 |
The Heroic AgeIssue 6Spring 2003 |
An Appeal
to Rome
Anglo-Saxon
Dispute Settlement, 800-810
Abstract: In this paper, I argue that Anglo-Saxon dispute settlement in the early ninth century exploited Charlemagne's title as Holy Roman Emperor. The willingness of Anglo-Saxon monarchs to evoke a Continental presence in dispute resolution demonstrates the connection between England and Charlemagne's renovatio imperii.
Two disputes between the Northumbrian and Mercian kingdoms were
resolved through an external agent, the first in 801, and the
second in 809. While conflict between the Anglo-Saxon kingdoms
was nothing new, mediation between kings as a strategy of dispute
resolution was unique to this period. I suggest that the kings
of Northumbria and Mercia, the two strongest kingdoms in the
early ninth century, exploited Charlemagne's imperial title to
strengthen their own positions.
Charlemagne's interest in Anglo-Saxon affairs is well attested.
He harbored English political exiles and considered a diplomatic
marriage with Mercia.[1]
In 792 he sent the English a statement from Constantinople regarding
the adoration of images along with Alcuin's refutation,[2]
and in 794 he invited English clergy to participate in the Synod
of Frankfurt rejecting the Seventh Ecumenical Council at Nicaea
(787). Perhaps the best evidence for Charlemagne's interest in
Anglo-Saxon affairs is preserved in a letter Alcuin sent to Offa
of Mercia (757-796). Alcuin wrote that when Charlemagne learned
of the murder of Æthelred of Northumbria (774-779, 790-796),
"he was so angry with the people, 'that treacherous, perverse
people,' as he called them, 'who murder their own lords,' for
he thought them worse than pagans. If I had not interceded for
them, he would have deprived them of every advantage and done
them every harm he could."[3]
It is difficult to determine how Alcuin expected Offa to receive
this statement, for it suggests that Charles was ready to mount
a punitive expedition into Northumbria. Possibly Alcuin was attempting
to impress the Mercian king by demonstrating the importance of
his relationship with Charlemagne. On the other hand, it could
have reflected Charlemagne's vision of England's relationship
to the expanding regnum Francorum. The only comment we can offer
with any degree of certainty is that Alcuin was articulating
an outsider's view.[4]
Discerning the Anglo-Saxon perception of their relationship to
Charlemagne and his renovatio imperii is much more difficult.
There is little indication that Anglo-Saxons recognized Charlemagne's
imperial title. The Anglo-Saxon Chronicle refers to him as cyning
when recording his death, fourteen years after his acclamation
as emperor.[5] Charlemagne's
imperial coronation in 800 is passed over in silence, while the
"A" manuscript of the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle, records
the accession of Alfred's grandfather Egbert in Wessex.[6]
This omission is interesting, for the annals do record Pope Leo's
banishment and restoration in 799, but instead of describing
Charlemagne's role in the situation, the annalist focuses on
divine providence.[7]
It is unlikely that the Anglo-Saxon annalist knew of Leo's difficulties
in Rome, but was unaware that he owed his restoration to Charlemagne.[8] While Anglo-Saxons
in the late ninth century preferred to remember Charlemagne as
cyning rather than imperator, a careful examination
of the two negotiated settlements between Northumbria and Mercia
suggests that early ninth century Anglo-Saxons recognized Charlemagne's
titular claim to rule the Roman Empire and exploited his position
as a means to resolve their disputes.
In 801 Eardwulf of Northumbria (796-806, 808-810) led an army
against Cenwulf of Mercia (796-821). Eardwulf justified his invasion
by claiming that Cenwulf was harboring his enemies. After a lengthy
campaign, both monarchs made peace with the advice of the great
bishops and lords of the land, through the grace of the King
of the English (regis Anglorum).[9]
The account of this dispute is solely preserved in the Historia
Regum of Simeon of Durham, written in the early twelfth century.
Scholars believe Simeon copied this information from a lost set
of Northumbrian annals that continued Bede's Chronological Summary
into the early ninth century.[10]
The most puzzling aspect of Simeon's account is the identity
of the rex Anglorum. Two suggestions have been proffered,
but neither convinces entirely. Thomas Arnold, who edited Simeon
for the Rolls Series, glossed rex Anglorum as Egbert,
king of Wessex. While Egbert eventually became one of the most
powerful Anglo-Saxon kings, in 801 he was still an exile in Frankia.
He did not become king of Wessex until 802. Unfortunately, no
early ninth century Anglo-Saxon king is a likely candidate. Offa
of Mercia, who exercised hegemony over lands south of the Humber
died in 796, five years before the conflict between Eardwulf
and Cenwulf. Furthermore, Simeon never once refers to him as
rex Anglorum.[11]
In fact, the first individual to be designated rex Anglorum
in Simeon's work is Alfred (871-899), indicating that Simeon
understood a rex Anglorum as a king of all England, and
not just of the Angles.[12]
Cenwulf, as the king of Mercia and heir to Offa's achievements,
would be a possible candidate, were it not for the fact that
he was one of the disputants. And since in 801, Mercian hegemony
was still relatively intact south of the Humber, other Anglo-Saxon
kings were clients of the Mercians. Therefore, it seems unlikely
that any Anglo-Saxon king could have been dubbed rex Anglorum
by Simeon.
The lack of possible candidates led Dorothy Whitelock to emend
Simeon's text. She suggested altering rex Anglorum to
rex Angelorum, changing the reference to "king of
the angels", an obscure reference to God.[13]
This proposal has two advantages, the first being it disposes
with the need to look to a real individual, and the second that
it matches Simeon's providential tone later in the passage. After
relating the peace process, Simeon quotes a verse from Boethius's
Consolation of Philosophy.[14]
He then explains in a gloss that a tranquil time (serena tempora)
came to the land through the Lord's favor, a clear reference
to the divine.
However, there is a distinct difference between the actions of
the rex Anglorum and God. Simeon unequivocally evokes
God first as a guarantor of the oaths of peace sworn by the kings,
and then as a benevolent force who stands before storms. An invocation
to the divine to enforce oaths was standard practice, but it
must be noted that God was expected to preserve the peace, not
negotiate a settlement. If Simeon meant to indicate that God
facilitated peace between the two kings, this would have been
inconsistent with Anglo-Saxon and Anglo-Norman conceptions of
how the divine intervened in the physical world. For Bede, God
operated in the world as a judge rather than as a peacemaker,[15] and the same understanding
of the divine seems to function in Simeon's Historia Regum.
The work opens with an account of the martyrdom of Æthelbert
and Æthelred, where their murderer is revealed by God's
divine light.[16]
It is also worth noting that in Simeon's explication of the verses
from Boethius, he first mentions the joy that came to the magnates
of the land after the kings made peace between themselves, and
follows later with his allusion to the time of tranquility.
In contrast, the rex Anglorum had a definitive and concrete
role, to supervise the peace process that was accomplished by
Cenwulf and Eardwulf. I believe that it was much more likely
that the rex Anglorum was a real person, who as a mediator
had to be acceptable to both disputants, since the decision to
enter arbitration was typically made with the consent of both
parties.[17] In practical
terms, his most salutary attribute would be impartiality. Since
none of the English kings could have served in this capacity,
being either involved in the dispute or clients of Mercia, we
must look beyond England for his identity. When Æthelheard,
the Archbishop of Canterbury (793-805) journeyed to Rome in 801
with the West Saxon bishop Cyneberht (c. 781-c. 803), he was
possibly seeking an external arbiter for this dispute.[18]
There is no other obvious reason for these two bishops to make
the journey at that time. Æthelheard had been ruling since
793, so he could not have been going to receive his pallium,
and neither bishop was retiring. I suggest that Simeon's rex
Anglorum should be identified as Charlemagne, who probably
sent an agent, with papal support, to serve as arbiter in the
dispute between Eardwulf and Cenwulf.
In a later dispute involving Eardwulf and Cenwulf, there is direct
evidence that Charlemagne intervened with papal support. The
Royal Frankish Annals provides the basic narrative: Between 806
and 808, Eardwulf was driven from his kingdom.[19]
In 808, he came to Charlemagne at Nijmegen, a royal villa located
north west of Aachen, and then went on to Rome. The following
year, Eardwulf returned to England along with one papal and two
imperial representatives. He regained his throne, reigning until
his death in 810, and was succeeded by his son Eanred.[20]
He was the first Northumbrian king to pass the throne on to his
son in over sixty years, a significant achievement for a king
with no discernable descent from either the Bernician or Deiran
royal lines.[21]
On the surface, Eardwulf's appeal to Charlemagne and Pope Leo
III (795-816) appears to be a simple, if ingenious, attempt to
regain his kingdom. However, the narrative is complicated by
a series of letters exchanged between Charlemagne and Pope Leo.[22] According to one
letter, three individuals wrote to Charlemagne regarding Eardwulf's
expulsion: Eanbald, the Archbishop of York (796-808), Cenwulf
of Mercia, and an individual identified only by the name Wada.[23] Since the matter
concerned the king of Northumbria, it is not surprising that
Eanbald, as the Archbishop of York, was involved. It seems likely
that Eanbald wrote on Eardwulf's behalf, especially since his
immediate predecessor had consecrated Eardwulf to the throne
in 796.[24] However,
the letter from Cenwulf indicates that Eardwulf's expulsion from
his kingdom was not strictly an internal Northumbrian affair.
The only reasonable explanation for Cenwulf to write to Charlemagne
regarding Eardwulf's expulsion is that he was somehow involved
in the situation. Leo's phrasing also indicates that the three
letters presented opposing views, with Eanbald imparting one
version, while Cenwulf and Wada reported another.[25]
Leo further states that after reading the letters sent by Eanbald,
Cenwulf, and Wada, he recognized the false ones, and he was greatly
saddened that Cenwulf was now at odds not only with the Archbishop
of Canterbury (Wulfred, 805-832), but with the Archbishop of
York as well.[26]
Leo's letter indicates that he perceived Cenwulf as one of the
primary parties involved in Eardwulf's expulsion, opposed to
the ex-Northumbrian king and his supporter Eanbald.
Eardwulf's expulsion from Northumbria and his subsequent restoration
were the key items of interest to the author of the Royal Frankish
Annals, who does not relate the nature of the dispute that caused
Eardwulf to appeal to Charlemagne, or the other individuals who
may have been involved. While the entry for 808 focuses on Eardwulf's
activity on the Continent and Leo and Charlemagne's response,
the account for the following year makes Eardwulf's restoration
explicit, stating that Eardwulf had been returned to his kingdom.[27] In a postscript
to the entire affair, the analyst describes the return journey
of the imperial and papal envoys. All returned safely except
for the papal envoy Aldwulf who was captured by pirates and subsequently
redeemed by one of Cenwulf's men.[28]
However, by including a description of this event, the annalist
indicates that Cenwulf was actively involved in the process that
led to Eardwulf's restoration.
Cenwulf must have been at least cognizant of the papal legate's
mission to England. Leo's letter to Charlemagne indicated concern
about Eardwulf's expulsion from Northumbria, and that Leo was
equally troubled with Cenwulf's relationship to the Church of
England, as indicated by his remark that Cenwulf was not at peace
with either the Archbishop of Canterbury or the Archbishop of
York. In discussing the matter in preparation to send emissaries
to England, Leo requested Charlemagne's assistance to restore
concord between Cenwulf and the archbishops.[29]
From this letter, it would seem that in addition to assisting
Eardwulf, Leo's legate was to negotiate peace between Cenwulf,
the Archbishop of York, and the Archbishop of Canterbury. Although
we do not know the nature of the dispute between Cenwulf and
Wulfred, it is clear that the discord between Cenwulf and Eanbald
was related to Eardwulf's situation.[30]
Therefore, Cenwulf must have known why Leo's legate Aldwulf was
in England. Yet Cenwulf allowed his "man" (homine)
to ransom Aldwulf, and then subsequently permit him to return
to the Continent. Although Cenwulf had sent Leo and Charlemagne
letters arguing against Eardwulf, the restoration of Eardwulf
left Cenwulf in a position where he felt free to ransom a man
who had supported his opponent. To my mind, this indicates that
the role of the papal and imperial legates was not to use force,
or the threat of force, to cow the opposition into reinstating
Eardwulf to his throne. Instead, they were there as arbiters,
to negotiate a peaceful settlement that involved the restoration
of the Northumbrian king, but with the consent of the Mercian
king.
Our knowledge of the disputes of 801 and 808 is fragmentary.
In neither case do we have a complete narrative of the conflicts
from inception to resolution. However, in both cases, the willingness
of Anglo-Saxon monarchs to submit their disputes to an outside
authority is noteworthy. Non-violent dispute settlement was by
no means new to Anglo-Saxons, but hitherto had not occurred between
monarchs of neighboring kingdoms. Charter evidence provides us
with examples of Anglo-Saxon kings and bishops arbitrating disputes.[31] However, when Anglo-Saxon
monarchs had conflicting agendas, the outcome was generally war.
If arbitration between two Anglo-Saxon kings were an unusual
occurrence, the surrounding circumstances that led to a non-violent
dispute process in the first decade of the ninth century merit
a closer examination.
Following Offa's death in 796, two powerful kingdoms emerged.
Although Mercia suffered setbacks, such as the revolt of Kent
and the loss of Wessex from its political orbit, it remained
the single most powerful kingdom south of the Humber until the
expansion of Wessex in the 820s. The other Anglo-Saxon kingdom
to attain considerable strength was Northumbria. The dynastic
difficulties that plagued this kingdom during the second half
of the eighth century may have ended the days when Northumbria
exercised imperium over much of England. However, with a surcease
to violent dynastic rivalry at the beginning of Eardwulf's reign,
Northumbria was still strong enough to challenge Mercia. Simeon's
account of Eardwulf's invasion in 801 implies that this was not
a small-scale border skirmish, but a significant threat that
required Cenwulf to collect an army from other kingdoms.[32]
Simeon also indicates that the two forces were well balanced,
leading to a long, but inconclusive, campaign that was eventually
settled with the advice of the leading men of the kingdom, and
not on the battlefield. Simeon describes a conflict between two
kingdoms of relatively equal strength, a contrast to the accepted
narrative of eighth-ninth century Anglo-Saxon England, which
tends to juxtapose Mercian ascendancy with Northumbrian instability.
However, the letter exchanged between Charlemagne and Offa, as
well as the letter Alcuin sent to Offa, indicates that Charlemagne
conceived of England as ruled by two kings, one in the north
and one in the south.[33]
Charlemagne's understanding of the political situation in the
Anglo-Saxon kingdoms was most likely reflective of reality, and
it is unlikely that Offa's death significantly altered the balance
of power.
While Mercia and Northumbria were the strongest Anglo-Saxon kingdoms
at the beginning of the ninth century, they certainly were not
unchallenged. Early in his reign, Eardwulf had been faced with
an internal rebellion, and Cenwulf similarly experienced the
revolt of Kent. During the reign of these two monarchs, Charlemagne
claimed the title imperator Romanorum, and it is interesting
to consider what this title meant to English kings. Although
Charlemagne certainly involved himself in English political and
religious affairs, there is no concrete evidence that he ever
exercised authority over Britain. However, Charlemagne's claim
to rule the Roman World, which in antiquity included the island
of Britain, provided Anglo-Saxon kings with a theoretical "higher
power" who recognized the kings of both Mercia and Northumbria,
but was impartial to their disputes, the ideal arbiter. These
kings consequently exploited Charlemagne's title to end costly
and inconclusive military conflict.
Before Charlemagne was crowned Roman emperor, the only individual
with some titular claim to universal authority was the bishop
of Rome, who, it can be argued, was perceived in England as the
head of the Christian Church.[34]
Beginning in the seventh century, the pope was a source of appeal
in English ecclesiastical disputes. A well-known example is Bishop
Wilfrid (d. 709), who made several journeys to Rome to protest
eviction from his see.[35]
Offa appealed to the pope when he wanted to create a new Archbishopric
at Lichfield, and Cenwulf equally petitioned the pope both to
abolish the see at Lichfield, and to move the archbishopric of
the southern English from Canterbury to London. There is abundant
evidence that the English perceived the bishop of Rome as an
arbiter in ecclesiastical matters. It is also clear, however,
that the decisions the bishop of Rome made with regards to Anglo-Saxon
affairs were far from final; they could only be enforced with
the consent of Anglo-Saxon ecclesiastical and secular authority.
Thus, although Wilfrid was vindicated by Pope Agatho (678-681)
and returned to Northumbria with letters reinstating him to his
see at York, the pope's decision was rejected by the Northumbrian
king Ecgfrith (670-685), and Wilfrid was forced into exile for
the duration of Ecgfrith's reign. In a similar manner, Offa and
Cenwulf manipulated the diocesan structure of the South English
church for their own benefit. Offa claimed that the establishment
of an archbishopric at Lichfield was a unanimous decision of
all the English bishops, while Cenwulf would later argue that
Offa had lied in an attempt to humiliate the archbishop of Canterbury.
The two conflicting stories, and the fact that the pope acceded
to Mercian wishes in both cases, indicate that Anglo-Saxons sought
the authority of Rome to bolster and legitimize their own positions.
In no case could the pope dictate English ecclesiastical affairs.
Charlemagne's coronation on Dec. 25, 800, in effect, created
a secular analogue to the Pope, and Anglo-Saxons expanded their
Continental appeals to include Charlemagne, using his titular
position to their own advantage. We can see the effects of this
practice in the settlement of the dispute between Cenwulf and
Archbishop Wulfred that ran from c. 817-821. Although we only
know of this event through later documents, it appears that Cenwulf
presented Wulfred with an ultimatum: that he either concede to
the king, or face an exile that neither pope nor emperor (Caesaris)
would be able to mitigate. Wulfred agreed to the terms, and for
his part, Cenwulf dropped the charges.[36]
While this brief glimpse at the dispute between Wulfred and Cenwulf
attributes a more significant role to the pope than the emperor,
it is worth noting that Cenwulf expected that the Frankish ruler
would involve himself, and made specific provisions, stating
that he would not accept either the pope or the emperor as an
arbiter in his dispute with Wulfred.[37]
If Cenwulf expected the Frankish emperor to intervene in an internal
Anglo-Saxon dispute, it was because he had previously experienced
this phenomenon. However, it is also clear that conflicts had
to reach a certain level before Anglo-Saxons appealed to the
Pope or Emperor. The dispute between Cenwulf and Wulfred, for
example, was ongoing for several years before the final settlement
in 821. When considering the conflict between Cenwulf and Eardwulf
in 801, the indications are that Northumbria and Mercia were
equally matched, and that the battle between the two kingdoms
was both drawn out and inconclusive. Thus, the kings made peace
with the consent of their magnates under the supervision of someone
Simeon describes as rex Anglorum, but who should probably
be understood as the agent of the rex Francorum. The role
of Simeon's rex Anglorum is similar to that of the pope
in the ecclesiastical disputes we have briefly examined. Cenwulf
and Eardwulf's bishops and lords were the most influential in
the settlement of the dispute, while the rex Anglorum
simply placed an imprimatur upon the proceedings, as a neutral
party who had a higher social status than the two disputants.
Simeon's rex Anglorum had no real authority over the Anglo-Saxon
kings, who were the main actors throughout the scene.
Strengthening the argument that Simeon identified Charlemagne
as rex Anglorum in the Historia Regum is a curious
notice in a set of annals known as Annales Lindisfarnensis
et Dunelmensis, an. 797, which claims that Eardwulf married
Charlemagne's daughter.[38]
Laying aside the historical impossibility of such a claim, it
is interesting to note scholars have determined that Simeon of
Durham authored the Lindisfarne Annals.[39]
Clearly, in Simeon's mind, there was a strong connection between
Charlemagne and Eardwulf, prompting him to propose a marriage
alliance. Simeon's evidence for such a relationship between Eardwulf
and Charlemagne is more difficult to determine. Simeon seems
to have been unaware that Charlemagne played a significant role
in Eardwulf's restoration to his throne, or even that Eardwulf
ruled as Northumbrian King after 808, as neither the Historia
Regum nor the Lindisfarne Annals mention Eardwulf's expulsion
in 808 or his subsequent restoration. The closest any Anglo-Saxon
source comes to mentioning the 808 incident is the "D"
manuscript of the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle, which notes that Eardwulf
was driven from his kingdom in 806, and the Lindisfarne Annals
which mention Ælfwald's succession to the Northumbrian
kingdom in 808.[40]
If Simeon was unaware of the 808-809 dispute between Eardwulf
and Cenwulf, he must have had an alternative source for thinking
that Eardwulf and Charlemagne were connected through marriage.
It is plausible that Simeon suggested the marriage alliance based
on his understanding of Charlemagne's role in the 801 dispute.
Simeon's conception of Charlemagne's role as Emperor is also
worth considering. According to the Lindisfarne Annals, Charlemagne
was the first Roman Emperor in sixty years.[41]
Although the Annals accurately record the succession of Roman
Emperors in Constantinople from Justin II (565-578) to Leo III
(717-741), it omits the three Emperors who ruled between 741
and 797, as well as the Empress Irene (797-802).[42]
The treatment of Roman Emperors in the Lindisfarne Annals indicates
that Simeon had an exalted view of Charlemagne's role as successor
to the Roman Empire. When one examines the titles Charlemagne
employed after 800, it is easy to see how Simeon could have appended
rex Anglorum to the list: Karolus serenissimus augustus
a Deo coronatus magnus pacificus imperator Romanum gubernans
imperium, qui et per misericordiam Dei rex Francorum atque Langobardorum
("His Imperial Majesty Emperor Charles, crowned the great
and peace-loving Emperor by God, ruling the Roman Empire, and
through the grace of God, King of the Franks and Lombards").[43] While Charlemagne
may never have claimed the title rex Anglorum in any of
his surviving charters, it is possible that when he mediated
the two disputes between Eardwulf and Cenwulf, he extracted an
acknowledgment of his titular claim to rule the Roman Empire
from the Anglo-Saxon kings, which Simeon subsequently expanded.[44]
There can be little doubt that both the conflicts of 801 and
808 were resolved through arbitration. In further comparing Simeon's
description of the 801 dispute and Leo's letters to Charlemagne,
it is striking that both use the language of conciliation. Simeon
stresses the graciousness of the kings in coming to an accord,
as well as the benefits peace brought. In comparison, Leo states
that he sent his legate to make peace in Britain.[45]
Earlier, he prayed that God would make peace and dissolve the
discord, and that a settlement might be made in Charlemagne's
presence.[46] Leo
did not envision the papal and imperial representatives imposing
peace, but instead facilitating peace. It also seems evident
that such arrangements could only occur if both Anglo-Saxon parties
agreed, for neither the papacy nor the emperor possessed the
wherewithal to enforce settlements. Charlemagne may have raged
at the perfidy of Northumbrians in killing their monarch, but
he never attempted to mount an expedition within England. In
this respect, Eardwulf's appeal to Charlemagne and Leo should
be seen as an attempt to find a non-violent resolution to a dispute.
By involving an outside power, who had only theoretical authority,
Eardwulf and Cenwulf were able to achieve a settlement that permitted
both to salvage reputation and resources.
There is enough evidence to indicate that Anglo-Saxons involved
the Frankish emperor in their disputes on at least one, and possibly
three occasions. Perhaps these events were what Einhard had in
mind when he wrote in the Life of Charlemagne, "By his generosity
he had so impressed the Irish kings [Scottorum quoque reges]
with his goodwill, that they publicly declared that he was certainly
their lord and they were his subjects and servants. Some letters
they sent to [Charles] still survive and testify to this sort
of feeling toward him."[47]
The translation of Scottorum quoque reges as "Irish kings"
is an acceptable translation. However, it is also possible that
Einhard was referring to Anglo-Saxon kings. Support for this
interpretation comes from Alcuin's statement in the letter to
Offa of Mercia that Charlemagne had learned of the murder of
Æthelred of Northumbria from messengers who had returned
from Scotia, passing through Offa's kingdom en route.[48]
Alcuin's statement is more intelligible if one translates Scotia
as "Northumbria", rather than as "Ireland".[49]
While Einhard's claim has not been taken seriously, he describes
little more than a titular relationship between the Anglo-Saxon
kings and the emperor, placing it in the best possible light.
Particularly in comparison with Einhard's account of Charles's
relationship with other rulers, his claims are quite modest.
Charlemagne may have received an elephant from the king of the
Persians, and alliances from the Emperors of Constantinople,
but he only received deference and titles from the Scottorum
reges. Einhard may have been speaking truer than anyone has
hitherto realized. In a similar manner, Simeon's attribution
of the title rex Anglorum to Charlemagne should be understood
as an exaggeration. While Charlemagne was not a rex Anglorum
in the same sense as Offa or Alfred, the title may have indicated
that he extracted Anglo-Saxon recognition of his claim to the
title imperator Romanorum.
The practice of Anglo-Saxon kings appealing to outsiders as a
strategy to settle their disputes is limited to the first decade
of the ninth century, when it appears there was a balance of
power between Northumbria and Mercia that made mediation attractive.
The subsequent years saw an increase in Viking raids in the north,
and the emergence of a single powerful kingdom in the south.
As the kings of Wessex increased their holdings over England,
they gained the power to enforce their will over other kingdoms.
Once there was no longer a balance of power between multiple
Anglo-Saxon kingdoms, there was no longer a need for arbitration
from a distant Emperor or his representative.
|
|
|
|