The coming of the Anglo-SaxonsWhy were the ‘Dark Ages’ dark?What about Arthur?
Life after the Romans

The coming of the Anglo-Saxons

‘They outdo all others in brutality. Ungovernable, entirely at home at sea, they attack unexpectedly. When they are ready to sail home they drown or crucify one in ten of their victims as a sacrifice, “distributing the iniquity of death by the equity of lot”.’

Sidonius Appollinaris, landowner, poet and later bishop, writing of the Anglo-Saxons in 470 AD

‘Anglo-Saxon’ is used as a catch-all phrase to refer to the Germanic peoples who invaded and settled in England in large numbers during the fifth and sixth centuries AD. As well as the Angles (who came from the southern part of the Danish peninsula and eventually gave their name to England) and the Saxons (who came from the north German plain to the west), there were also Jutes (from Jutland) and smaller numbers from other Germanic tribes as well.

The removal of the Roman legions from Britain around 410 AD did not lead to an immediate Anglo-Saxon takeover. Nor did the newcomers invade as a single great force that defeated the native Britons. After the collapse of Roman authority in the early fifth century, centralised government broke down. Local rulers or strongmen moved to fill the gap. The earliest surviving account of the coming of the Anglo-Saxons (written two centuries afterwards) says that they were first hired as mercenaries, turning against their employers when they were not paid.

After that, there seem to have been great waves of migrating settlers, who soon established themselves in the southern and eastern parts of Britain. In some areas they may have driven out or enslaved the original British inhabitants; in others they may have coexisted peacefully. What is certain is that by 600 AD most of England had been reorganised into new small kingdoms ruled by Anglo-Saxon kings. Those Britons who were not subject to Anglo-Saxon rule had been pushed far into the west and north.

Why were the Dark Ages dark?

The more we learn about the so-called ‘Dark Ages’, the more it becomes clear that they weren’t really ‘dark’ at all. The phrase was introduced by historians to describe the period after Roman rule in Britain ended at the beginning of the fifth century AD.

There is hardly any written evidence from this time and much of what we know from the early written sources was actually transcribed much later. Bede’s Historica Ecclesiastica writings, for example, which provide us with the most complete account of the history of this period, date from the mid-seventh century. The absence of written records meant that the Dark Ages were seen as ‘dark’ in the sense that we didn’t know much about them. The description also came to be associated with the idea that civilised life collapsed in Britain after the Roman departure and didn’t recover again until the Renaissance a thousand years later.

Today the term ‘Anglo-Saxon’ is most widely used to describe the period, which historians divide into Early (450-650 AD), Middle (650-800) and Late (800-1066). Although the early part of the period would certainly have encompassed some unsettling times, people still lived productive lives. Many fine archaeological discoveries have helped reinterpret the time as one of consolidation and development.

Though urban centres tended to fall into decay in the fifth century, trade still continued with continental Europe. Mediterranean pottery was imported and grave goods found with burials from the time include imported bronze, glass and ivory. Various finds of Anglo-Saxon jewellery and other metalwork, meanwhile, have shown it to be highly sophisticated and often delicately wrought.

What about Arthur?

Perhaps the most famous name from the British Dark Ages is that of King Arthur, of the legendary Camelot and the Knights of the Round Table. But in fact the whole story is an invention, created some six centuries after he was supposed to have lived by Geoffrey of Monmouth, who wrote a fictional account of the kings of England in the 1130s. For those seeking a historical Arthur there are just four scant references to anyone of that name in ancient documents. The rest is speculation and fantasy.

Life after the Romans

The biggest and most immediate effect of the Roman withdrawal from Britain in the early fifth century AD was not the arrival of barbarian hordes tearing down the city walls. Rather, alongside the disintegration of centralised authority and administration, it was the collapse of the currency and with it the whole structure of finance and trade that had underpinned Roman rule.

The one-pound coin that you hand over in the newsagent for your Sunday paper is only worth one pound because it has the authority of the Bank of England and the government behind it. Otherwise it’s just a piece of metal. Imagine if that authority was removed, as it was for the native population of Britain when the Romans left. Financial – and social – turmoil quickly followed.

The turmoil varied from place to place. There is growing evidence that many Romano-British villas remained in use and prosperous well into the fifth – and possibly the sixth – century. But central authority disappeared and Britain became divided into numerous small warring groups ruled by chiefs, both native and invading. By the seventh century, these had been consolidated into the kingdoms that were to dominate the history of medieval England. In the meantime, England would have comprised a changing patchwork of competing – and often conflicting – fiefdoms.

Anglo-Saxon life >>