Æthelstan

Sarah Foot’s study adds Æthelstan (924–39) to a select group of Anglo-Saxon kings whose reigns have been the subject of modern biographical treatment. This cohort includes Alfred the Great (871–99: well regarded but ruler of a small kingdom), Æthelred II (978–1016: ruler of a large kingdom but not particularly well regarded), Cnut (1016–35: ruler of a large empire, well regarded in Denmark), and Edward the Confessor (1042–66: ruler of a large kingdom, regarded with some ambivalence). Æthelstan’s addition to the group is genuinely exciting, as Foot provides us with a serious study of a major figure of the tenth century who controlled—at least in British terms—a significant territory and whose roots lay in a native ruling dynasty. Although hardly overlooked by historians of the Anglo-Saxon period, Æthelstan’s achievements do not always figure as large as they might in studies focusing on the tenth century—a key period in the formation of an English kingdom. Taking over his father, Edward the Elder’s, ‘kingdom of the Anglo-Saxons’ (essentially an enlarged Wessex along with Mercian territory) in 924, Æthelstan made territorial gains, first by diplomatic means and later through military conquest. His reign is perhaps best known for the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle’s seventy-three-line poem on the battle of Brunanburh (937), but Æthelstan’s achievements as a ruler amounted to more than a single victory. Æthelstan managed to translate Anglo-Saxon kingship into something more tangible than the traditional model of Anglo-Saxon tributary overlordship. Mixed with notions of imperial rule and interests that saw him linked with just about every ruling house in Europe, Æthelstan established an English kingship of an area that can be identified as ‘England’ and for a brief period, through ideological imposition and punitive military campaigns, he achieved something that could be perceived as ‘British’ imperial rule. Foot’s biography conveys these developments lucidly but, as she observes, the problems with studying Æthelstan as a historical figure are manifold, as no contemporary text exists which focuses purely on the figure of the king. Although the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle is invaluable, its record of Æthelstan’s reign is brief. William of Malmesbury’s twelfth-century Gesta Regum Anglorum claims that a contemporary life of the king has been included in William’s account—a credible assertion that Foot runs with, adding detail to her justifications in an appendix—but it is still hardly a full account of the everyday life of a tenth-century king. Similarly, although there are a good number of diplomatic and legal materials associated with Æthelstan’s reign, the existence of which has long been recognised by historians, these materials are often fragmentary, leaving large gaps in our knowledge about the king’s whereabouts throughout his reign

Ancient history · Art · Battle · Empire · Kingdom · Monarchy · Period (music · Political science · Politics · Reign · Ruler · Subject (documents · Throne · Victory · Byzantine Studies and History · Classics · History · Law · Medieval Literature and History