Harold (18 page)

The main result of these changes was that Earl Aelfgar was left the only earl in England who was not a member of Godwine’s family. The dynamics behind this situation should be remembered. Cnut’s three great earls left varying progeny to succeed them. Siward had two sons – Osbeorn, who was killed in Scotland before his father’s death, and Waltheof, who was too young to hold office before 1066. Leofric apparently had only one son, Aelfgar, who succeeded him in Mercia. Godwine, in contrast, had six sons, of whom five were ready and available for office, the exception being Wulfnoth, who was a hostage in Normandy. Similarly, the new earls appointed by King Edward left no adult successors. Earl Ralph left only his infant son, Harold, held to be a minor until 1066, while Earl Odda appears to have left no heirs at all. As a result, there was a clear imbalance in eligible candidates for earldoms, and thus King Edward was almost bound to appoint more progeny of Godwine to office, regardless of the relative ambitions and merits of the various families involved.

Despite King Edward having, so it would seem, little choice but to promote members of Harold’s family, their rapid accession of power seems to have aroused the enmity of Earl Aelfgar. It is possible that he feared encirclement by Harold’s family, or simply felt that his eldest son, Edwin, should have received a share of Earl Ralph’s earldom, instead of it being shared out among the Godwine brothers. It has been assumed that Edwin was too young for such a position at this time, scarcely an adult even in 1062/3, but there is no direct evidence for this. The apparent lack of activity he would later show may have resulted from inexperience rather than youth. Indeed, the documentary evidence for this period is so thin that we cannot be sure when Edwin first came to prominence. It is likely that he became Earl of Mercia in 1062, but he is not recorded as such until 1065. It was probably a fear of encirclement that led Earl Aelfgar to turn to his previous ally, Gruffydd of Wales, in an attempt to establish some security for himself. This time he sought to form a firm alliance with Gruffydd by arranging the marriage of his daughter, Alditha, to the Welsh king. This alliance would serve two purposes for the earl: it would protect his long border with Wales from attack, and it would provide him with a source of support in England, should he require it. It is not clear whether the threat from the Godwine family was real or imagined, but clearly Earl Aelfgar took it seriously. In turn, this alliance between one of his earls and the chief enemy of his kingdom alarmed King Edward. In 1058, therefore, Earl Aelfgar was banished for a second time, his treasonable alliance with Gruffydd being a much more likely cause than any supposed plots by Harold’s family. We can only regret the chroniclers’ reluctance to provide further details of the causes of this important crisis.
¹⁹

This time, Aelfgar fled directly to his new ally, King Gruffydd of Wales. The allies received additional assistance from a Norwegian fleet which happened to be cruising in the Irish Sea under Magnus, the son of King Harald of Norway. This powerful backing allowed Aelfgar to attempt to regain his earldom by force. The Norwegians raided the English coast, perhaps north of the Mersey, while Gruffydd presumably raided the borders. None of the accounts of this year (1058) provide information on the areas affected by these raids, but it seems likely that the Norwegian fleet raided the coast of Tosti’s earldom. This would certainly help to account for Tosti’s decision to participate in the later invasion of Wales, something never before undertaken by a Northumbrian earl. Domesday Book does record Tosti’s lands in Amounderness as waste in 1086, though whether as a result of this Norwegian assault or later Norman action is unknown. We have no information on the English response other than that the result was again a negotiated settlement. Aelfgar was once more restored to his earldom, and further concessions were possibly offered to Gruffydd of Wales. It may have been at this point that Gruffydd received the lands beyond the Dee, later recorded by Domesday Book as having been held by him. Aelfgar himself may have gained the addition of Oxfordshire to his earldom.
²⁰

King Gruffydd, who had now devastated the English borders on a number of occasions without retaliation and defeated a series of English forces, clearly presented a serious threat to England, which had to be dealt with. However, Gruffydd’s alliance with Earl Aelfgar currently made it impossible to take effective action against him. Nor did there seem any prospect of an immediate end to this alliance – Earl Aelfgar had twice found it invaluable in securing his own position in England and might do so again. However, this situation of stalemate could not last forever, and King Edward and Earl Harold could wait.

The year 1058, therefore, would appear to have been a turbulent one, yet little precise detail is recorded in the sources. Chronicle D remarks that ‘It is tedious to relate fully how things went’. Indeed, for the period 1057 to 1065 the sources are somewhat sparse. Although this lack of detail does not necessarily indicate that the kingdom was peaceful, nevertheless it was during this period that Earl Harold was able to set aside time to supervise the embellishment and attend the dedication of his newly built collegiate church at Waltham in Essex. According to the later Waltham Chronicle, the dedication of the church was performed on 3 May 1060, the feast of the Finding of the True Cross, with Archbishop Cynesige of York officiating. The participation of Cynesige rather than Stigand, in whose jurisdiction the church lay, probably came about because of the latter’s doubtful status at this time. In addition to Earl Harold himself, King Edward and Queen Edith were also in attendance at the eight days of feasting and celebration, as were around eleven bishops and eleven abbots, all of the earls and several other prominent laymen. Although there is no official list, the formal confirmation charter of 1062 bears these names on its winess list, with the exception of Cynesige, and it is likely that most of these people did indeed attend the ceremony. Their names were perhaps recorded in an earlier draft charter compiled at the time to be used as the basis for the later formal document. If this is the case, then this was a formidable gathering for the dedication of what was a non-royal church, and it clearly reflected Harold’s status in England at this time. This magnificent occasion was probably also the setting for Harold’s formal presentation to his new foundation of the holy relics he had collected during his European travels.
²¹

Undoubtedly also during this period, Earl Harold and his brothers consolidated their hold on their new earldoms or the extensions to their existing authority. They would have attended shire courts to supervise the administration of justice and in doing so would have met and developed links with many of the influential and powerful men of their new earldoms. In this respect, Harold’s existing power base in nearby Wessex and his association with the defence of Herefordshire in 1055 and 1056 must have eased the establishment of his authority in this shire. Earl Gyrth may have been able to better his position in East Anglia by using many of Harold’s contacts in the region, formed during his previous tenure of the earldom and through his landholdings in the area. Indeed, in 1061 Earls Tosti and Gyrth felt confident enough of their authority to journey to Rome with Ealdred, the newly appointed Archbishop of York. In their absence occurred the only known disturbance of these years when Malcolm, the new King of Scots, took advantage of the opportunity presented by Tosti’s absence to ravage the northern borders of his earldom including Lindisfarne. However, on Tosti’s return, Malcolm withdrew and peace was restored in the north.
²²

This period of relative calm ended with the death of Earl Aelfgar of Mercia. This event is not recorded in any of our sources, but Aelfgar disappears sometime between 1058, when he is recorded as regaining his earldom, and 1065, when his son Edwin is recorded in his place as Earl of Mercia. If the later
Vita Wulfstani
can be relied on, Earl Aelfgar was among those who supported Wulfstan’s election as Bishop of Worcester, dated before 27 August 1062, and this appears to have been his last recorded act. That his death is likely to have come in 1062, possibly late in that year, is further suggested by the action taken by Harold after Christmas that year. He launched a lightning cavalry raid on King Gruffydd’s palace at Rhuddlan in North Wales. It is unlikely that Harold could have taken this action unless Aelfgar, Gruffydd’s English ally, had been removed from the scene, and such a surprise attack would achieve best results if news of Aelfgar’s death had not yet reached Gruffydd.

It is likely then that Aelfgar died late in 1062, shortly before Christmas, perhaps while attending King Edward’s Christmas court at Gloucester. Earl Harold, who was also present, then decided to strike against Gruffydd at once, hoping to catch him unawares and kill him. He gathered a cavalry force and rode swiftly over more than 100 miles to Rhuddlan on the North Wales coast. John of Worcester is the only source to mention Harold’s use of cavalry in this raid, but this is undoubtedly the only way such a surprise raid could have been carried out. Harold narrowly missed catching his quarry, who was warned at the last moment and fled by sea. Instead, he had to content himself with burning Gruffydd’s palace and ships. The figurehead and ornaments of Gruffydd’s ship were probably taken in this raid.
²⁴

The
Vita Eadwardi
vividly recalls this raid, which must have achieved wide renown at the time:

Although ultimately a failure in its chief objective, that of catching Gruffydd, the raid provided an early demonstration of Harold’s ability for rapid military manoeuvres over long distances, which would be a feature of his later campaigns in 1066.

King Edward and Earl Harold were determined now to destroy Gruffydd and remove his threat from England’s borders once and for all. Therefore, Earl Harold planned a joint expedition with his brother, Tosti, to take place in spring 1063. Under Earl Harold’s overall command, this well-coordinated campaign began on 26 May, when Harold sailed with a naval force from Bristol and Tosti invaded with a cavalry force, presumably entering North Wales from the Chester area. Harold sailed round the Welsh coast, laying waste the land and taking hostages, while Tosti did the same by land. The use of a fleet by Harold was the key element of the plan and it was almost certainly employed in the occupation and devastation of Anglesey, the granary of North Wales and the foundation of Gruffydd’s power. Indeed, this same strategy was to be followed by King Edward I in his later conquest of Wales. The author of the
Vita Eadwardi
provides some tantalizing hints of the tactics which may have been used to achieve Earl Harold’s first great triumph, and confirms Harold’s command of the expedition, although he is usually more favourable to Tosti. The writer speaks of swift-moving small units ravaging in Wales and defeating any Welsh opposition encountered. This account is perhaps confirmed by Gerald of Wales, who much later speaks of Harold devastating all Wales with ‘lightly clad infantry’ forces and erecting inscribed stones, reading
Hic Fuit Victor Haroldus
(Here Harold was victor), to mark his frequent victories. Although writing over 150 years later, Gerald preserved much local Welsh tradition and had himself seen examples of Harold’s stone victory markers. The result of these tactics was to subdue the Welsh countryside and force Gruffydd to retreat into the mountains of Snowdonia, from whence he continued to harass the English forces.
²⁶

This devastating campaign succeeded in isolating Gruffydd from his supporters and forcing the Welsh to submit, give hostages and promise to pay tribute. John of Worcester declares that the Welsh outlawed and renounced their king. Gruffydd himself might have escaped the net yet again, except that the severity of Harold’s campaign led his own followers to lose faith in him. As a result, the Chronicle says he was slain by one of his own men ‘because of the fight he fought against Earl Harold’. On 5 August 1063 Cynan, son of Iago, killed Gruffydd and brought his head to Earl Harold, who placed it before the king. This has been seen as an indication that Harold had arranged for Gruffydd’s assassination, and this was the sign of success. This seems unlikely as Gruffydd had, to a large extent, been rendered harmless by the devastation of his lands and the undermining of his support. In addition, Harold’s preference was to treat generously an otherwise broken enemy, as he demonstrated after Stamford Bridge, rather than to fight bloodily to the bitter end. It is possible that the assassin himself may have hoped for some reward from Harold, in which case he was disappointed, or simply that this macabre gift may have been a signal to Harold of the final submission of the Welsh, and that he could now cease his raiding.
²⁷

This military triumph over the most powerful Welsh leader of the period was crowned by a political settlement which placed the dead king’s half-brothers, Bleddyn and Rhiwallon, in power in North Wales. In return, they swore oaths of loyalty both to King Edward and to Earl Harold, they gave hostages, and they agreed to pay tribute. A number of English border territories were now recovered, including the lands beyond the Dee and Archenfield, which Gruffydd had acquired through his recent aggression. In addition, some territorial advances were made into Wales, such as at Portskewet where Earl Harold set out to build a hunting lodge. Meanwhile, in South Wales several native dynasties were left to struggle for control.

In this campaign Earl Harold had revealed himself as an innovative strategist and tactician and as a great commander, and he had greatly enhanced his reputation. Wales had been subdued and a major threat to England removed. He had won a stunning victory over the only king to rule all Wales. The echoes of his victory can be found in sources dating from as late as the thirteenth century. Gerald of Wales quite reasonably attributes the early Norman successes in Wales to the defeat previously inflicted on the country by Harold. John of Salisbury less credibly reports, that so many Welshmen were killed that King Edward gave permission for Welsh women to marry Englishmen, and that Harold enacted a law to punish Welshmen travelling armed into England.
²⁸