by Various
Available in 585 free installments
Owner:
We need not doubt that the first invasion was followed by a long period of warfare between the natives and the invaders, in which the latter gradually strengthened their hold on the conquered territories. It is very probable that by the end of the 5th century all the eastern part of Britain, at least as far as the Humber, was in their hands. The first important check was received at the siege of "Mons Badonicus" in the year 517 (Ann. Cambr.), or perhaps rather some fifteen or twenty years earlier. According to Gildas this event was followed by a period of peace for at least forty-four years. In the latter part of the 6th century, however, the territories occupied by the invaders seem to have been greatly extended. In the south the West Saxons are said to have conquered first Wiltshire and then all the upper part of the Thames valley, together with the country beyond as far as the Severn. The northern frontier also seems to have been pushed considerably farther forward, perhaps into what is now Scotland, and it is very probable that the basin of the Trent, together with the central districts between the Trent and the Thames, was conquered about the same time, though of this we have no record. Again, the destruction of Chester about 615 was soon followed by the overthrow of the British kingdom of Elmet in south-west Yorkshire, and the occupation of Shropshire and the Lothians took place perhaps about the same period, that of Herefordshire probably somewhat later. In the south, Somerset is said to have been conquered by the West Saxons shortly after the middle of the 7th century. Dorset had probably been acquired by them before this time, while part of Devon seems to have come into their hands soon afterwards.
The area thus conquered was occupied by a number of separate kingdoms, each with a royal family of its own. The districts north of the Humber contained two kingdoms, Bernicia (q.v.) and Deira (q.v.), which were eventually united in Northumbria. South of the Humber, Lindsey seems to have had a dynasty of its own, though in historical times it was apparently always subject to the kings of Northumbria or Mercia. The upper basin of the Trent formed the nucleus of the kingdom of Mercia (q.v.), while farther down the east coast was the kingdom of East Anglia (q.v.). Between these two lay a territory called Middle Anglia, which is sometimes described as a kingdom, though we do not know whether it ever had a separate dynasty. Essex, Kent and Sussex (see articles on these kingdoms) preserve the names of ancient kingdoms, while the old diocese of Worcester grew out of the kingdom of the Hwicce (q.v.), with which it probably coincided in area. The south of England, between Sussex and "West Wales" (eventually reduced to Cornwall), was occupied by Wessex, which originally also possessed some territory to the north of the Thames. Lastly, even the Isle of Wight appears to have had a dynasty of its own. But it must not be supposed that all these kingdoms were always, or even normally, independent. When history begins, Æthelberht, king of Kent, was supreme over all the kings south of the Humber. He was followed by the East Anglian king Raedwald, and the latter again by a series of Northumbrian kings with an even wider supremacy. Before Æthelberht a similar position had been held by the West Saxon king Ceawlin, and at a much earlier period, according to tradition, by Ella or Ælle, the first king of Sussex. The nature of this supremacy has been much discussed, but the true explanation seems to be furnished by that principle of personal allegiance which formed such an important element in Anglo-Saxon society.
2. Government.?Internally the various states seem to have been organized on very similar lines. In every case we find kingly government from the time of our earliest records, and there is no doubt that the institution goes back to a date anterior to the invasion of Britain (see Offa; Wermund). The royal title, however, was frequently borne by more than one person. Sometimes we find one supreme king together with a number of under-kings (subreguli); sometimes again, especially in the smaller kingdoms, Essex, Sussex and Hwicce, we meet with two or more kings, generally brothers, reigning together apparently on equal terms. During the greater part of the 8th century Kent seems to have been divided into two kingdoms; but as a rule such divisions did not last beyond the lifetime of the kings between whom the arrangement had been made. The kings were, with very rare exceptions, chosen from one particular family in each state, the ancestry of which was traced back not only to the founder of the kingdom but also, in a remoter degree, to a god. The members of such families were entitled to special wergilds, apparently six times as great
