‘Aethelred failed to deal with the Vikings due to a lack of unity among the Saxon nobility’ How far do you agree?
The lack of unity among the Saxon nobility was one of the many factors that contributed to Aethelred’s failure when
dealing with the Vikings. However, with historians giving him the name ‘the unready’, it is more accurate to argue that it
was due to his own failure to prepare. Aethelred’s reign was plagued with Viking attacks, with him eventually losing his
kingdom to the Danes, showing the extent of his failure. In having internal disputes and corruption within his nobility,
Aethelred was unable to portray a strong and united front, or launch an effective attack, however changes to the Danish
court and the strength of the Viking leaders also played a role in his failure, along with the internal pressures and lack of
unity within the nobility. Ultimately, it was Aethelred’s own character weaknesses that contributed the most heavily to his
failure to deal with the Vikings.
There was a great amount of disunity within the Saxon nobility which may have resulted in the failure of Aethelred when
dealing with the Vikings. In 992, secret plans were handed over to the Vikings by a member of the nobility concerning the
defences of Hampshire, showing a clear lack of unity and loyalty within Aethelred’s court. Moreover, Eadric Streona
defected to support Cnut, the Danish king, having previously married Aethelred’s daughter and become a well-respected
ealdorman. This shows the evident lack of confidence in Aethelred among the Saxon nobility and how their weaknesses
damaged the loyalty of the nobles, resulting in internal troubles. This is added to by the fight between thegn Wulfnoth and
Brihtric, in which over half the royal fleet were destroyed, giving the Vikings a military advantage. This clearly displays the
extent of the corruption and tension within the nobility, and the large amount of disunity, as it suggests their great
weakness and lack of power. As a result, this certainly contributed to Aethelred’s failure to deal with the Vikings, however,
as Aethelred did little to quell or solve this internal problem, it is evident that it was also partially due to his own character
weaknesses.
It could alternatively be argued that Aethelred’s failure to deal with the Vikings was a result of his own character
weaknesses. In 991, Aethelred formed a treaty with Richard, Duke of Normandy, in which both sides agreed not to allow
the Vikings to use their territory as a base for attacks. However, this did not solve the problem of the Vikings as the attacks
increased after this time, suggesting his disinterest in the issue as he assumed that Normandy was the point of attack, and
did not discover the true source of the problem, resulting in an ineffective treaty, Aethelred’s weaknesses are further
shown during the second Battle of Maldon, in which he was not present, and it was Byrhtnoth who confronted the Vikings.
This further implies Aethelred’s lack of interest and cowardly nature, showing that he avoided direct conflict and
confrontation. This is furthered through the paying of tribute, which aimed to pay off the attacking Vikings in order to
persuade them to leave. However, the large amounts payed – up to £21,000 in 1014 – was both an incentive for them to
stay and to launch further conquests to conquer England due to their evident wealth. Clearly, Aethelred had instead given
his opponents a reason to attack, showing him to be illogical and to avoid thinking about the long-term consequences of
his actions. Thus, it is evident that the personal weaknesses of Aethelred as a king contributed far more heavily to his
failure that the lack of unity among the Saxon nobility.
Another factor that contributed to Aethelred’s failure to deal with the Vikings was the external issues. England was largely
perceived as weak by the continent as they had failed to adapt, and their defences were too relaxed to deal with the
renewed and strengthened threats, which caused them to be viewed as an easy target. Moreover, the defeats that the
Vikings had faced in previous years had stimulated them to construct a more coordinated approach than only raiding and
trading, and they began to want a more permanent solution. Consequently, the Danish kings became more organised and
coordinated, with defensive structures built in Trelleborg and Frykat, among other locations, which showed their
developments in planning, design and control. Additionally, Viking fleets increased in size, became better trained and were
more disciplined, evidenced in the Viking leaders who tactfully changed sides to strengthen their power. For example, Olaf
Tryggvason had formed an alliance with Aethelred in 994, and used the tribute money he received from this to launch a
campaign to become king of Norway. Similarly, Thorkell launched raids in England between 1009 and 1012 before allying
with Aethelred in 1015, and then changed sides to support Cnut, who gained a foothold in Northumbria and became king
of England. Although it is clear from this that the changed tactics of the Danes to demand coordination and permanency
within their attacks greatly strengthened their power, it could be argued that Aethelred’s tendency to trust his opponents
also contributed to this. As a consequence, though the improved tactics of the Danes were certainly important in
Aethelred’s failure to deal with the Vikings, his personal weaknesses remain the most significant factor.
To conclude, the disunity among the Saxon nobility certainly had some role in Aethelred’s failure to deal with the Vikings,
however other factors, such as the Danish reorganisation, strengthened Viking leaders, and the weaknesses of Aethelred’s
character played a far larger role in this. It is clear that, in having internal disputes and corruption within the nobility,
Aethelred was unable to gather strong support resulting in a strengthened Viking attack. That being said, it is evident that
Aethelred’s own weakness of character contributed to his failure in the greatest way, and his avoiding of conflict and overly
trusting nature resulted ultimately in his failure.
