This post is aimed at answering one of the most common questions that I am asked. I live in a county (Dorset) for which the regional National Health Service is designated “Wessex”, and a local radio station is called Wessex FM. People tend to know that they are in Wessex (probably) but are uncertain of the area it should be thought to cover. I wish that the answer that I am called upon to provide was more straight-forward.
As this blog is based on King Alfred, I shall describe what Wessex was in that time period. As King Alfred is often associated with Wessex, this will hopefully answer the question for most people. Alfred was King of Wessex from 871 to 899. The following is adapted from my book, King Alfred: A Man on the Move, which is available from Amazon. It would be great if you could support this project by purchasing the book.
In King Alfred’s time, Wessex included the counties that we now call Devon, Dorset, Somerset, Wiltshire, Berkshire (and some of adjacent Oxfordshire), Hampshire, the Isle of Wight, East and West Sussex, Kent and Surrey. Also included was Essex until it was ceded to Guthrum the Viking in a treaty drawn up around the year 886. It is worth pointing out that there were additional areas where King Alfred seems to have had the upper hand in power-sharing arrangements. By the end of his reign, this included London, which had earlier been under Mercian control. It also seems from Asser’s writings that at some time before 893 South Wales came under King Alfred’s control. Nor must we forget Mercia itself. After about 879, western and southern Mercia (eastern Mercia remained under Viking control) was ruled by Æthelred, who was the son-in-law of King Alfred, and it seems that it was Alfred who had the upper hand.
The extent of Wessex control in Cornwall is still unclear. The Annales Cambriæ tell us that King Dungarth of Cornwall drowned in 875, but after that there is no mention of who was ruling in Cornwall until 926 where a version of the Anglo-Saxon Chronicles mentions a King Huwal of West Wales, which would have then meant Cornwall. It therefore seems to me that from a monarchical point of view Cornwall remained independent during Alfred’s time. However, we know that the diocese of Sherborne (in Dorset and therefore in Wessex) extended across the whole of Cornwall.
I did say earlier that it was not straight forward. But perhaps this post will lead to a better understanding.
In 892 a Viking force of 250 ships sailed from Boulogne to the south coast of Kent and in the same year another Viking force of 80 ships came to the north coast of Kent at a place called Middletune. The Anglo-Saxon Chronicles tell us that Alfred camped with his army between the two Viking armies. In trying to locate Alfred we therefore must try to find the locations that he set up camp between. It seems that the Viking camp in north Kent must have been in the general area of Milton Regis and Sittingbourne, but I could not resist trying to pin it down more specifically.
It is also possible that Alfred himself may have been at this site. The leader of the Vikings that landed on the north coast of Kent was called Hæsten and Alfred must have had some sort of contact with him as it emerges in the Anglo-Saxon Chronicles that a son of Hæsten had become a godson (as had Guthrum in 878) of Alfred. Clearly the history is incomplete, but it is possible that negotiations took place between Alfred and Hæsten at his site at Milton, or at Alfred’s site (another unknown location examined in a future post), or perhaps somewhere else.
Middletune is thought to be Milton Regis, which lies to the north of Sittingbourne, and is now part of that town. Milton was apparently a significant Saxon site. It is said that Queen Seaxburgh of Kent became a nun at the abbey she founded at MIlton, becoming St Seaxburgh, and that her son became king there in 680.
The earliest reference that I found for this being the site for the Vikings that came to north Kent is in Edward Hasted’s 1797 writings on the history of Kent. The location is just east of Kelmsley, to the west of Milton creek, and close to the evocatively named Saxon Shore Way. It has been suggested that Castle Rough would have been a man-made island. Evidence from limited examination by Sittingbourne and Swale Archaeological Research Group indicated that the lowest parts of the mound contained 13th-14th century pottery, and therefore must have been built after the time of King Alfred. Although this does not rule out this site, because a more extensive examination may have produced more evidence, it does cast doubt upon this being the site of the Viking camp. The location is also moated, which may indicate a date later than the time of King Alfred. Oliver Rackham found that to his knowledge there were no mentions of moats in Anglo-Saxon charters, in place names, or in Domesday. It is therefore possible that moats were a later development. Oliver Rackham also suggested that moats may have become status symbols, which may have been the case here as a moat of this relatively small size would have been largely ineffective against a determined army. It seems that Castle Rough may have been a medieval moated manor, although we cannot rule out that it was something else previously. It was not easy to observe Castle Rough. I pulled over near a gate when driving north along Swale Way, just after crossing over Milton Creek and the Sittingbourne and Kemsley Light Railway. I crossed the road on foot and from this elevated position I fancied that I could pick out Castle Rough. However, I needed my Ordnance Survey map to guide my eye to the approximate location.
I came across a rumour that the camp was under a canteen at the Kemsley paper mill (close to Castle Rough), but I have been unable to find anything to support this.
Bayford Castle and Bayford Court
The former location of a place called Bayford Castle, on the other side of Milton Creek to Castle Rough, may have been the site of the Viking fortification. However, Hasted, in his 1797 writings on the history of Kent tells us that it was Alfred who built some fortifications against the Vikings on the other side of Milton Creek from Castle Rough at “Baford-castle.” It should be noted that Hasted appears to be an early originator (if not the originator) of the legend that Castle Rough had been the Viking fortification.
The location of Bayford Castle appears on older Ordnance Survey maps with an indication that it was erected in 893. By the time of the 1960 map references to the location had disappeared. There is nothing for the casual visitor to see there now as the location appears to be approximately where there are now industrial units to the east of a karting track. Although evidence is lacking in terms of it being either a Viking or Saxon site, it is at least in a suitable location being near to Milton Creek.
To confuse matters, maps dating to 1590 show that the location of Bayford Castle used to be called Castle Ruffe. I haven’t seen anything to explain why the name of Castle Ruffe disappears from the east side of Milton Creek and then a Castle-ruff (later becoming “Castle Rough”) appears on the other side of the Milton Creek in the 1797 writings of Edward Hasted.
There has been confusion with Bayford Court, which is south of where Bayford Castle appears to have been. This site is located near the centre of Sittingbourne in an industrial area north of Eurolink Way just off Crown Quay Lane. The remains of the Bayford Court moat are marked on the Ordnance Survey map and it was possible to pull over and have a look. However, as described under Castle Rough, moats may have been a later development, and nor is the moat here sufficiently wide to stop a determined army. I therefore feel that although Bayford Court may be an interesting old location, the evidence does not stack up sufficiently for it to be seriously considered as a site for the Viking fortification.
It seems that although we know that the Viking fortification was at Milton , we cannot locate it precisely. It could, of course, have been located somewhere other than the three locations described above.
In 892 a Viking force of 250 ships sailed from Boulogne to the south coast of Kent and in the same year another Viking force of 80 ships came to the north coast of Kent.
The Anglo-Saxon Chronicle tells us that the Vikings were at Milton (Milton Regis) to the north and at Appledore to the south, and that Alfred camped with his army between the two raiding armies. Anyone who travels around Kent will soon appreciate the difficulty of simultaneously monitoring these two areas from a single location, because they are quite far apart, so he must have had additional outposts, and perhaps this is what some of the alternative locations (later posts will address these) put forward as Alfred’s base actually were. Indeed, this would fit with the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle telling us that burga (fortresses) were being held.
Milton has now become part of Sittingbourne and was accessible from the Swale via the Milton Creek. Appledore is a lovely village that would have been accessible to the Vikings by following the route of the River Limen (now the Rother) as it would have existed at that time.
Although other possibilities exist, Maidstone has been put forward as a serious contender for the location of Alfred’s base during this Kent emergency.
A crossing of the Medway at Maidstone was developed in saxon times and it has been proposed that the town may have been part of a saxon royal estate with significant ecclesiastical connections.
Maidstone is on the Medway, but it is also at the crossing of a Roman route from Rochester to Hastings (Margary 13) with a possibly ancient track from Ashford to London, now represented by the A20 either side of Maidstone. It has been suggested that in Saxon times Maidstone grew up around this crossing.
Identifying this crossing may help us establish an approximate location of Alfred’s position, if he was based at Maidstone. It appears to be where Week Street, King Street, Gabriel’s Hill and High Street meet. When I visited this location, it was clear that it was near the top of a hill. Such sites are generally strategic.
However, King Alfred lived in the later Saxon period, and by then Maidstone may have developed beyond the vicinity of the junction described above, making it more difficult to define precisely where Alfred might have been.
The location of the former church of St Mary the Virgin may be an important clue . By the 11th century this church was a minster with 17 dependent churches. Some sort of settlement around this site in Alfred’s time would appear to be likely as it would have taken time for a church to build up this level of significance. This church, which was by the Medway, no longer exists, but it is suggested that the site is at the approximate location of, or even beneath, All Saints’ Church, which replaced it in the 1390s.
The oldest parts of the nearby Archbishop’s Palace date to the 14th century, but the location was likely to have been the site of a manor that we know existed because in 1086 it was being held by the Archbishop of Canterbury. It is therefore possible that there had been a manor here at the time of King Alfred.
On visiting this area my attention was drawn to an information board that referred to a track called Knightrider Street going down to the Medway where it could once be forded. I feel that the possibility of being able to easily cross the Medway at this point adds weight to this part of Maidstone, potentially the manor referred to above, being the location for King Alfred’s camp.
I found myself being impressed by the collection of historic buildings, including All Saint’s Church and the Archbishop’s Palace, and it was pleasant to partake in a small circular riverside walk in this area, made possible by the Millenium and Maidstone Bridges. It is worth noting that the latter was designed by Joseph Bazalgette, of Thames Embankment and London sewers fame.
Maidstone is also close to what appears to have been the original Pilgrim’s Way, which was on the route of an ancient trackway. In addition, Maidstone may have offereda direct route to the vicinity of both Milton Regis. In the other direction, there may have been access to the area around Appledore via a route about which we now have no knowledge.
However, Maidstone is much closer to Milton than it is to Appledore, and it is quite a way off a line running between these two places. We therefore possibly run into trouble with the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle having told us that Alfred set up camp between the two raiding armies.
Overall, I feel that Maidstone must have been involved. It seems to have been an important site and it was not far from a Viking base at Milton Regis
Rochester is a lovely and historic city, worth visiting in its own right. However, this city was clearly a target for the Vikings. Rochester had already been sacked by the Vikings in 842, before Alfred was born. However, it was attacked by the Vikings again in 884, but this time King Alfred saw them off.
You may wish to open a map application to help you get the most out of the below. Otherwise just relax and read on.
The records indicate that on arrival in 884 the Vikings built a fortress around themselves, and we know that this must have been outside of Rochester’s walls because it is recorded in the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle that the inhabitants defended the settlement. Asser tells us that the Viking fortification was at the entrance to the town but, unfortunately for modern-day investigators, there were four entrances, and so the precise location of the Viking fortification has remained unknown. Alfred later arrived with his forces in 885, and locating the site of the Viking fortification could shed light on where and how Alfred might have engaged with the Vikings and saw that they left. Fortunately, the outline of Rochester’s Roman walls is known. It has been suggested that there would be no Saxon-built stone walls, so the configuration of the walls in 885 should have remained perhaps unchanged since Roman times.
There had been four gates in the Roman walls. A northern “Bridge Gate” that opened on to the position of the Roman bridge across the River Medway. A north gate, which is more east than north, an east gate that is more south than east, and a south gate that is more west than south. The confusion is explained when one realises that the name seems to indicate the direction in which one could travel after passing through a particular gate, rather than the orientation of the gate itself.
There is evidence that the East Gate was about where the City Wall Wine Bar on High Street is located. On visiting I noticed that the outline of the gate was helpfully marked out with bricks in the pavement and the road, with a metal plaque in the pavement confirming the location.
The North Gate appears to be preserved in the current road name of Northgate. It has been suggested that this gate might have just lead to marshy ground. However, there has also been speculation that it may have led to a harbour. Evidence suggests that the Noth Gate would have been approximately where today Northgate meets Corporation Street, being approximately equidistant from Watling Street (which ran along a line close to that of the current High Street) on one side as the cathedral is on the other. This location seems to be consistent with an existing piece of wall that one can see at the back of The Common car park, accessible via Gas House Road and then Acorn Wharf Road. However, the line of bricks in the road at Northgate, outside the Corn Exchange, suggests that at least some person may have thought that the gate may have been not quite as far down Northgate as the junction with Corporation Street. However, I could find no plaque to explain the reason for the bricks embedded into the road at this point.
The Romans built a bridge at Rochester and a bridge is recorded as present in 960, so a bridge may well have been maintained in the intervening period, including at the time of the Viking attack in 885. This bridge across the Medway is thought to have remained in approximately the same location as today. The location of the gate by the bridge (which I have seen referred to as both Bridge Gate and West Gate) has not been proved although it must have existed in order to allow access to and from the bridge. The gate would most likely have been more or less in line with the bridge. However, the modern bridge is much wider than it has been in the past. Fortunately, the entrance to the old bridge is marked by black lions, which perhaps allows us to speculate that the Bridge Gate would have been at the point where a line drawn from the bridge would have met the town wall.
It is thought that the South Gate would have been just before where Boley Hill meets St Margaret’s Street, and there is a helpful plaque on a wall that identifies the location. One can wonder whether, if the Viking fortification had been outside this gate, the location would have been where Boley Hill House and Lodge now stand, near the junction of Boley Hill with St Margaret’s Avenue.
I did not find it possible to exclude any of the entrances as a possible site for the Viking fortification, although I favour the Bridge Gate because the Vikings had a tendency to use waterways and, by blocking the Bridge Gate, they could fend off any support for Alfred from that direction. I was also told by a helpful volunteer at the cathedral that the Bridge Gate currently appears to be the narrow favourite! I thought it unlikely that an attacking force would cross the bridge, because such structures restrict the flow of men, making them more vulnerable. If there really had been docks beyond the North Gate it is possible that they could have disembarked there. Alternatively, the Vikings could have disembarked at Chatham and then came up Watling Street to the East Gate of Rochester.
Plenty to think about. When you get a chance, pay Rochester a visit, have a look for the sites of the gates of the Roman walls, and see what you think! Rochester Cathedral and Rochester Castle are well worth a visit. You can also see the outline of the Saxon church outlined in the ground partly inside and partly outside of the cathedral.