen to lie rather in their infantry, and that is why they combine the two arms in battle. The men who they select from the whole force and station in the van are fleet of foot and fit admirably into cavalry action."

Also, a number of sets of horse-harness have been recovered from the German and Danish peat bogs, dating to the first few centuries AD. As we can see from this, the idea of a cavalryman was not unknown to the Germanic warrior, but it was not usual for the Anglo-Saxons to use cavalry.

Contemporary finds of warriors buried with their horses are well known from the pre-Viking cultures of Scandinavia, and at Vendel and Valsgärde many of the ship burials contained horses and horse-harness. Mounted warriors are also commonly shown in contemporary art, most notably in the decorative foils used to ornament helmets.

Burials of riders with their horses are also known from the Merovingian Frankish, Thuringian and Allemannic kingdoms. Burials with horses are also found in Viking Age Scandinavia.

One of the most famous horse-burials is that of Childeric's grave in Tournai (482 AD).

Childeric had taken over the role of the defender of the dying Romanitas in the Merovingian realm, but he was also a Germanic pagan ruler. His burial belongs to the category of "Fuerstengraeber" (pincely graves). This phenomenon of graves that are rendered prominent is well known from the early Merovingian period, but vanishes at the end of the 6th century.

Childeric's grave was under a burial mound, and current research shows that the Frankish world used again the tumulus. Tumulus-graves are found mainly in the Alammanic area, but West of the Rhine they are an exception. These graves are meant to contain very important personalities; they are one of the criteria for Germanic ethnic identity and a definite proof of paganism. Childeric's grave was situated near a Roman road at the edge of a contemporary graveyard. Three horse-burials are situated at the edge of the burial mound (They contain a total of 21 horses!).  These particular burials are believed to be connected to Childeric's burial. However, this thesis cannot be proven with any certainty.

However, several arguments exist for connecting the horse-burials with Childeric's burial, especially since there is evidence for those graves being contemporary with Childeric's. The arguments are: All graves belong to the end of the 5th century (which can be proven by scientific methods.)

It is significant that the horse graves are situated at the edge of the burial mound and the number of horses is remarkable.

The horse-population is very homogenous: geldings, horses for battle, outnumber any others.

It is most implausible that the horses died because of an epidemic - especially not at this place. The graves can be clearly understood as such and their place in the graveyard hints at cult/ritual significance. The occurrence of horse graves in the Merovingian period shows clearly that this custom stayed an exception between the Rhine and the Seine, while it was well known in the middle of the 5th century in Thuringia and later at the Elbe, Rhine and Danube.

Therefore it can be taken for sure that the horse graves are connected to the king's grave and its magnificent burial-rite.

The horse skull, that was found within Childeric's grave, belonged without a doubt to his personal riding horse, while the other horses that had been sacrificed at the time of his burial, probably came from his own stables.

The participation of horses in important ceremonies was widespread and popular, as the report about the arrival of the Frankish prince Sigimer into Lyon makes clear. The discovery in Tournai explains the special appreciation of horses in Frankish society of the 5th century and the ritual significance that they had concerning burial rites of a pagan king.

Other burials of this type are known from Beckum, Frankfurt, Main-Praunheim and Wulfsen. There are also many Frankish and Allemannic graves containing horse harness, although without the horse itself.

THE HORSE IN ANGLO-SAXON ENGLAND

Only a few people in early Anglo-Saxon England had horses and they were very valuable animals. The quotes from Beowulf show that a horse was considered a kingly gift, and this is further borne out by Bede when he is writing about King Oswin around 644 AD:

"He had given an excellent horse to Bishop Aidan so that, although it was his custom to walk, he could ride it when he had to cross rivers or some other urgent necessity arose. Not long afterwards Aidan was met by a poor man begging for alms, and dismounted and ordered the horse, complete with it's royal trappings, to be given to the beggar; for he was a man of great compassion and a friend of the poor, and like a father to those in need. When the king was told of this, he said to the bishop as they were going to dinner: 'My Lord Bishop, why did you want to give this royal horse to a beggar?"

 ”It would have been better for you to keep it as your own. Did we not have many less valuable horses, and other things which would have been good enough to give to the poor, without giving away the horse I chose especially for your own use?'"

The Anglo-Saxon attitude to horses, in a religious/cult sense, was noticeably different to the continental one. In England all the archaeological evidence (even that of the cremations) suggests that the horse was not butchered and eaten as on the continent, but was interred whole. What little evidence there is for eating horseflesh is devoid of any noticeable religious contexts.

However, the symbolic role of the horse-burial rite is made clear by the fact that they seem only to accompany adult male burials. It seems likely that in Anglo-Saxon England the religious significance of the horse may have been somewhat different to that on the continent.

We know for certain that there were stud farms in Anglo-Saxon England by the tenth century because they are mentioned in wills, but it is likely that kings and rich nobles had them around much earlier. As well as the clue in the quote from Bede (above), there are many hints from later charters and accounts. By the early11th century all military men were required to have several horses by law!

NOTES

1. Stirrups do not appear to have been used in England until about the ninth century and were probably adopted from the Franks

2. This could also account for the early Christian ban on the eating of horseflesh.

3. This distinction between 'royal' horses and ordinary ones could suggest that the unusually large size of the horse in the burial at Lakenheath could represent a royal horse. Perhaps this warrior had been rewarded with a fine horse by the king.

ANCIENT CULTURES OF WESTERN EUROPE

Modern French institutions and people are derived from 2,000 years of contact with diverse cultures and people. Into the area (Normandy) now defined as France (and Belgium) the Vikings, Celts, Romans, Franks came, and other people producing a mixture of practices and races.

Since 1500 AD the French have formed a relatively unified territorial state in which diversity nevertheless persists.

Ancient Gaul

When Julius Caesar of the Roman Empire invaded Gaul in 58 BC, he found a territory reaching from the Mediterranean Sea to the North Sea; from the Pyrenees Mountains and the Atlantic Ocean to the Rhine River and the Alps Mountains. The population of possibly ten million possessed neither homogeneous roots nor unified rule.

Several centuries earlier the Celts had surged from their Danubian homeland into the valleys of the Rhine and Rhone Rivers and as far as today's Belgium, England/Scotland, and Ireland. The newcomers mingled with the native Ligurians of the Alps, Iberians of the Pyrenees, and numerous folk elsewhere who were often of Phoenician, Greek, or Roman stock.

The Celts

Celtic rule in Gaul was decentralized. The Gaul (Latin for Celts) were basically grouped as members of clans that sometimes functioned separately and sometimes formed into one of over 400 tribes, which in turn often joined into one of the 70 or so "nations." Thus the Gauls had no single leader or authority, and except for Marseille and Nice, they had no cities or towns either.

Most lived in scattered thatched roof mud huts generally surrounded by a stockade. Hunting, fishing, and pastoral pursuits supplied their basic food and shelter needs. Some surpluses and craftwork in wood and leather found their way into local markets for sale or barter (exchange). Gallic religious life too was localized and pluralistic, with pantheistic worship of rivers, woods, and other elements of nature. The most widespread but not universal cult was that of the druids, centered in Brittany (Briton).

Roman Conquest

Roman legions marched into Gaul in 58 BC not only to protect the Roman republic's Mediterranean holdings but also, to promote Julius Caesar's personal ambitions beyond his pro-consulship of Cisalpine and Transalpine Gaul. The Gaul's contributed to their own subjugation by their tribal rivalries and inability to resist the infiltration of trans-Rhenish barbarians and the Swiss (Helvetii).

Caesar's speedy success in stopping the barbarians was followed by the conquest of all of Gaul. The Roman victory was not due to superior numbers of troops but to their training, discipline, and weaponry and to Gallic disunity. Even the heroism of the Gallic prince Vercingetorix failed to halt or reverse the Roman conquest.

Five hundred years thereafter of Roman rule produced striking consequences for Gaul. Politically, the idea was planted of citizenship of a common state with a single set of laws and administrators and a more or less unified tax system. In practice, much localism remained, and the direct and indirect taxes were assessed and collected inequitably. If imperial Rome benefited by holding provincial Gaul (from financial exactions, manpower, and cheap grain), the Gaul themselves also derived economic advantage from their connection.

Security against barbarians and bands of brigands encouraged the Gaul to clear more forests and farm more land. Better roads, bridges, and communications fostered greater trade. Towns and villages began to appear in place of the scattered family unit mud-hut habitations.

Culturally, a taste for learning Latin and Greek was cultivated in rudimentary educational institutions in cities like Marseille, Bordeaux, and Lyons. Frequently, the interest was superficial, and outlying regions remained untutored in Latin. They also continued to practice old Celtic paganism and Druidism despite the spread of Christianity. As missionaries crisscrossed Gaul to convert the pagans and to organize The Church, other Christians clustered in monasteries to pray and to establish islands of learning. When the Roman Empire collapsed, the surviving Roman Church would be crucial for the retention of Gallic-Roman forms and practices.

Frankish Kingdom

The 5th-century decline of Rome was disastrous for Gaul's political unity, economic development, and cultural life. An accelerated flow of barbarians--invading in variously sized groups of Franks, Goths, and Burgundians, rather than in a single coordinated force--began the process of splintering Gaul. However, as the Romans and Gauls become assimilated so too did the Gallo-Romans and the barbarians adopt each other's ways. The France that emerged by the year 1000 AD was thus a combination of Celts (Gauls), Romans, and barbarians (Franks, Teutons, Visigoths, Burgundians, Vandals, Vikings, and others). 

Merovingians

Out of the welter of political and territorial shifts from the 5th to the 11th century, the Church and the successive dynasties of the Merovingians (431-751 AD) and the Carolingians (747-987 AD) supplied links of continuity. The founder of the Frankish kingdom was Clovis (481-511 AD), a Merovingian. He completed the work of his grandfather, the Salian Frankish chieftain Merowen, by first overwhelming the Gallo-Roman forces at Soissons in 486 AD.

Thereafter he (Clovis) extended Frankish rule over Burgundy and the whole southern region to the Pyrenees by defeating the Visigoths. A convert to Christianity in 496 AD, Clovis found that his services to the Church helped his own status in and beyond his new capital, Paris.

Upon Clovis's death in 511 AD, the Frankish kingdom was parceled out among his four sons. Clovi's heirs subdivided their holdings and waged bitter wars against one another and outsiders. In the last century of their rule, the Merovingians exhibited their declining authority even in their particular kingdoms.

Aristocratic landowners whittled away at their royal power in administrative, legal, military, and tax matters. Agriculture and trade were in disarray with the countryside ravaged by feuding chiefs and barbarian bands. Towns and villages, although still furnishing some shelter for occupants and rural refugees, dwindled as commerce ebbed.

The strong influence of the Church continued, with bishops protecting townsmen and monastic orders maintaining some semblance of culture, but even the Church could not prevail against Merovingian decline. Finally, at the beginning of the 8th century, after decades of incompetent Merovingian rule over the remnants of the Frankish kingdom, the Carolingians, who had served as pal ace mayors (or advisors), finally secured the reins of power.

Carolingians

Even before the Carolingians, Charlemagne, had become king of the Franks in 768 AD. Charlemagne became emperor in 800 AD. His grandfather, Charles Martel, had amassed sufficient power to "save" Europe from the Moors at Tours in 732 AD.

Martel's talents and military forces were passed on to Charlemagne's father, Pepin the Short, whose aid to the missionary Saint Boniface was compensated by the Pope's endorsement of Pepin and his sons as the legitimate dynasty of the Frankish kingdom. Upon these foundations, Charlemagne waged innumerable wars and gained all Europe from the Pyrenees to the Vistula. His rule encompassed no more than Gaul and the Frankish kingdom, but it nevertheless left a strong imprint upon France. It also foreshadowed the feudal system, which was already evolving.

Within the Frankish state, the vigorous and attractive Charlemagne extended royal power and financial resources. In exchange for extensive, but nonhereditary land grants and the right to levy local taxes, lords of manors furnished military troops and judicial services to the King, and the lower classes provided labor on road and other public works.

As a check on the local notables, Charlemagne sent out teams of missidominici (usually a bishop and a count) to inspect the districts and report on any irregularities. Two assemblies were held each year, possible forerunners of the States-General (parliament). In the spring session Noblemen had opportunity to discuss their problems, and the King could present his program or impressions of the realm.

In his capital at Aachen (Aix-la-Chapelle) and in other towns, Charlemagne rekindled intellectual life by gathering holy men, scholars, and literary figures like Alcuin. Works of Greek and particularly Latin were copied and analyzed in new schools founded by favored churchmen.

Charlemagne's encouragement of learning had perhaps more long-range significance for French and Western civilization than his sensational military and political ventures.

The Carolingian decline, after Charlemagne, followed the same pattern as the Merovingians' after Clovis. The same type of partition of lands, notably formalized in the Treaty of Verdun in 843 AD, resulted in the area roughly equivalent to medieval France being assigned to the Frankish emperor Charles II. He and his descendants held an ever-weakening grip over the kingdom against invading Vikings--who, as Normans, established the Duchy of Normandy--and predatory Lords. Over the shrunken French state the Capetian dynasty would achieve kingship by 987 AD, and within that state the feudal system would flower.

Capetian Kingdom (987-1328 AD)

For nearly 1,000 years, the house of Capet furnished France with kings, first as direct-line Capetians and later through the branch families of Valois and Bourbon. The line was literally cut by the guillotining of Louis XVI in 1792 AD, although his brothers Louis XVIII and Charles X and his distant cousin Louis-Philippe served as monarchs after Napoleon I.

Between Hugh Capet's coronation in 987 AD and the succession of the Valois in 1328 AD or the inception of the Hundred Years' War in 1338 AD, the feudal system became crystallized along with the concept of French kingships. Cities and towns revived, peopled by bourgeois citizens engaged in a resurgent trade of agricultural and craft products. A cathedral-building boom satisfied the religious spirit and supplied jobs. The Crusades absorbed the energies of kings, counts, clergy, and commoners. And the Norman conquest of England established the centuries-long connection and rivalry with that island kingdom.

Feudalism, rooted in land grants of Charlemagne and the subsequent breakdown of his empire, became almost inevitable when weak kings failed to check the Viking incursions of the 9th and 10th centuries.

Surely but haphazardly, feudalism developed as a contractual arrangement between Lord and King, and mannerisms came to determine the relationship between Lord and peasant. As warriors for the king, the lords were bound to render military service at their own cost. In return, not only did they receive hereditary title to tracts as large as provinces but also the right to tax, oversee and judge their inhabitants.

Toward their subjects, the lords owed protection and the preservation of order; from them, they were due loyalty, rents, fees, and obligations of a military and economic nature.

The relative strength of Lords and Kings often depended not upon title but upon personal traits and capabilities, extent of landholdings, resources available, alliances possible, and church support. The local Lords' power was demonstrated in the election of Hugh Capet to the kingship in 987 AD. His predecessors were mere Counts of Anjou and Blois, and his supporters included the Duke of Normandy. As Kings the Capetians were in actual possession of only their family lands of central France--the Ile de France--situated around Paris and Orleans.

It was long a question how much authority would be allowed the Kings of France in the lands of the Dukes or Counts of Normandy, Aquitaine, Burgundy, and Flanders. An outstanding example was the case of the Dukes of Normandy. Duke William's conquest of England in 1066 AD and his ascent to the English throne, as William I, obviously made the subsequent Dukes of Normandy and Kings of England awesome competitors to their feudal overlord...the Kings of France.

The English Kings extended their French holdings even further when Eleanor Of Aquitane, after the annulment of her marriage to the pious Capetian Louis VII, married (1152 AD) the future Henry II of England.

To tip the precarious balance in their favor, shrewd Capetian Kings frequently encouraged and linked-up with the new middle-class, whose urban and commercial interests often clashed with the warrior and rural concerns of the feudal lords.

Royal charters granted special privileges and wider markets to the bourgeoisie, and the bourgeois could pay. Churchmen too could be wooed to the King's side with his patronage for cathedrals, schools, and crusades.

With glaring exceptions and tragic consequences, French participation in the Crusades stimulated a spirit of national rather than local pride, tied the church more closely to the monarchy, and created contacts with Italy and the Middle East for French merchants and scholars.

Of unquestionable vitality in this Medieval era was the cultural expression. In monasteries and universities, churchmen and laymen studied, discussed, and debated theological tracts, Greek and Latin works, and a spate of literature beginning to appear in the vernacular French language.

Consolidation of Royal Power (1328-1715 AD)

Such Capetians as Hugh Capet, Philip II, Louis IX, and Philip IV succeeded in upholding and enlarging the royal prerogative beyond their family lands; other Capetians failed. The Valois branch (1328-1589 AD), after a dreary start and before a whimpering end, drove the English out of France, consolidated the kingdom, asserted royal authority, launched expeditions into Italy, and ushered in a cultural Renaissance. What the Valois left undone was completed by the Bourbons.

From the Hundred Years' War to the Wars of Religion

The expulsion of the English involved the French in the Hundred Years War (1338-1453 AD), a conflict of intermittent intensity. Mixed into the origins of the war were the quest for commercial and political prizes in Flanders and the duel between the English and French Kings for Normandy, Aquitaine, and other provinces.

One highlight of the war was the contribution of Saint Joan of Arc. Inspired by visions instructing her to present herself to the Dauphin (later Charles VII) and free Orleans from the English, she in turn inspired the Dauphin, his advisors, and the public. Although she was burned at the stake in 1431 AD, her mission was accomplished within a generation. Relieved of the English presence, the French monarchs, notably Louis XI (1461-83 AD), finished the task of consolidating the Kingdom.

They then began to seek extension of their power beyond the boundaries of France. Charles VIII invaded Italy in 1494 AD, launching the Italian Wars and a long dynastic rivalry with the Habsburgs of Austria and Spain.

Sixteenth-century France was blessed by two strong Kings, Francis I and Henry II, and cursed by three weak ones, the sons of Henry II by Catherine De Medicis. The Wars of Religion spoiled not only by the weak monarchs, but French prosperity and solidarity also after 1560 AD. Catholics battled Calvinist Huguenots, each faction aspiring to control the monarchy. Catherine de Medicis steered a Machiavellian course to maintain her children's status.

However, she was barely outlived by her last son, Henry III, who was assassinated in 1589 AD. This paved the way for the first Bourbon, Henry IV, the leader of the Huguenots, to fight and compromise his road to the throne by 1598 AD. He satisfied Huguenots by the tolerant Edict of Nantes in 1598 AD and mollified Catholics by his own conversion so as to enter the Paris he considered "worth a Mass."

Bourbon Reconstruction

By tact, persuasion, and force, Henry IV reduced religious tensions, stimulated commerce and manufacturing, and curbed the nobility. Cardinals Richelieu and Mazarin who were the de facto rulers of France, under Henry's weak son Louis XIII, vigorously pursued the last process.

It was Louis XIV, however, who truly tamed the aristocracy, at least until the end (1715 AD) of his own absolutist reign. Already deprived by Richelieu of their fortresses in the countryside, prohibited from dueling, and subjected to royal edicts and administrators, the nobles were turned by Louis into powerless courtiers, forced to attend him in the new Palace of Versailles.

The grandeur of Versailles, imitated by so many European monarchs, was not merely architectural and social in value. It was also a focal point from which emanated favors and patronage for artists, writers, and scientists.

In this period the bourgeoisie was the beneficiary of mercantilist policies developed most notably by Jean Baptiste Colbert. The interests of the royal treasury often coincided with subsidies for manufacturing and for expanded internal, colonial, and foreign trade.

The middle class and the peasantry paid, however, by a heavy tax burden to finance Louis HIV's wars and other enterprises.

French influence abroad rose as the secular-minded Cardinal Richelieu engaged Catholic Frenchmen as allies with Protestant Princes against the Holy Roman Emperors, the German Catholic Princes, and Spain in the Thirty Years War, after which France gained Alsace by the Peace of Westphalia (1648 AD). Louis XIV further expanded French territory in Europe and overseas and placed his grandson on the Spanish throne as Philip V.  The Bourbons completed all the wars, diplomacy, and marriage that Valois left undone.

HUGUENOT (METHODIST) HISTORY

Thanks to L'Histoire, mes bons Amis 

The Rhône River has remained a premier center for trade and agriculture for thousands of years. The river flows south from Lac Léman at Geneva, Switzerland through a region once occupied by the Keltoi, the name given to people in southern France with whom the ancient Greeks traded, in particular by the writer Herodotus. The earliest archaeological evidence places Celtic tribes in France and western Germany in the late Bronze Age, around 1200 BC. In the early Iron Age, they are associated with the Hallstatt culture (8th century to 6th century BC), named for an archaeological site in Austria. In the 5th century BC (late Iron Age) the La Tène culture, characterized by finely crafted jewelry, weapons, and pottery, spread from eastern Gaul (the English word for the Latin name Gallia) throughout the rest of the Celtic world. Between the 5th and 1st centuries BC, this influence extended from Hispania to the shores of the Black Sea.

Celtic Gaul

The Gaulois subjugated northern Italy, for a time occupied Rome, and seized land even as distant as Turkey (Galatia or Gallogræcia). The Gaulois included Celtic tribes like the Helvetii, the Sequani, and the Aedui, along the Rhône and Saône rivers; the Arverni among the mountains (Cévennes) to the west of the Rhône; and, the Allobroges along the Isère River. Rome "conquered" all of Gallia. Munatius Plancus, under Julius Caesar established the colonial city of Lugdunum (meaning raven on a hill), what is today Lyon, at the confluence of the Rhône and Saône Rivers, overlooking small existing Gaulois settlements.

While the Western Roman Empire flourished, the Gaulois enjoyed close relations with the Romans. Their fortunes, both in war and peace, became indivisible from those of Rome. Most ancient travelers to northern and western Europe first had to pass, by foot, by animal, or by boat, through Lugdunum.

More about Lyon

The Celtic language slipped into disuse as Roman influence grew over the next few centuries. Only a few hundred words survive of the Gaulois. A Romance version of Latin remained, best reflected in Provençal (as well as the Occitan or Langue d'oc tongue and dialects), spoken in the southern third of France, and used by about one-fourth of today's French population.

Grenoble, tucked away among the mountains where the Drac and Isère rivers merge, has a somewhat similar beginning as Lyon, being first a tribal center (Cularo). Later it became the Roman city, eventually called Gratianopolis, "Grenoble" being a corruption of the Latin. The Emperor Gratian (for whom the city was named) was murdered in Lyon by the mutinying commander of the Roman armies of Britain (August 25, 383), before the Emperor could reach the safety of the Alps. He was 23.

In some ways the history of the British Isles, which mirrors that of France, helps to explain the event. The various local tribes, known collectively to the Romans only as Britanni, probably began to adopt Celtic culture during the early Iron Age phase (8th-6th century BC). Rome built colonial fortifications at places like Londinium and Eboracum (York), after its successful invasion in 43 AD; however, Rome's hold on these places remained always more tenuous than on the Continent. From the resulting many rebellions came a few emperors, such as Flvius Valerius Constantinus, whose nom de guerre is Constantine I, the Great. Ultimately, however, in the 5th century AD, during the twilight of the Western Roman Empire, even Gallia was overrun by successive incursions by Goths, Franks, and Huns. Grenoble and areas south in Provence did not experience the full brunt of these invasions, which allowed the Provençal culture to flourish.

The Franks, Another

The name of France derives from a Germanic tribe (and of earlier Nordic origin?), the Salian Franks.

Their leader {C} hlodwig (ruled from 481 to 511) was the first notable ruler of the Merovingian dynasty. This past year France celebrated the 1500th anniversary of his baptism in 496, several years after his marriage to Burgundian Princess and Saint, Clotilda (June 3). His name, Latinized, is Louis {the {C} h being silent), while in English he is known as Clovis I.

He was the first of 18 individuals named Louis, who over the course of French history held or were pretenders to the French Crown. {C} hlodwig first made Paris the French capital.

The kingdom declined in size and power, after his death, until the Carolingians, the succeeding ruling family, again united the Franks, in order to push the Moors back from an invasion of Europe (732 AD). Competing interests between heirs gradually tore apart the Carolingian kingdom.

Disunity led, eventually, to a three-part division by the Treaty of Verdun (843), creating a west Frankish kingdom in the western portion of modern France. Within 100 years the Capetian family (also Frankish nobles) took control of this portion. Lands east of the north-south line made by the Rhône/Saône/ Meuse Rivers lay in another (the middle) kingdom. Thus, the area around Grenoble, which was part of Provence during much of this interim time, survived as nominally independent for another 600 years. Disunity in the western kingdom also led to successful raids from wandering Norseman from Scandinavia (Viking pirates). One group, the Normans settled in the lower Seine river valley along the English Channel (Normandy) at the invitation of a local noble. The chiefs of the Norman tribes, soon adopted what by now was a distinct French language, accepted Christianity, swore allegiance (fealty) to the local Frankish ruler, and became magnates (or French nobility) themselves.

In the time of the early rulers of the House of Capet, the king was only primus inter pares or the first among equals, being of no more illustrious origins or having no larger territorial holdings than his peers. The other noble peers were his counts (comtes), his companions. The Dukes of Normandy, Brittany, Burgundy, and Acquitaine, as well as, the Counts of Flanders, Champagne and Vermandois thought themselves equal. Soon after the Peers of France were twelve in number - six spiritual and six temporal. "Traditional peerage" dates from the 14th century growing out of and arising out of the need to reward "loyalty" during the wars of the period.

England (Angle-land) underwent a 5th century (AD) Germanic conquest by the Angles, Saxons and other northern European cousins of the Franks.

Over time, the rule of many tribal leaders was consolidated under one English King and his loyal Barons (the witenagemot). England and France remained intertwined through intermarriage. As an example, Edward the Confessor, a son of Anglo-Saxon King Ethelred, was recalled from Normandy, where he had lived in exile with Norman Christian cousins. Not unexpectedly, Edward's reign witnessed increasing Norman-French influence. Edward oversaw completion of Westminster Abbey, which he finished just in time for his burial in January 1066. Edward's death without an heir left the succession in doubt and in dispute.

The witenagemot chose Harold, Earl of Wessex. The Earl had once been held hostage by a Scandinavian cousin, also named Harold, and was released only upon giving up any interest in the English throne. This relative, now called King Harold III of Norway, wished to claim his prize. Another contender and cousin was Duke William of Normandy.

Harold, then currently English King, Harold II, fought off an invasion by the Scandinavian claimant, defeating him at Stamford Bridge on September 25, 1066. Notwithstanding this success, the course of world history radically changed at the Battle of Hastings on October 14, 1066; because, Duke William (the Conqueror) established a beachhead in England without opposition, while Harold busied himself elsewhere. When an exhausted Anglo-Saxon army was able to turn its attention to the second set of invaders, it was too late. French Barons, née Viking pirates, had established the new English royal family and noble retinue. William was crowned in Westminster Abbey on Christmas Day.

Norman feudalism became the basis for redistributing the land among the conquerors, giving England a Norman-French aristocracy. England turned away from Scandinavian social and political structure towards France. After the Norman invasion the "English" court spoke French; but conducted business in the local language -- eventually a friendly and amicable compromise was reached. Rabid extremists of the Anglo-Saxon persuasion can point out that the English language overcame the Celtic and Roman influences, while Norman French never fully subdued it.

Thus today, we swear (Germanic) and affirm (French); we raise swine (Germanic), have pigs (Old English, perhaps Celtic, but the original etymology remains obscure), and eat pork (French); a canine (Latin) pet can be dog (again more Celtic), hound (Germanic), or dawg (Georgian).

There is of course a dispute about whether lawyers/attorneys use two words for everything, because of the differences between Old English and Norman- French, or because counselors of the legal kind once were paid by the 'word.'

Finally, consider the word "cat" of Germanic origin. Probably, the Germanic tribes borrowed the word from the Romans, who brought really big cats into the Circus at Lugdunum and elsewhere. The Latin language has another word for cat, which we know today as feline. Just maybe this helps explain why, depending on your perspective, English spelling is a "mess" (a French derivative) or a "jumble" (a word whose origin is unknown).

William, Duke of [French] Normandy, although himself a Capetian vassal, as an English ruler exercised far more real power, over a far larger realm, than did his King, Philip I (who reigned from 1060 to 1108 AD). The interests and goals of the ruling families soon began to collide.

The common elements of the religious and political history of England and France were not strong enough to overcome these difficulties. The Capetian and Norman clans and their successors disputed claims and allegiances for the next eight hundred and fifty years. Wars would be fought primarily because each royal house had an arguably valid claim against the other's land. Often religion was blamed for the dispute; but, the underlying cause remained political. It is only at the end of these second thousand years of the Christian era that these two countries have established a record of relatively consistent cooperation.

During the interim, their political (economic) conflicts, and those of other European powers, were played out on the battlefields of the Old World, as well as in the Americas. Before the Europeans and their troubles officially arrived in the New World, however, the river system running through the center of the United States, much like the Rhône and its tributaries, had affected tribal trade and agriculture of the indigenous people for thousands of years. The Algonquian people called this the father of waters; the Ojibwe called the water source mezzi {misi} sippi -- the "big river."

After entering from the Northeast, the Mississippi and its watershed became a key factor in the direct French influence in the New World. LaSalle visited the lower Mississippi region in 1682. He claimed it for the French King, Louis XIV, hence the name Louisiana. The first Europeans of the lower Mississippi, mostly French and some Spanish settlers who had arrived much earlier, were known as Creoles.

When Marquette, Jolliet and others explored this Nation's heartland, it was a part of New France (France's North American colonial empire).

The French founded trading settlements in the northern Mississippi River Valley with names such as St. Louis and Ste. Genevieve. They tried, unsuccessfully, to name the big river after Louis.

A name that survives today, "Illinois", reflects the French pronunciation for the native nation in that part of the region. Cahokia was founded in 1699 by French missionaries and named for a tribe of the Illinois people. The village, the oldest permanent European settlement in Illinois, was also the site of the largest prehistoric Native American city north of Mexico. Today it lies between East St. Louis and Granite City and is known for racing and horseradish. Much later, towns like Dubuque, the first settlement in Iowa (1788) founded by a French-Canadian looking for lead, were established.

Today's name for the Rock River (in Illinois) naturally flows from the anglicized French name, Rive a la Roche.

The French also had a more northern colonial presence. The first settlement of New France was established in what is today known as the Canadian Maritime Provinces. The French founded Acadia before Jamestown and Plymouth in 1604, although a heavy influx did not begin until the 1620's. The British and French both had claimed these northern lands. The English obtained permanent possession of mainland Acadia by the Peace of Utrecht (1713 AD), which ended the War of the Spanish Succession; also known as Queen Anne's War in the Americas, the same war in which England obtained Gibraltar.

The Acadians, who had attempted to remain neutral in the Anglo-French conflicts, suffered. In 1755 AD, because of renewed war with France (the Seven Years' War) and doubts about the loyalty of the Acadians, the British colonial authorities removed the Acadians from their lands, dispossessed them of their property, and dispersed them among the other British holdings in the Americas. Some of the Cajuns, as they are today known, fled to less populated areas of southeastern Louisiana, away from the higher riverbanks, to places not already occupied by the Creoles. Acadian descendants retain today, in large measure, the language spoken upon exile. A list of names from this area in Louisiana would show the French (Acadian or Creole) influence: Bourgeois, Broussard, Guidry, Jeansonne, Lambert, Ordeneaux, Robichaux.

For economic, as well as political reasons, the French Crown ceded colonial Louisiana to the Spanish, who had competing claims. It was returned secretly to France on the eve of its sale by Napoleon to the United States.

The sale (commonly called the Louisiana Purchase) also put to rest claims that had kept Georgia's border from extending westward to the sea.

By 1778 the French Crown officially had intervened against Britain in the American Revolution, thereby hoping to weaken its colonial rival and to recover its lost colonies. Participation in the war increased a politically dangerous and burdensome French national debt; yet, without the Alliance of 1778 AD, there would have been no United States, able to claim i