The confusion in Northumbria opened up a tempting opportunity for Malcolm to retaliate in response to the earlier English raid on Cumberland. He was currently free from other distractions and wasted no time in attacking. In 1006 he invaded northern England at a most opportune moment, immediately after the death of Ealdorman Aelfhelm and when Ealdorman Waltheof of Bamburgh was old and infirm. This may have been a simple raiding campaign designed to secure military success and the associated booty early in the new king’s reign. It is possible, however, that it was a full-blown attempt at the conquest of English Northumbria. This last possibility is perhaps suggested by the attempt to besiege and take Durham itself. A straightforward raid had no need to attempt this and, indeed, would normally avoid such fortified locations. The result of Malcolm’s invasion, according to the Annals of Ulster, was a battle between the men of Alba and the English in which the former were defeated and a great number of their nobles left dead.
The fullest account of Malcolm’s attack is provided by a badly misdated and almost certainly confused account found in a later twelfth-century source called De Obsessione Dunelmi, or ‘The Siege of Durham’. This reports that:
Malcolm, King of Scots, son of Kenneth, having gathered an army from all Scotland, devastated the province of the Northumbrians by fire and slaughter and surrounded Durham in a siege . . . Waltheof, who had been Earl of Northumbria, shut himself up in Bamburgh. He was in fact of great age and so too old to be able to make a stand against the enemy . . . Seeing the land devastated by the enemy and Durham besieged, and his father unable to act, the young warrior [Uhtred] gathered the army of the North-umbrians and the people of York, no small force, and killed almost all the Scottish host: whose king himself barely escaped by fleeing with a few men. He [Uhtred] had the heads of the dead made more presentable with their hair combed, as then was the custom, and transported to Durham; there washed by four women, and fixed on stakes round the walls . . . Hearing of this King Aethelred called the aforementioned young man to him, and while his father, Waltheof, was still living, gave him as reward for his prowess and the way in which he fought, his father’s earldom, adding the earldom of York.12
The twelfth-century account is certainly unreliable in terms of the date of 965 offered for this event in the text. It may also include an element of confusion with a later attack on Durham by Malcolm’s own son Duncan in 1039. It is entirely understandable that local traditions about two separate attacks on Durham which both resulted in Scottish defeats became confused in the period between their occurrence and their description in the twelfth century. The contemporary and accurate Annals of Ulster prove conclusively that a battle between the Scots and the English occurred in this year and that the Scots were beaten. It is true that this source does not mention Durham or use the term ‘siege’, but that is no reason to reject the subsequent tradition entirely.
In spite of dubious aspects of one of the main sources for this episode, it is clear that Malcolm was heavily defeated. The disastrous outcome of this invasion might have ended Malcolm’s reign then and there. Instead, it seems that the bloodletting of the last decade, which included among its victims no less than four adult members of the dynasty, had left few suitable alternative candidates for the kingship. The increased threat of Viking attacks, especially after 1007, also alleviated the danger of any English counterstroke. This serendipity allowed Malcolm time to recover and restore his position. In fact, the actions of others across the British Isles improved Malcolm’s position dramatically over the next decade. In 1008 the latest Viking crisis, which would culminate in the Danish conquest of England, compelled Ealdorman Uhtred of Northumbria to focus his attention on matters nearer home. He was unable to exploit his victory at Durham but was instead forced to submit to Danish rule in 1013. In 1014, Brian Boru, King of Ireland fought and heavily defeated the King of Leinster and the Vikings from Dublin and the Isles, at the Battle of Clontarf near Dublin. Sigurd, Earl of Orkney, who had managed to seize control of the Western Isles following the death of Ragnall, son of Guthfrith in 1005, was among the fatalities. The Vikings of the north and west were left leaderless for many years as rivals fought for control of Sigurd’s territories and another potential threat to Malcolm evaporated.
The Annals of Ulster record the interesting information that a certain Donald, son of Eimen, son of Cainnech, Mormaer of Mar fell alongside King Brian Boru at Clontarf. It is perhaps worth speculating on the possible reasons for the presence of this Donald in the Irish camp. He may simply have been a military adventurer seeking an outlet for his martial energies in foreign wars. He would not be the first or the last Scot to do so and might foreshadow the later appearance of the ‘gallowglas’ or Scottish mercenary soldiers. He might have been fostered with an Irish family and therefore been obliged to fight alongside them. The custom of fostering was prominent in Gaelic tradition. He could have been an exile driven out of Scotland for some misdemeanor and now seeking favour and the chance to return. More intriguingly perhaps, he might have been a member of a Scottish force which had been sent to assist Brian Boru in his war against the Vikings. The presence of Earl Sigurd of Orkney on the Viking side makes it not unlikely that Malcolm might want to assist Brian in some way. This would be an example of the principle that ‘the enemy of my enemy is my friend’. This is certainly an intriguing possibility but must remain no more than that.
In 1016 Malcolm, King of Alba was in a commanding position once again. He had survived a heavy defeat at the hands of Uhtred of Northumbria at Durham in 1006. He was apparently still free of rivals at home. He had been freed from any possible Viking threat by the death of Earl Sigurd of Orkney and the defeat of the Dublin Vikings at Clontarf in 1014. He was in no immediate danger from the south, where the English and the Danes were involved in a destructive war for control of the kingdom of England. This conflict had drawn Ealdorman Uhtred into its maelstrom and left the northern borders of English Northumbria exposed once again. In 1016, indeed, a vacillating Uhtred would be executed by Cnut for changing sides too often. This offered an unprecedented opportunity for Malcolm, who was probably anxious to restore the prestige lost at Durham.
The consequences of this situation were almost inevitable and Malcolm, King of Alba seized the opportunity to invade English Northumbria again. The result on this occasion was, fortunately for him, much more favourable. It is recorded only in much later English and Scottish sources, the former reporting that ‘A great battle was fought at Carham between the Scots and the English, between Uhtred, Waltheof’s son, Earl of Northumbria and Malcolm, King of Scots, the son of Kenneth. And with him in the battle was Owain the Bald of the Britons of Strathclyde.’ Historia Dunelmensis Ecclesiae, or ‘The History of the Church of Durham’ adds the information that this conflict involved ‘an endless host of Scots’ and that ‘the entire people from the River Tees to the Tweed with their nobility, almost wholly perished . . .’ The latter clearly involves an element of exaggeration but does perhaps provide a flavour of the scale of this defeat for the English.
The battle at Carham, which appears to be such an important event in Malcolm’s reign, has been the source of considerable controversy among historians. The problem starts from the fact that it is not mentioned in any contemporary sources, Scottish, Irish or English, but first appears only in much later twelfth-century English sources. The main points of contention relate to when the battle actually happened and which individuals were involved in it. The confusion surrounding these issues has resulted in a number of sometimes elaborate reconstructions of the event, usually designed to justify the particular date allocated to this battle by a single twelfth-century source. There is, in fact, very little need for all this angst about what should be a relatively simple solution to this apparent problem.
The Battle of Carham is recorded only in a few late sources which may or may not be related to each other. The sources that offer a date for the battle are consistent in placing it in 1018. This point is clear. Unfortunately, one of t
hese sources, the Historia Regum or ‘The History of the Kings’, a set of annals based on a version of The Anglo-Saxon Chronicle and attributed to Simeon of Durham, also names the main protagonists as Malcolm, King of Scots, Owen of Strathclyde and Uhtred, son of Waltheof, Earl of Northumbria. This is where the difficulty arises. Other contemporary and more reliable sources report the deaths of two of these three men a couple of years before 1018. The Welsh annals place the death of Owain of Strathclyde in 1016, two years after the battle of Clontarf, which occurred in 1014. The main Anglo-Saxon Chronicle reports the execution of Ealdorman Uhtred of Northumbria taking place before Easter in 1016. The latter death is also reported by The History of the Kings itself under 1016, in flat contradiction of its own report on Carham, two years later, in 1018. How could these two dead men have fought at Carham in 1018? This is the crux of the problem.
There have been many attempts to reconcile these facts or resolve this problem. Unfortunately, these have sometimes involved considerable distortion of the few facts supplied by nearly contemporary sources or, in some cases, the ignoring of these altogether. The presence of Owen and Uhtred at Carham is often ignored. They are arbitrarily replaced by other leaders, who could have been there if the battle had happened in 1018, without any evidence whatsoever in support of the presence of these others. In other cases, the accurate contemporary records of the deaths of these two individuals in 1016 are dismissed and their lives are artificially extended to allow them to participate in a battle two years later, in 1018. It is surely unacceptable to ignore or distort the few facts that exist in this fashion. Instead, the facts must be deployed in such a way that the majority are preserved and that the most reliable and contemporary are accorded preference.
In the case of the Battle of Carham the real problem comes down to one basic question: whether reliance should be placed on the year date of 1018 attributed to the battle, or on a number of facts that were part of the collective memory of the event. In the early medieval period, a calendar date associated with an event is open to error, involving the simple addition or loss of a pen stroke or strokes in the Roman numeral used. This all makes such dates more prone to be unreliable, with errors of one or two years relatively common. In contrast, the names of famous leaders who participated in a particular event are more likely to be preserved in the collective memory. It remains true, even in our own times, that most people find it much easier to recall the participants in great events rather than the precise date when the events happened.
In this context it is surely more sensible to discard the date of 1018 for the battle at Carham than to reject the information about those who participated in it. The Battle of Carham was therefore most probably fought early in 1016 between Malcolm, King of Alba and his sub-king, Owain of Strathclyde on one side and Uhtred, Ealdorman of Northumbria on the other and the latter was decisively defeated. There are other reasons in support of placing Malcolm’s invasion of England and this battle in 1016 rather than two years later. In 1016 the English kingdom was in complete chaos with English and Danish armies competing for supremacy. This was surely the perfect moment for Malcolm to launch an invasion of the north of England. In 1018, by contrast, the Danes had emerged victorious and King Cnut was in control of England.
If the precise date of the battle of Carham has proved difficult for historians to agree on, the result is not generally disputed. The Siege of Durham reports that Eadwulf Cudel or Cuttlefish succeeded his brother Uhtred as Ealdorman of Bamburgh and proceeds to state that: ‘he ceded them [the Scots] by firm treaty the whole of Lothian to make amends. In this way Lothian was added to the kingdom of the Scots.’ This concession perhaps influenced those who described Eadwulf as a ‘cowardly man’. He had plenty of reason to be fearful with the victorious Scots to his north and a victorious and vengeful Cnut, with his ally Jarl Erik ruling at York, to the south. It must have seemed to Eadwulf that he had little choice but to concede territory to the Scots. There is some dispute about exactly what territory was ceded to Malcolm after the victory at Carham. It is supposed by some that Lothian itself was finally secured for the Scots, but this had almost certainly already been achieved by 973. It is possible that this hegemony might have been lost after 1006 and was now restored, but there is no evidence for this. It seems more likely that Malcolm was able to extend his authority southwards as far as the Tweed. This might have happened in the immediate aftermath of the fighting. It was not perhaps formally conceded and accepted by the English kings until rather later, perhaps in 1020 or more probably 1033.
In addition to the conquest and occupation of more of English Northumbria, the convenient death, whether in the Battle at Carham or not, of Owain, Sub-king of Strathclyde allowed Malcolm to complete the absorption of this subject kingdom. He brought this area under direct Scottish rule for the first time. The precise arrangements for this are unclear but there are perhaps some intriguing possibilities. In 1034 the Annals of Ulster record the death of a man called Suibne, son of Kenneth, King of Galloway, a man otherwise completely unknown. In light of the name of his father, Kenneth, it is perhaps conceivable that he might have been a relative of Malcolm II, King of Alba. It is unlikely that he was a brother of King Malcolm himself. He could perhaps be a son of Kenneth III, who had been offered the rule of this area to prevent him claiming the kingship itself. Unfortunately, there is no further mention of this Suibne or his descendants. Another possible fate for Strathclyde might be implied by a late source which makes reference to Malcolm’s great-grandson Malcolm III as the son of the ‘Prince of the Cumbrians’. If this source records an accurate tradition, it may signify that Malcolm may have appointed his own grandson Duncan to a position of authority in Strathclyde. Whatever the precise arrangement, Malcolm was now secure to the south with a greatly expanded kingdom. This achievement was facilitated because Cnut, the new Danish king of England, had a strong interest in keeping Malcolm quiet while he secured his own wider Scandinavian empire. He was probably therefore prepared to accept the significant concession to Malcolm that the loss of English Northumbria beyond the Tweed represented.
In 1020 an internal dispute flared into life in the semi-autonomous northern region of Moray. The Annals of Ulster and the Annals of Tigernach both report the killing of Findlaech, son of Ruadri. The Ulster annalist describes him incorrectly as ‘King of Alba’ while Tigernach refers to him more properly as ‘mormaer of Moray’. He was killed by his nephews, the sons of his older brother Maelbrigte. This appears to have been an internal dispute, which probably arose from the operation in Moray of a similar system of succession to that affecting the throne of Alba itself. It seems that all adult male relatives of previous rulers were also able to claim this title. It would not be surprising if this sort of dispute was exploited by King Malcolm to extend his authority into Moray. It is possible that Macbeth, the son of the murdered Findlaech, sought refuge with Malcolm. He is later described by the chronicler Marianus Scotus as the dux or ‘commander’ of King Duncan, Malcolm’s grandson and successor, which suggests some kind of service relationship between them. It is not clear when this might have developed but it may not be fanciful to suggest that its origins lay in the refuge and assistance provided to Macbeth by Malcolm at this time.
The focus on the region of Moray that is a feature of the Annals of Ulster between 1020 and 1032 is unique. It was not the first time that kings of Alba had engaged with the local rulers of Moray. The Scottish Chronicle records some earlier contacts, usually of a hostile nature. There is, however, no sign of these earlier contacts in contemporary Irish annals. The prominence of Moray at this point seems to suggest that relations between Alba and Moray had moved into a new phase which was of interest to Ireland. It was clearly a period of increased contact and probably of increased tension between these two polities. The use of the title ‘King of Alba’ for some of the rulers of Moray may provide a reason for this. In Irish texts the hostile relations between Moray and Alba may have been interpreted, however inaccurately, as a
contest for domination in Alba. In contemporary Ireland, rival dynasties were contending for wider rule over Ireland and beginning to employ the title ‘King’ or ‘High-king’ of Ireland. It would be perfectly natural for an Irish annalist to report an apparently similar conflict in Alba in the same terms.
In 1027 the Annals of Ulster report that Dunkeld in Scotland was completely burned. The annalist offers no further information about this event which could have been accidental or deliberate. If it was deliberate, it could have resulted from internal dispute or external invasion, in the latter case possibly by Vikings or the men of Moray. In 1027 Dunkeld would have been a particularly appropriate target for anyone at loggerheads with King Malcolm. It was probably administered by a man called Crinan, Abbot of Dunkeld, who had married King Malcolm’s daughter, named in later sources as Bethoc. The couple had a son Duncan, who was King Malcolm’s grandson and would eventually become his heir. This Duncan would be old enough by 1034 to succeed his grandfather and he must therefore have been born before 1027. If King Malcolm was harbouring Macbeth, a claimant to the mormaerdom of Moray, it is possible that the rulers of that land sought to strike back at him. In these circumstances, an attack on Dunkeld, the power base of Crinan and the probable location of King Malcolm’s heir, would be highly appropriate. This is little more than speculation but interesting nonetheless.
In 1029 the Annals of Ulster record the death of Malcolm, son of Maelbrigte, son of Ruadri, who was the mormaer of Moray. The Annals of Tigernach provide an addition in the form of the mistaken title ‘King of Alba’. This repeats the earlier use of this mistaken title by the Ulster annalist himself in 1020 and, as noted above, it may provide evidence for the Irish perception of the nature of the struggle between Moray and Alba at this time. The tension between these two regions and their rulers seems to have been fuelled by mutual interference in each other’s succession. In this context, the Irish use of the style ‘King of Alba’ for the rulers of Moray represents their own interpretation of the political situation in Alba. In 1029 the death of Malcolm of Moray brought his brother Gillacomgain to power and this man represented a more direct danger to King Malcolm II. He had married a lady called Gruoch, a descendant of Kenneth III, and their son Lulach had inherited a claim to the kingship of Alba itself. This sequence of events can only have encouraged Malcolm to intervene directly in support of his protégé Macbeth.
Lords of Alba Page 13