Why Egil's Saga is not describing Brunanburh

Egil’s Saga is a biography of Egill Skallagrimsson, a 10th century Icelandic mercenary, pirate and farmer. It says that he and his brother Thorolf spent a year in England fighting as mercenaries for King Æthelstan. It describes their participation in a battle at a place named Vínheiðar which is usually assumed to be the Battle of Brunanburh in 937. We explain in this paper why it is not.

Evidence that Egill was at Brunanburh

There are four traditional arguments that Egil’s Saga’s battle is Brunanburh. We will return to Björn Vernharðsson’s more recent arguments in the section ‘In defence of Brunanburh’ below.

• Egil’s Saga describes King Æthelstan’s participation in a major battle at a place named Vínheiðar. Brunanburh is the only documented major battle in which Æthelstan is known to have participated.
• Egil’s Saga’s battle was in the north of modern England. Brunanburh was in the north of modern England.
• Egil’s Saga says that Æthelstan’s adversaries were an alliance of invaders from the north. Brunanburh is the only well documented military conflict in which Æthelstan faced an alliance of invaders from the north.
• Egil’s Saga says that the leader of the invaders was King Olaf. Brunanburh is the only military conflict in which Æthelstan is known to have faced a leader named Olaf (aka Anlaf).

These clues, despite being general and vague, are good enough to have persuaded most experts that Egil’s Saga’s battle is Brunanburh. Most but not all. Here is a chronological table of the best known Brunanburh analyses broken down into three categories: those that believe Egil’s Saga’s battle is Brunanburh (ES-Brun Good), those that think Egil’s Saga’s battle does refer to Brunanburh but should not be trusted (‘ES-Brun Bad’), and those that think Egil’s Saga’s battle is not Brunanburh (‘ES Not Brun’).

	ES-Brun Good	ES-Brun Bad	Not Brun
Sharon Turner (History of the Anglo-Saxons, 1807)	X
Dr J M Lappenberg (A History of England under the Anglo-Saxon Kings, Vol II, 1835)		X
T T Wilkinson (Transactions of the Historic Society of Lancashire and Cheshire, 1855)	X
Sir James Ramsay (Foundations of England, 1898)		X
John Richard Green (Conquest of England, published 1899 but written 20 years earlier)	X
Charles Oman (A History of England before the Conquest, 1904)		X
Francis Tudsbery (Brunanburh, 1907)	X
Dr George Neilson (Scottish Historical Review, 1909)	X
Eleanor Means Hull (The Northmen in Britain, 1913)	X
Eric Eddison (Egil’s Saga Translation, 1930)			X
Alistair Campbell (The Battle of Brunanburh, 1938)		X
A H Burne (The Battlefields of England, 1950)	X
Gwyn Jones (Egill Skallagrimsson in England, 1952)		X
Hermann Palsson (The Borg Connexion, 1975)			X
Christine Fell (Egil’s Saga translation, 1975)		X
Alfred P. Smyth (Scandinavian York and Dublin, 1975)	X
Bernard Scudder & Svanhildur Óskarsdóttir (Egil’s Saga Translation, 2004)			X
Michael Wood (Searching for Brunanburh: The Yorkshire Context of the ‘Great War’ of 937, 2013)	X
Damien Bullen (The Burnley Brunanburh, 2017)	X
John R Kirby (Egil’s Saga: Traditional evidence for Brúnanburh …, 2019)	X
Stefán Björnsson and Björn Vernharðsson (Brunanburh located through Egil’s Saga, 2020)	X
Adrian C Grant (The Battle of White Hill ('Vin Heath'), 927, 2021)			X
David P Gregg (The Battlefield of Brunanburh, 2021)	X

 

The colours represent three cohorts of writers: historians (dark grey), translators (blue) and battlefield hunters (red). Alarm bells might be ringing. Most of the historians and all the battlefield hunters, bar Grant, believe that Egil’s Saga is a trustworthy description of Brunanburh, whereas all the translators do not.

The translators should be the control group. They are battlefield-agnostic, and they have no narrative to promote. One of them, Alistair Campbell, says: “it is evident that Egils Saga must be treated with the greatest caution and that none of its statements relative to the battle on Vinheithr must be taken as true of the battle of Brunanburh unless they are confirmed by independent sources”. Fellow translators Christine Fell and Gwyn Jones also think that Egil’s Saga’s battle might be a largely fictional representation of Brunanburh that cannot be trusted. Eddison, Óskarsdóttir and Palsson, through the simple recourse of mapping Egill’s chronology, reckon that Egil’s Saga is not describing Brunanburh. We will return to this in the next section.

It is difficult not to suspect that the historians and battlefield hunters are ‘talking their book’. Egil’s Saga has more details about its battle than all the English accounts combined have about Brunanburh. Historians use Egil’s Saga to flesh out the narrative of one of the most important events in English history. Battlefield hunters use it to cherry pick clues that support their Brunanburh battlefield theory. Campbell again: “If we abandon it [Egil’s Saga], and abandon it we must, all hope of localising Brunanburh is lost.” We will return to why we are more optimistic.

Evidence that Egill was not at Brunanburh

There are fundamental discrepancies between Egil’s Saga’s battle and the English accounts of the Battle of Brunanburh:

• Prelude – Egil’s Saga says that the invaders were led by Olaf the Red, King of the Scots, “a Scot on his father’s side, Danish on his mother’s, being descended from Ragnar Hairy-Breeks”. The English accounts say that the invaders were led by Olaf Guthfrithson, King of the Hiberno-Norse, who was Norse on his father’s side, being the grandson of Imar, Norse founder of the Hiberno-Norse dynasty.
• Prelude - Egil’s Saga says that the invaders were Scots and Britons. It does not mention Hiberno-Norse involvement in its battle. The English accounts emphasise that Hiberno-Norse fought alongside Scots, Britons at Brunanburh.
• Prelude – Egil’s Saga says that the invaders marched south from Scotland. The English accounts say that the Hiberno-Norse arrived and fled from Brunanburh by ship.
• Prelude - Egil’s Saga says that Æthelstan was quick to issue a formal challenge to the invaders after they defeated his local Northumbrian militia. An English account (William of Malmesbury) says that Æthelstan was slow to respond to the Brunanburh invasion, and only did so when shamed by their ongoing plundering of his realm.
• Engagement - Egil’s Saga’s battle was arranged a week or more in advance on an agreed day at a demarcated field. An English account (Malmesbury) says that Brunanburh started with a surprise nocturnal raid on the English camp.
• Geography - Egil’s Saga’s battlefield was a symmetrical level plain bounded by hills on one side and a river on the other. An English account (Malmesbury) says that the Brunanburh battlefield was on a road at or near a ford.
• Military action - Egil’s Saga’s battle was between two formal shield walls, both sides having time to organise their deployment and their advance. An English account (Malmesbury) describes Brunanburh as an opportunistic nocturnal raid on the English camp followed by an English counterattack.
• Military action – Egil’s Saga (in one of Egill’s poems) says that three kings/earls were “laid low” in the battle. An English account (the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle) says that five kings and seven earls were killed at Brunanburh, and at least three more escaped.
• Flight - Egil’s Saga does not mention any horses participating in its battle and it implies that the invaders were chased on foot. An English account (Malmesbury’s poem) says that the Brunanburh invaders had: “Countless squadrons both of foot and horse”. Another (the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle) says that Æthelstan’s men chased the fleeing Brunanburh invaders on horseback.
• Flight - Egil’s Saga implies that the invaders returned to their homelands on foot. The English accounts emphasise that a large proportion of the Brunanburh invaders fled by ship.

Egil’s Saga has no dates, but it is meticulous about where Egill spends his winters during the 920s and 930s. It can be used to construct a chronology. He arrived in England ‘soon’ after Æthelstan’s accession and after Æthelstan had subjugated Northumbria, which provides an anchor to the absolute date. The dates of subsequent events can be calculated against this anchor by counting winters. They are consistent with known dates in history.

Events reported in the contemporary chronicles often differ by a year. This is due, in part at least, to some of them using an indiction date, typically September 1st or September 24th, as the start of the year. There is also bound to be some differences caused by the time it took news to disseminate. We will return to this.

Æthelstan’s father died in July 924. According to Sarah Foot, Mercia took a year or so to accept Æthelstan as their king, so he was not crowned until September 925. Egil’s Saga describes what happened next: “After Athelstan’s succession, some of the noblemen who had lost their realms to his family started to make war upon him, seizing the opportunity to claim them back when a young king was in control. These were British, Scots and Irish. But King Athelstan mustered an army, and paid anyone who wanted to enter his service, English and foreign alike. Thorolf and Egil sailed south past Saxony and Flanders, and heard that the king of England was in need of soldiers, and that there was hope of much booty there. They decided to go there with their men. In the autumn they set off and went to see King Athelstan.” It continues: “Northumberland was reckoned a fifth part of England; it was the northernmost county, marching with Scotland on the eastern side of the island. Formerly the Danish kings had held it. Its chief town is York. It was in Athelstan’s dominions.”

So, Northumbria was in Æthelstan’s dominion when Egill and Thorolf arrived in England. This means they could not have arrived before 927 because Æthelstan subjugated Northumbria after the death of its Hiberno-Norse king Sihtric and that was roughly a year after Æthelstan’s inauguration as King of England. It was Æthelstan’s annexation of the Kingdom of York that incited rebellions. These are the only recorded rebellions soon after Æthelstan’s accession, to they were presumably the cause of Æthelstan’s call for mercenaries. If so, it was made in late 926 or early 927. Egil’s Saga says that Egill and Thorolf finish their plundering season and arrive in England in the autumn. It could not therefore have been in the autumn of 926. Egil’s Saga mentions two winters between Egill’s last meeting with Thorir and his arrival in England. Thorir died in 925 on the conventional calendar, so Egill and Thorolf could not have arrived in England after 927. Thus, Egill and Thorolf must have arrived in England in the autumn of 927.

Egil’s Saga mentions no winters and no events after Egill’s arrival in England and before its battle, so it was probably in the late autumn or early winter of 927. Egill wintered with Æthelstan after the battle, then sailed for Norway, promising to return. He spent one winter with Arinbjorn, one winter with his new wife, ‘several’ winters with his father, another winter with his wife in Norway. Then his father died. It was at least six years after Egil’s Saga’s battle. He then spends two winters in Borg before visiting Eric Bloodaxe and Æthelstan in England. This was at least eight years after Egil’s Saga’s battle.

This chronology exactly matches the independently verified historical events, but creates a raft of anachronisms that contradict Egill’s participation at Brunanburh:

• Egill was with Thorir Hroaldsson at Gaular in Iceland two winters before Egil’s Saga’s battle. Thorir died in 925, so Egil’s Saga’s battle cannot have been later than 927, at least ten years before Brunanburh.

• Egill married his brother’s widow two years after Egil’s Saga’s battle and before Eric Bloodaxe became King of Norway. Bloodaxe became King of Norway in 932, so Egil’s Saga’s battle was before 930, at least seven years before Brunanburh.
• returned to Norway the year after Egil’s Saga’s battle, to discover that Thorir Hroaldsson had died. He died in 925. If Egil’s Saga’s battle was Brunanburh, Egill would be returning to Norway in 938, 13 years after Thorir’s death. Thorir was an important military leader, foster father to future king Eric Bloodaxe, best man at Thorolf’s wedding, and his father’s best friend. It is inconceivable that Egill would not have heard news of his death within 13 years, so Egil’s Saga’s battle was not Brunanburh.
• Egill spent ‘several’ years with his father before he died. Egill’s father died before Eric Bloodaxe killed his brothers which was before Haakon became King of Norway. Haakon became king in 934. Eric killed his brothers at least a year earlier. Egill’s father died at least six winters after Egil’s Saga’s battle, so the battle was no later than 927, at least ten years before Brunanburh.
• Æthelstan died in 939. Egill visited Æthelstan at least eight winters after Egil’s Saga’s battle, so the battle was no later than 931, at least six years before Brunanburh.
• Egill hears upon his return to England that all is well with Æthelstan’s kingdom. The only period of relative peace and stability during Æthelstan’s reign was between his invasion of Alba in 934 and Brunanburh in 937. At least eight winters had passed after Egil’s Saga’s battle, so the battle was no later than 929, at least eight years before Brunanburh.
• Islendingabok shows that Egill’s first child, Thorgerdr, was born in 939. Wikipedia reckons 935. Egill marries Asgerd, his brother’s widow, two years after Egil’s Saga’s battle. Even if Asgerd fell pregnant immediately, Egil’s Saga’s battle was no later than 936 (or 932 if Wikipedia is right), at least a year before Brunanburh.
• Egil’s Saga says that Egill was aged 13 when he left on his first overseas adventure. He returned to Iceland the year after he got married and he got married two years after Egil’s Saga’s battle. Egil’s Saga says that he was away for 12 winters. So, he was aged 22 at Egil’s Saga’s battle. If Egil’s Saga’s battle was Brunanburh, Egill would have been born in 915. Islendingabok gives his mother’s year of birth as 870, so she would have been 45 if Egil’s Saga’s battle was Brunanburh. The oldest known medieval birth of a surviving child age was to a mother aged 42, so Egil’s Saga’s battle was not Brunanburh. Wikipedia and Islendingabok give Egill’s year of birth as 904 and 910 respectively, meaning that Egil’s Saga’s battle was in 926/7 or 932/3, at least four years before Brunanburh.

So, there are at least ten inconsistencies and eight anachronisms against Egil’s Saga’s battle being Brunanburh. Unlike the four general and vague orthodox clues that Egil’s Saga’s battle is Brunanburh, these are mostly specific and unambiguous. Unless there is a fundamental error in Egil’s Saga’s chronology, its battle is not Brunanburh.

Hermann Palsson worked out some of this long before us. He provides no details or examples but concludes the analysis in his 1975 translation of Egil’s Saga: “The Battle of Vinheid in ESS [Egil’s Saga] is usually identified with the Battle of Brunanburh, which was fought at an unknown place in 937, but such an identification makes a complete mess of the chronology of ESS”.

Which battle is Egil’s Saga describing?

Eric Eddison was the first to deduce that Egil’s Saga’s battle is not Brunanburh in the analysis for his 1930 Egil’s Saga translation. He says: “The better opinion inclines to-day to identify the two battles, correcting the whole chronological system of the saga accordingly.”  He does not say who provides this ‘better opinion’, but as far as we know it was a euphemism about himself.

Eddison’s chronology has Egil’s Saga’s battle in 927, with Egill in Iceland (or Norway) at the time of Brunanburh. Eddison refers to the battlefield location as ‘Winaheath’, in the belief that the ‘Vin’ from ‘Vínheiðar’, Egil’s Saga’s name for the battlefield, referred to the River Wina.

Svanhildur Óskarsdóttir devised a more complete chronology of Egill’s life in Scudder’s 2004 translation published by Penguin Book. She has Egil’s Saga’s battle in 925 and Egill in Norway at the time of Brunanburh. She names Egil’s Saga’s battle ‘Wen Heath’, an anglicisation of ‘Vínheiðar’. Here is an extract from her chronology.

Óskarsdóttir missed the clue about Northumbria being in Æthelstan’s dominion when Egill arrived in England, so she wrongly assumed that Egill arrived before 927. Here is our extended correction, showing the anchor year, the calculated year, and the calculation.

Event	Date	Calc. date	Calculation
Æthelstan crowned	925
Local rebellions and call for mercenaries		925 / 926	Soon after Æthelstan is crowned
Æthelstan annexes Kingdom of York - see Downham		926 or 927	We will assume no later than 927 for the dates below
Egill comes to England		927	Zero winters after Æthelstan annexes Kingdom of York
Egil’s Saga's battle		927	Zero winters after Egill arrives in England
Egill returns to Norway		928	One winter after battle
Egill marries Thorolf’s widow		929	One winter after Egill returns to Norway
Skallagrim, Egill’s father dies		934	'Several winters’ plus three winters after Egill gets married; probably 5 because Egill visits Eric in England in 936
Bloodaxe kills his brothers		934	Zero winters after Skallagrim dies
Haakon becomes King of Norway	934	934	Zero winters after Bloodaxe kills his brothers
Eric comes to England	936	936	At least one winter after Haakon becomes King of Norway
Egill returns to England to visit Æthelstan, sees Eric		936	Two winters after Skallagrim dies, not before Eric in England
Egill goes to Norway		937	Summer after seeing Æthelstan
Brunanburh	937
Egill kills Ljot and Atli		938	Spring after going to Norway
Æthelstan dies	939

 

In our opinion, Egil’s Saga’s chronology points to its battle being fought in the late autumn 927. Some English and Irish annals record military action around that time:

• The Anglo-Saxon Chronicle D recension for 926 (Whitlock) says: “In this year appeared fiery lights in the northern quarter of the sky, and Sihtric died, and King Athelstan succeeded to the kingdom of the Northumbrians ; and he brought under his rule all the kings who were in this island : first Hywel, king of the West Welsh, and Constantine, king of the Scots, and Owain, king of the people of Gwent, and Aldred, son of Eadwulf from Bamburgh. And they established peace with pledge and oaths in the place which is called Eamont, on 12 July, and renounced all idolatry and afterwards departed in peace.”
• The Anglo-Saxon Chronicle E recension for 927 (Whitlock) says: “In this year King Athelstan drove out King Guthfrith. And in this year Archbishop Wulfhelm went to Rome.”
• The Irish annals of Ulster says that in April 927: “The fleet of Linn Duachaill departed and Gothfrith abandoned Áth Cliath; and Gothfrith returned again within six months”.
• John of Worcester’s entry for 926 says: “Fiery lights in the northern part of the heavens were visible throughout the whole of England. Shortly afterward, Sihtric, king of Northumbria, departed this life, and king Athelstan expelled Guthferth his son and successor, and united the kingdom to the others which were under his imperial sway, for he defeated in battle and put to flight all the kings throughout Albion; for instance, Howel, king of the West Britons (the Welsh), and afterwards Constantino, king of the Scots, and Wuer (Owen) king of the Wenti (q. Gwent). He also expelled Aldred, the son of Eadulf, from his royal town called by the English Bebbanbyrig (Bamborough). All these, finding that they could no longer resist his power, sued for peace, and assembling at a place called Eamot, on the fourth of the ides [the 12th] of July, ratified by their oaths a solemn treaty.”
• Malmesbury says of Sihtric: “dying after a year, Athelstan took that province under his own government, expelling one Aldulph, who resisted him”. The year can be calculated as 926 from context. Presumably his Aldulph meant Guthfrith.
• Huntingdon says of Æthelstan after Sihtric’s death: “For in the course of the year following, Guthfrith, king of the Danes, brother of Reginald, the king already named, having provoked him to war, was defeated and put to flight, and slain”.
• Simeon’s second chronicle in History of the Kings – his interpretation of John of Worcester - for the year 926 says: “Sithric, king of the Northumbrians, departed this life; whose kingdom king Ethelstan added to his own dominion, driving out his son Guthferth, who had succeeded his father in the kingdom. He likewise conquered in battle, and put to flight, all the kings of the whole of Albion, namely, Huval, king of the West Britons, then Constantine, king of the Scots, and Wuer, king of the Wenti. All these, seeing they could not resist his might, begging from him peace, met him at the place called Eamotun, on the fourth of the ides of July [12th July], and made with him a treaty, which they confirmed with an oath.”
• Gaimar says: “His son Adelstan succeeded him. When he had reigned nearly four years, he fought a battle with the Danes, and discomfited king Gudfrid”. ‘Nearly four years’ means that this happened in 927 or 928.
• Roger of Wendover’s entry for 926 says: “Fiery rays were seen throughout the whole of England in the northern quarter of the heavens, portending the disgraceful death of the aforesaid king Sithric, who came to an evil end shortly afterwards ; on which king Ethelstan expelled Guthferth his son from his kingdom, which he annexed to his own dominions”.

Once  again, there is a discrepancy about whether these events happened in 926 or 927, probably due to news dissemination time and indiction dates, but they have enough in common to be confident they are reporting the same events. We explain above why they were in 927.

There is not much detail in these accounts, but leaders’ names aside, it is consistent with Egil’s Saga’s battle. Egil’s Saga says its battle was in the north of modern England, so was Æthelstan’s 927 campaign. Egil’s Saga describes Æthelstan being victorious over an alliance of Scots and Britons, so was Æthelstan’s 927 campaign. The contemporary accounts do not record the size of the 927 battles, but they were important enough to be recorded, and the participants were much the same as at Brunanburh, so the armies are likely to have been much the same size.

There is one crucial inconsistency, that the leader of the 927 invaders was King Constantine, whereas the leader of the Egil’s Saga’s invaders was ‘King Olaf the Red’. Historians believe that this Olaf the Red was Olaf Guthfrithson, leader of the invaders at Brunanburh, which leads them to believe that Egil’s Saga’s battle is the Battle of Brunanburh. But Egil’s Saga says that Olaf the Red was “konungur á Skotlandi”, ‘King of Scotland’, whereas Olaf Guthfrithson was King of the Hiberno-Norse. Egil’s Saga says that Olaf the Red was “skoskur að föðurkyni”, ‘patriarchally Scottish’, whereas Olaf Guthfrithson’s father could hardly have been more Norse, being the male-line grandson of Ímar who founded the Hiberno-Norse dynasty. Egil’s Saga says that Æthelstan begs Olaf the Red to “fara heim í Skotland”, ‘go home to Scotland’, whereas Olaf Guthfrithson’s home was Dublin. These details convince us that Egil’s Saga’s King Olaf the Red referred to King Constantine II of Scotland, making it entirely consistent with the 927 invasion.

Why Egil’s Saga might refer to King Constantine II as Olaf is unclear. Perhaps Olaf was his Icelandic nickname. The name Olaf means ‘ancestral heritage’. Perhaps Icelanders were referring to his lineage. Perhaps it is just confused, insofar as Egil’s Saga is understandably less accurate about English/British history than Icelandic/Norse history. Most likely, we think, Snorri Sturlusson, Egil’s Saga’s skald, gave Constantine a Norse name to make the battle more relevant to his Icelandic audience. This, after all, is what he did with the leaders of the Britons, giving them the Norse names Hring and Adils.

Bjorn Vernharðsson is one of the historians that believes Egil’s Saga is describing Brunanburh, so he also believes that Olaf the Red is Olaf Guthfrithson. He tries to explain away the references to Scotland: “the confusion of Olaf being King of Scotland rather than of Dublin is because at the time of battle Ireland was known as Scotia”. He is partly right insofar as some 10th century Latin documents did refer to Ireland as ‘Scotia’, but Egil’s Saga was not written in the 10th century, and it was not written in Latin. Moreover, when it says that Olaf was Scottish or King of Scotland, it always uses the root noun Skotland not Scotia. Other Norse Saga references to ‘Skotland’ unambiguously refer to Alba not Ireland. They include Brennu-Njals, Eirik, Grettis, Gunnlaug, Hen-Thorir, Kormac, Laxdale and Torsteins. Eirik’s Saga, for example, says: “Þeir unnu Katanes og Suðurland, Ross og Meræfi og meir en hálft Skotland”, ‘They conquered Caithness, Sutherland, Ross, and Moray, and more than half Scotland’. Kormac’s Saga says: “En þeir bræður herjuðu um Írland, Bretland, England, Skotland”, ‘But the brothers raided Ireland, Wales, England and Scotland’. Not only does they clearly refer to Alba, but it is specifically not Ireland, which has its own name ‘Írland’.

In summary, Egil’s Saga’s battle is inconsistent with Brunanburh, contradicting at least ten clues in the English contemporary accounts, and it would create eight implausible anachronisms. Conversely, Egil’s Saga’s battle is entirely consistent, bar one minor exception, with Æthelstan’s campaign against Constantine and Owain in 927, and it matches all the clues in the English contemporary accounts, and it is consistent the established chronology of Æthelstan’s reign and with the established Norse chronology. The ‘minor exception’ is Egil’s Saga’s statement that Olaf the Red was leader of the invaders, for which there is a perfectly plausible explanation.

In defence of Brunanburh

Björn Vernharðsson, perhaps the world’s leading authority on Egil’s Saga, is convinced that it is describing Brunanburh. He was gracious enough to outline his theory to us in 2021. He subsequently fleshed it out into a paper entitled ‘Egil’s Saga - Athelstan dies in the wrong chapter’. It contains all the arguments we have ever heard that Egil’s Saga’s battle refers to Brunanburh, plus a bunch we have never previously seen. It provides a structure for us to comment.

Vernharðsson’s argument starts with his reasons to believe that Egil’s Saga is describing Brunanburh. One, mentioned above, is that Egil’s Saga names Æthelstan’s main adversary as King Olaf and Brunanburh is the only battle in which Æthelstan is known to have faced a King Olaf. As we explain, in our opinion, Snorri Sturlusson, Egil’s Saga’s skald, gave Æthelstan’s adversaries Norse names to make them more relevant to his audience, so it is just a coincidence.

Vernharðsson says that Ingulph’s Chronicle claims that Singrinus, “synr gríms”, the sons of Grim, led the Viking mercenaries at Brunanburh. He implies that Grim is an abbreviation of Skallagrim, Egill and Thorolf’s father. But it says no such thing. Ingulph’s Chronicle refers to ‘Singino’ (see scan above), captain of the Wiccii, a Saxon tribe.

Vernharðsson gives six cases where he believes Egil’s Saga’s battle uniquely matches Brunanburh. They are:

1. Egil’s Saga’s battle could not have been when its chronology suggests (which he says is 925) because there are no English sources for such a huge battle close to that year.
2. Thorolf fought for Æthelstan and died in a great battle and the only great battle in which Æthelstan participated was Brunanburh.
3. Egil’s Saga says that the Kingdom of York was in Æthelstan’s dominion before its battle, which would be true of Brunanburh but not of any other conflict in which Æthelstan participated.
4. Egil’s Saga says that its battle was in Northumbria, implying that Brunanburh was the only battle that Æthelstan fought in Northumbria.
5. Egil’s Saga says that Æthelstan fought against three kings, implying that Brunanburh was the only occasion when Æthelstan fought three kings.
6. Egil’s Saga’s battle was against the Scots, Irish and Britons, who were his main adversaries at Brunanburh and only at Brunanburh.

Svanhildur Óskarsdóttir does suggest that Egil’s Saga’s battle was in 925 (1 above), but she made a minor error that pulled her chronology anchor forward by two years. If her error is corrected – see our chronology above - Egil’s Saga’s battle was in 927, consistent with conflicts against northern kings that are recorded in the English chronicles. Those conflicts were after Æthelstan annexed the Kingdom of York (3 above). They were in the north of England, including Northumbria (4 above).

It is true that the English chronicles do not even hint at the scale of these conflicts, but there is no reason to think they were minor (1 and 2 above). They were, after all, important enough to be recorded in the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle and elsewhere. They were against much the same adversaries as Brunanburh, so they are unlikely to have significantly fewer participants. And, anyway, Snorri probably ‘bigged up’ Egil’s Saga’s battle to inflate Egill’s heroics.

Egil’s Saga does say that that “three kings were laid low” in its battle (5 above), but this is evidence that the battle was not Brunanburh. The Anglo-Saxon Chronicle says that “five young kings lay dead on the battlefield” at Brunanburh. At least three more kings got away, namely Constantine, Owain and Hywel, so Æthelstan defeated at least eight kings at Brunanburh. Egil’s Saga, however, is consistent with Æthelstan campaign of 926/927, where he defeated the aforementioned Kings Constantine, Owain and Hywel.

Egil’s Saga’s does not say that its battle was against the Scots, Irish and Britons (6 above). It says that the leaders of the rebellion immediately after his accession were Scots, Irish and Britons, then never mentions ‘Irish’ again. Egil’s Saga says that Æthelstan’s adversaries in its battle were Scots and Britons, which is consistent with his campaign in 926/927. It is inconsistent with Brunanburh where Æthelstan did face the Hiberno-Norse as well as the Scots and Britons.

In summary, most of Vernharðsson’s evidence is faulty, and the rest is based on the arbitrary and unsubstantiated assumption that Æthelstan’s campaign against the northern kings in 927 included only minor or insignificant conflicts.

Vernharðsson’s paper moves on to some of the apparent anachronisms, most crucially that Egil’s Saga says Egill met King Eric Bloodaxe in York eight years after its battle. Heimskringla says that Bloodaxe first becomes King of York in 936. If both are right, Egil’s Saga’s battle could not have been after 928, inconsistent with Brunanburh in 937.

Vernharðsson argues that Heimskringla is wrong: “According to a 10th century account by the Frankish monk Richer, King Athelstan assisted his foster-son Alain, count of Pohersent, to drive the Vikings out of Brittany, while he was in York in the year 936. King Athelstan also sent his naval fleet that same year to carry his other foster-son, Louis the son of Charles, home to take the throne of France, thus meaning that Eric cannot have ruled York in the year 935 or 936. Furthermore, there are absolutely no sources that put Eric Bloodaxe anywhere near the battle of Brunanburh in 937.” In other words, Vernharðsson is saying that Bloodaxe could not have ruled the Kingdom of York in 936 because Æthelstan was in York at that time.

The argument is faulty. Heimskringla clearly says that Æthelstan invited Bloodaxe to be sub-king. As Sarah Foot notes, Richer of Rheims says that Æthelstan was in Jorvik “deliberating affairs of state” in 936. There are no records of him ever taking his court to Jorvik. She speculates that he might have been on his way to visit the shrine of St Cuthbert or to check on unrest in the northern fiefs, but they are hardly affairs of state. It seems more likely to us that the ‘affair of state’ that took him to Jorvik was to negotiate the terms of Bloodaxe’s tenure as sub-king of the Kingdom of York. As for there being “no sources that put Bloodaxe anywhere near the battle of Brunanburh in 937”, absence of evidence is not evidence of absence, and we think that Brunanburh was fought west of the Pennines (as we explain here), so Bloodaxe would not have been anywhere near the battle in 937.

We list nine other anachronisms above. Vernharðsson tries to revolve them with a ‘chronology shift’ theory which means that the dates used in Heimskringla are ten years too early. His theory is based on Heimskringla and Egil’s Saga having confused the names of the English kings. So, for example, when Egil’s Saga talks about Egill returning to England to meet Æthelstan, which can only have happened before Æthelstan died, Vernharðsson thinks that Snorri meant to say that Egill met Edmund, so it happened after Æthelstan died. Vernharðsson offers five examples of Heimskringla referring to wrong English kings:

1. Heimskringla says that Erik Bloodaxe plundered northern England after he was evicted from Norway in 935 or 936, so: “Athelstan, the king of England, sent a message to Eric, offering him dominions under him in England.” Vernharðsson notes that ASC-D first mentions Bloodaxe in 948, when Eadred overran Northumbria because they had taken Bloodaxe as their king. He reasons that Bloodaxe’s reign could not therefore have started before 944 because Northumbria was in Edmund’s dominion before 944. Therefore, the invitation to be sub-king came from Edmund not Æthelstan.
2. Heimskringla says: “King Athelstan died on a sick bed, after a reign of fourteen years, eight weeks and three days. King Jatmund [Edmund] his brother takes the Kingdom.” Vernharðsson reckons this is inconsistent with English accounts of Æthelstan’s reign because Snorri confused Æthelstan and Edmund.
3. Heimskringla says of Æthelstan’s death: “After him his brother Játmundur [Edmund] was king of England, and he was no friend to the Northmen. King Eric Bloodaxe, also, was in no great favour with him; and the word was that King Játmundur would set another chief over Northumberland.” ASC-D says that Eadred occupied Northumbria in 948 because they had taken Bloodaxe as their king. Vernharðsson says: “It was King Eadred that fought fiercely against Eric Bloodaxe, but not King Edmund according to the English Chronicles”, so Snorri confused Eadred and Edmund.
4. Heimskringla says: “King Jatmund [Edmund] set a king, who was called Olaf, to defend the land; and he gathered an innumerable mass of people, with whom he marched against King Eric.” The ASC says that Anlaf [Olaf] Curran came to the land of the Northumbrians in 949 during the reign of Eadred. Vernharðsson argues that Snorri has, once again, confused English kings, in this instance Eadred and Edmund.
5. Heimskringla says: “Eric Bloodaxe dies in a battle against King Játmundur [Edmund] and Olaf”. Edmund died in 946, to be succeeded by Eadred. ASC-D for the year 948 says: “In this year King Eadred ravaged all Northumbria, because they had accepted Eric as their king.” So, ASC-D is saying that Eric was still alive after Edmund’s death. ASC-D for 954 says: “In this year the Northumbrians drove out Eric, and Eadred succeeded to the kingdom of the Northumbrians.” Roger of Wendover for 950 says: “King Eilric, by the treachery of earl Osulf, was slain by a nobleman named Macon, together with his son Henry and his brother Reginald, in a lonely spot called Steinmore; after which king Eadred reigned in those parts.” It sounds like Bloodaxe died between 950 and 954, at least four years after Edmund died. Vernharðsson argues that, once more, Snorri has confused Eadred and Edmund.

Vernharðsson is partially right. Snorri does sometimes confuse the names of English kings. E above is a typical example. There are others in Egil’s Saga. The opening paragraph of Chapter 70, for instance, says that Egill receives news that Æthelstan and Eric Bloodaxe had both died, but Æthelstan died in 939 whereas Bloodaxe died between 950 and 954. It is inconceivable that it took 11 years or more to receive news of Æthelstan’s death, so Snorri probably did confuse Æthelstan with Eadred in this instance.

While Snorri is prone to these sorts of naming errors, it is usually in unimportant exposition, and we think this is the case with argument E. He seldom makes these errors in the core narrative. Anyway, Vernharðsson’s arguments A, B, C and D above are faulty.

B is a simple error. The Anglo-Saxon Chronicle says that Æthelstan reigned for 14 years and 10 weeks. The Regnal List, which is probably accurate, says that he reigned for 14 years 7 weeks and 3 days. Heimskringla is only a couple of weeks out, which is negligible for a story that was handed down verbally for 200 years.

A, C and D are more complicated. These arguments assume that every English accession, even of sub-kings, is reported in the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle. The first ASC mention of Eric Bloodaxe in 948. Vernharðsson assumes this was during his first reign. His argument runs: 1) Edmund retook Northumbria in 944, deposing Olaf; 2) Therefore, Bloodaxe’s reign could not have started before 944, so he could not have been invited to be sub-king by Æthelstan who died in 939; 3) Nor could Bloodaxe have been dethroned by Edmund in 948 because Edmund died in 946.

If the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle meticulous reported the accession and death of all English sub-kings, Vernharðsson’s argument would have some merit. But it doesn’t. Its first mention of Bloodaxe is to say that Eadred overran Northumbria because they had taken Bloodaxe as their king. It never says when or that Bloodaxe became their king. It says that Edmund drove King Olaf out of Northumbria in 944, but it never says when or that Olaf became king of Northumbria. There are dozens of other examples.

We see no inconsistency. Heimskringla says that Bloodaxe was invited by Æthelstan to be sub-king of Northumbria in 936. It makes A and C consistent with the English chronology and the traditional Norse chronology. It just means that Bloodaxe’s first accession as sub-king of York and subsequent events - his reign, his threat of being dethroned by Edmund, and his dethronement - were not reported in the English accounts. It is no surprise. He was only a sub-king. English chronicles usually omit details about sub-kings unless they impact the actual king.

It is only right that Vernharðsson defends his theory, but his arguments are convoluted, unlikely and mostly faulty. Eric Bloodaxe’s 936 reign in England is the anchor for some of the most momentous events in Norwegian history, including the reign of Harald Fairhair, the accession of his sons Eric Bloodaxe and Haakon the Good, Eric’s slaughter of his brothers, and so on. If Bloodaxe’s first reign in Northumbria was, as Vernharðsson believes in 946, the entire chronology of Norway’s first dynasty must be wrong, which seems implausible.  

It seems to us that the simplest answer is most likely to true, that all the contemporary accounts are right as far as they go. Thus, Æthelstan did invite Bloodaxe to be sub-king of York in 936, as Heimskringla says. He was an unpopular leader who had already been ejected from Norway, so Edmund would not protect him when Æthelstan died. He was equally unpopular with Northumbrian locals and Edmund had his hands full securing Mercia, so Edmund expelled Bloodaxe and invited Olaf Sihtricsson to become sub-king of Northumbria in 940. In 944, Edmund retook Northumbria, expelling Olaf and Ragnald. The Northumbrians loathed Anglo-Saxons, so when Edmund died in 946 they invited Eric Bloodaxe to be their king again. In 948 Eadred took Northumbria, expelling Bloodaxe. Still no fans of Anglo-Saxons, in 949 the locals invited Olaf to be their king again. It went badly. In 952, the Northumbrians expelled Olaf and invited Bloodaxe to be their king for a third time. In 954, the Northumbrians lost patience with Norse kings. They expelled Bloodaxe and took Eadred as king, permanently becoming part of England. These events are consistent with all the contemporary accounts.

Vernharðsson’s next evidence concerns Egill’s children. He reproduces a screenshot from Islendingabok which shows that Egill’s children were born in 939, 940, 942, 943 and 945. Wikipedia shows his first child, Thorgerdr, being born in 935, so they are reasonably consistent. Egill married Asgerd, his brother’s widow, in the winter two years after Egil’s Saga’s battle. If Egil’s Saga’s battle was in 927, as we propose above, and Islendingabok is right, it would have taken ten years for Asgerd to have a baby. Vernharðsson reckons this is too unlikley to be plausible. But one in seven couples have medical conditions that cause miscarriages or infertility, and the alternative is less likely still. If Egil’s Saga’s battle was Brunanburh, Egill would have married Asgerd in late 939. Her husband had been dead for two years yet she had a baby later that year.

Vernharðsson’s final argument is that Egill wrote the Brunanburh Poem in the Ango-Saxon Chronicle, which would only be possible if he fought at Brunanburh. Most of his evidence is related to the structure and etymology of Egill’s poems in comparison to the Brunanburh Poem. It is well beyond our skills. The only claim we can verify is Vernharðsson’s analysis of two lines from the Brunanburh Poem taken from the Parker Chronicle. He reckons that the lines “werig, wiges sæd, Wes Seaxe forð” should be translated: “to the west, from the Saxon they fled” which is similar to a line in Egil’s Saga.

In our opinion, his transcript and translation are both wrong. The relevant text in the Parker Chronicle is outlined above. The stanza says: “swelce Scyttisc eac • werig, wiges sæd • wesseaxe forð • ond longne daeg”. The interpuncts denote line ends. The transcript error is that ‘Wes Seaxe’ should read ‘wesseaxe’, one word not ‘two. It is used a dozen or more times in the Parker Chronicle’s Mercian dialect, always meaning ‘West Saxons’. Thus, it cannot be split across two phrases, in the way that Vernharðsson proposes. The translation error is to join the middle lines into a phrase because it would leave the first and last lines hanging meaninglessly. All the other translators correctly join the first two lines to mean ‘Likewise the Scottish were also weary, battle-sated’, and the last two to mean “The West Saxons went forth all day long”.

Whatever the commonality of style between Egill’s poems and the Brunanburh Poem, the content is inconsistent. Northmen, seamen and pirates – all references to the Hiberno-Norse - are prominent in the Brunanburh Poem but absent from Egil’s Saga. The Brunanburh Poem says that “five young kings lay dead on the battlefield” and “seven of Anlaf’s earls” while Egil’s Saga says that Æthelstan lays low “royal Earls/Kings three”. The Brunanburh Poem says that the English pursued the enemy all day long, while Egil’s Saga says that Egill pursued the enemy until sated, then returned to the battlefield to bury his brother. And so on.

In our opinion, Vernharðsson’s arguments that Egil’s Saga is describing the Battle of Brunanburh are fundamentally flawed. His new evidence is specious or spurious. His evidence that Eric Bloodaxe was not in York in 936 is simplistic and faulty, and it only addresses one of the major anachronisms, leaving eight others. He does nothing to address the inconsistencies between Egil’s Saga and the English accounts of Brunanburh. His recommendation to anchor “the most significant events in Egil’s saga with the battle of Brunanburh and the reign of King Eric Bloodaxe in York gives an improved chronology of the saga instead of anchoring it on the reign of King Athelstan” amounts to unjustified rigging of the data to support his argument, and it would still leave twenty or so inconsistencies and anachronisms.

Could Egil’s Saga or Malmesbury be faulty?

One possibility that has to be considered is whether Egil’s Saga and Malmesbury have different narratives of Brunanburh because one or the other are fictional. There are reasons to question both of them.

Egil’s Saga is a Norse saga, not a history book. Sagas are all inherently fallible, part fantasy part fiction, albeit based around historical events. They were passed down by word of mouth for 200 years before being recorded, which makes them notoriously unreliable about English dates and names. Of course, they made mistakes, and it was perfectly acceptable to tart up the events to make them more exciting or more glorious. We are sceptical about core parts of Egil’s Saga’s narrative, especially Æthelstan’s challenge and the pre-arranged hazelled battlefield, which sound far too Norse for Anglo-Saxon Æthelstan. But we trust the core narrative. It was written by Snorri Sturluson, who is a famous and trusted skald. Its battle narrative sounds right for the period. He had no incentive to alter the geographic details. His chronology matches the established Norse chronology, and the established English chronology, as long as one accepts its battle is not Brunanburh.

There are reasons to be sceptical about Malmesbury too. His account contains some seriously unreliable information about Brunanburh. It has a passage about Olaf sneaking into the English camp disguised as a minstrel which is implausibly similar to his earlier story about Alfred doing this to scout Guthrum’s camp. It contains a section about the miraculous appearance of a sword by divine intervention, which does not help its credibility. He claims that one of his sources was an early poem that he had just found – 200 years after the battle - then promptly re-lost. Even so, we trust its engagement narrative because, as Michael Wood says, his source is critical of Æthelstan’s slow response to Olaf’s invasion. No one, especially someone living at Malmesbury Abbey, would dare invent anything so seditious.

Conclusion

Most experts, apart from translators, think that Egil’s Saga is describing the Battle of Brunanburh. They cannot have not delved into the detail. Of the twelve major clues and nine potential anachronisms described above, Brunanburh matches just three of the most general. It contradicts most of the other clues and all the anachronisms. It contradicts the other Norse sagas, the established early Norse chronology, and the established dates of Egill’s birth, marriage and children.

We are confident that Egil’s Saga is describing Æthelstan’s campaign against Kings Constantine and Owain in Northumbria in 926 or 927. It is consistent, with one minor exception for which there is a simple explanation, with all the clues in the contemporary accounts, and the established English chronology, and the established Norse chronology.