Historical Notes
The historical context
While most of the characters and their deeds in this series are imagined (except for the Saxon King Ecgberht of Wessex, for example), the historical context of the Wolves of Dumnonia series is authentic. All of the locations mentioned in this book existed in Rathulf’s time, and where possible I have used the contemporary names for those places. For instance, Escanceaster = modern day Exeter; Caer Uisc is the Dumnonian name for the same city. Konstantinoupolis = modern day Istanbul. In the case of the settlements on Sognefjorden and its various branches, I have applied the typical Norse naming convention of the day, which was the owner’s name + the Old Norse term for homestead/settlement (‘by’). Rathulf’s and Thorvald’s home is thus known as ‘Thorvaldsby’.
The major events in which Rathulf and Aneurin play a part are also real – a battle is noted in the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle between the Britons of Devon and Cornwall in 825AD for example – as are the details of the landscape, towns and settlements, day-to-day ways of life and living conditions, dress, behaviour, religious beliefs, customs and laws. Dumnonia existed as an independent British realm during Rathulf’s lifetime, and it is the events that are recorded in the contemporary Anglo-Saxon Chronicle that sparked the idea for the Wolves of Dumnonia series.
Wherever possible I have endeavoured to remain true to history in these books, but there may be one or two details which may not be 100% accurate, either because the historical record is unclear, or I have simply got it wrong. For this I apologise; it is in the most part unintentional. There is one particular aspect of history, however, where I have applied a touch of licence: Sigvald’s claim that he journeyed to Konstantinoupolis to fetch Tariq. Whilst the Vikings did find their way to the fabled capital of the Eastern Roman Empire during Rathulf’s lifetime, it was not until slightly later – in the early 900s – that Vikings had made it a regular holiday destination. Indeed the Vikings were so admired by the Byzantine emperors for their physical prowess that they were invited to join the Emperor’s elite personal protection force, known as the Varangian Guard. These were mostly Swedish Vikings (the ‘Rus’). Nevertheless, the Norsefolk of Rathulf’s time were avid traders and storytellers, so it is highly likely that Ra would have heard (undoubtedly inflated) tales of the splendour of the glittering eastern city. Less likely would be Sigvald’s journey from Sognefjorden in Norway all the way to Konstantinoupolis to procure Tariq; but that’s what makes it such a remarkable tale, isn’t it?
A second act of licence is the Viking attack on the monastery of St Germanus in 808AD. It is highly likely that the monastery was attacked during the Viking Age (probably more than once), but as these same raids led to the destruction of monastic records, we can’t know for certain that such a raid took place in that particular year. It is also worth pointing out that Rathulf’s reaction to seeing the city of Escanceaster (Exeter) for the first time (this happens later in the series) may suggest that the city was larger and more imposing than it was in reality, or would certainly seem to us by modern day standards. But remember that Rathulf comes from a tiny farmstead in a very remote part of the world and he has never seen anything bigger than a village, nor has he ever seen buildings made entirely from dressed stone. So coming upon the bustling walled town of Escanceaster – capital of Dumnonia – would have been an amazing and overwhelming experience for this Norse country bumpkin.
A note on the dropping of the ‘r’ at the end of names and nouns
It is common in Old Norse texts for names and nouns to be appended with an ‘r’ (e.g. Sigvaldr, Rathulfr, Thorvaldsbyr, Ullr). This is all to do with Old Norse grammar. The Old Norse writers used this ‘r’ suffix to define the nominative case of a noun or, in plain English, the subject of the sentence. This distinguishes the subject from the direct object of the sentence, the latter being in the accusative case (i.e. no added ‘r’). Clear as mud? Here’s an example: “Rathulfr threw the bucket at Alrik. Alrikr then threw a mug back at Rathulf.” Obviously it would quickly become irritating and confusing for the reader if I were to follow the correct Norse grammatical rules, so in the interests of simplicity, I have chosen to dump the extra ‘r’ altogether.
A note on slavery in the 9th century
Slavery (ON þrælldómr) was an everyday part of Norse, Saxon and Dumnonian society in the 9th Century, with many cultures and kingdoms maintaining an active trade in people as saleable and exploitable commodities. Indeed, the Bodmin Manumissions, in the form of notations in the margins of a 10th century ecclesiastical work, preserves the names and details of slaves freed in Bodmin (then the principal town of Kernow) during the 9th and 10th centuries, showing that slavery existed in Dumnonia at that time and that at least some Kernowyon slave-owners did eventually set their slaves free.
Enslaved people—thralls (ON þrælar)—were typically war captives, victims of raids (notably from the British Isles and Slavic lands; the latter being from where the term “slave” originates), debt-bonded locals, or criminals. In Norse society, as in other cultures elsewhere in Dark Ages Europe, they formed the lowest class beneath karls/ceorls (free farmers) and jarls (nobles), performing all manner of domestic service, farm labour, hauling, craftwork, and sometimes trading or rowing.
Thralls were legal property; their children inherited their slave status, could be bought, sold, or given as bride-gifts, and women (and men) could be kept as concubines. Manumission occurred (a freed person became a ‘leysingi’), but former thralls retained limited rights and owed dues to former owners. Slave trading was economically significant at Scandinavian port towns like Hedeby, Birka, and Dublin. With Christianisation and changing laws, slavery declined after the 11th century, shifting toward serf-like dependency rather than outright chattel status.
If slaves did not behave properly, they were punished. Owners could discipline their slaves however they wanted. Slaves’ bodies–both male and female–were also available for sexual exploitation. Historical and archaeological evidence suggests that the Norse were not particularly kind to their slaves, but that could also be said of their Saxon and British counterparts.
By the time of the Norman invasion in 1066, it is estimated that at least 10% of the population of Britain were enslaved, with some scholars maintaining that proportion was much higher, possibly as much as 30%. This difference may be down to where the lines are drawn in the definition of slavery versus bondedness. Ranking only slightly above slaves, the majority of ‘freemen’ during the 9th Century lived as bonded serfs, i.e. they were provided a dwelling and land to farm, but it all belonged to their lord, including any produce from their labours—so they were to all intents and purposes enslaved to their lord.
It should be noted that reference to slavery in these books in no way endorses the practice of enslaving people; rather, it simply reflects the societal values of the 9th century, where slavery was, unfortunately, entirely normal.