Battle Of Maldon Essay.

Cause of the English subjugation:
The Earl’s hubris or disloyalty of the retinue?

The Battle of Maldon is a poem which tells of an English defense against a Viking invasion of Maldon on the estuary of the Blackwater River in the year 991. Earl Byrtnoth led the English militia, and the battle took place during the reign of Æthelred. The seamen offered him: to buy off the spear-assault withtribute, rather than a harsh war. But he didn't accept it, instead, he allowed the foes the free passage to the causeway so that the battle could take place. The loyal Englishmen fought bravely, while some others, who are seen as the ones who chose the tribute, escaped. Even though there is not text that shows the ultimate defeat of the English, the grim tone of the speeches of the warriors indeedrelates to it. Whether or not, the Æthelred earl's suffered from heroic overconfidence, the decision to take, in the situation before his eyes was difficult, could not be taken without thinking it over, because both decisions, could entail to failure. In conjuction with his attitudes, he leant toward letting the foreigners, to settle down to fight, for he wanted to ensure peace by distroying theenemy in an honorable way; the commander had a good strategy against them, but it was never proved due to a devastating treachery from an individual who fearing for his life, misleads another people to abandon the battle-field, who in the inner, prefered to pay the treasure, to save their lives momentarily, rather than to be loyal, and die if it was required.

The questioning of Birhtnothagainst the seamen’s truce proposal of exchanging a tribute of his own request to ransom his people, instead of an innecesary bloodshed, whom answered with pride, to the Vikings’ herald:

“Do you hear, seafarer, what this folk says? They will give you spears for tribute, poisoned point and old sword, heriot that avails you not in battle…”

His reasoning about the foe's possible actions, if heaccepted the deal, how would he trust, the Vikings were not trying to deceive him?, What would stop them from going back to look for more money?. At the end the English were dealing with pirates, whom are dedicated to go to other lands to slaughter and steal.. Another citation from the leader:
“Now the way is laid open for you. Come straightway to us, as men to battle. God alone knows which of usmay be master of the field.”
The earl’s action could be interpretated as a way to forestall other situations, for example if the defenders stated on the end of the causeway to prevent the Vikings, from settling in the mainland, the seafarers could simply turn around and look for a less defended entrance to continue their depradation. So the only way to obtain peace would be the totalextermination.
Or were these two arguments, mentioned above, a delusional reasoning due to overconfidence and haughtiness?. Unmistakable is the fact that Birhtnoth was “overconfident”, and both answers are unrefutable statements of pride. Pride was important in the time of the middle ages, as was honor. It is very possible that Birtnoth allowed the Vikings across because his pride (possibly excessive inattempting to achieve glory) did not allow him to do otherwise, but this was a very uncalculated strategic move. When the English were holding the bridge, the small width forced the Vikings to engage in equal combat , which led to all the Vikings sent across being utterly defeated. Common sense would dictate that instead of letting the Vikings come across to land, that the English would just hold thebridge until either the

Vikings were defeated, or they tried a different route. As mentioned before, they may have just got in their ships and sailed to a different area, wouldn’t it be worse the risk?.
In the other hand, the betrayal of the entourage, in the fragment that was spoken by Offa:
“The coward son of Odda, Godric, has betrayed us all; when he rode off on that horse, on that...