The class hierarchy in Anglo-Saxon England

Posted on by

Let’s suppose you’re dropped into Anglo-Saxon England sometime between, say, 866 and 1066. It could happen to anyone, after all. It’s good to be prepared. So how are you going to negotiate the class structure? 

Badly, of course. You’re clueless, you’re an outsider, the class structure isn’t your most immediate problem, and you can’t figure out what anybody’s saying, but set all that aside for now. Let’s magic you up a set of appropriate clothes, slip you a miniaturized translator gizmo that hasn’t  been invented yet, pretend the question makes some sort of sense. The rest of us will hide in the bushes to see how you do. 

But before we start your Anglo-Saxon cheat sheet, a word about disillusionment: you may have read about how free and noble Anglo-Saxon society was. Well, here’s a packet of salt so you can sprinkle a grain or two on your former beliefs. It doesn’t weigh enough to slow you down and you will need it.

Irrelevant photo: rosebay willowherb, a.k.a. fireweed

Slaves

On the lowest rung of Anglo-Saxon society are the slaves–some 10% of the population. (Salt, please.) Some of them are slaves because they were born slaves. Others werethe defeated from one war or another or became slaves as a punishment for some crime–theft, say, or working on a Sunday. (To balance that out, a slave who’s forced to work on a Sunday will–at least in theory– be freed. It’s the one and only legal protection a slave has.) Yet another group sold themselves into slavery as an alternative to starvation. 

Slaves can be sold, and Bristol does a booming business selling slaves to Ireland. Dublin (it’s a Viking port just now) sells Anglo-Saxon slaves on to Iceland, Scandinavia, and Arabic Spain. That makes it pretty well meaningless to say that slaves are 10% of the population, but it’s the number we have, so let’s keep it.

Geburs

Just above the slaves are the geburs–semi-free peasants. (If anyone knows a bit of Old English, be tolerant. One source I’ve found has gebur as a plural and another one swears it’s singular. I’ve added an S for luck.) By the middle of the 1000s, they make up about 70% of the population and they owe their labor to their lord in return for the land they farm. When the Normans invade, they’ll be called villeins. We’d call them serfs. That’s another way of saying that feudalism, which we tend to think was introduced by the Normans when they invaded, had deep roots in free, upstanding Anglo-Saxon England. But we’ve now accounted for 80% of the population and we still haven’t run into anyone who’s free. You’ve got some salt left, don’t you? Toss a little more on.  

Coerls

Above the geburs are the free peasants–coerls–and the way to tell them from the unfree peasants is that they can sell their land. Or give it away. They have a lord–everyone in Anglo-Saxon society does–but they can choose theirs. They can also carry weapons (that might be a more useful identifier, come to think of it) and if they’re accused of a crime they can prove their innocence by swearing an oath. Because clearly they wouldn’t lie.

They can do the same for other people, so you might want to keep a coerl handy in case you violate a law you didn’t know about. It’s easy to do when you’ve just wandered in. The men can fight in the army–in fact, if the king commands it, they have to–and have a share of the village land and flocks. They play a part in the village courts this, I think, is where that image of freedom comes from. The Normans handed the administration of justice over to one person, the lord of the manor. By comparison, yes, Anglo-Saxon justice looks pretty good. 

Exactly how much of these freedoms also apply to women isn’t clear in the sources I’m using here. Women have far more rights in Anglo-Saxon England than they will for centuries to come. Sorry not to chase up a bit more detail, but I’m short on time just now.

In practice, many coerls aren’t much better off than their neighboring gebur. They make up some 15% of the population, so we’ve now accounted for 95% and we’d better hurry and squeeze in everyone who’s left.

The fine print

In the east of England, the whole system of lords and manors and labor service seems to have been weaker than in the rest of the country. And by the end of the period we’re talking about, a coerl could move up and become a thegn by owning five hides of land, a bell house, and having a place in the king’s hall.

What’s a hide? Don’t worry about it. It’s a measurement of land.

And a bell house? Well, kiddies, an extensive two-minute search of the internet informs me it’s a house with a bell. In a tower. To summon people to prayer and whatever else you might want to summon them for. All of which tells us that the society allows for social mobility. That’s generally considered a good thing, and I’m not against it, but I’ll need a little more salt if we start talking about it as a great thing, because while social mobility works well for the people who move up the ladder, it does fuck-all for the people who don’t. 

Yes, I do swear. It’s good for me. It also helps with the earth’s rotation.

Shall we move on?

Thegns

This is the most varied category, ranging from minor nobility at the top down to their retainers. They form the backbone of the army and if they’re rewarded for some spectacular service with land they can become earls. If you want a comparison to post-invasion England, think of them as the country gentry. 

How much of the population are they? Annoyingly, the book I’m working from, Life in the MIddle Ages: Scenes from the Town and Countryside of Medieval England, by Martyn Whittock, switches from percentages to absolute numbers here, so 4,500 held estates that were defined by charters. 

Why do the charters matter? Because those are the records historians can work from. They’re a way to count them.

After this, we’ll stop counting because the numbers are too small. Also because I don’t have any numbers to give you.

Ealdormen

This translates as elders, but they’re powerful nobles who play a role in local government, the king’s court, the army, and the courts of justice. 

Earls

They have authority over regions that were once independent kingdoms. The position isn’t hereditary but by the end of the period it becomes customary to choose an earl from within a small group of powerful families.

The king

Here I can give you a number again: they have one lone king–at least once Anglo-Saxon England is consolidated into one lone kingdom–and the king has one lone family, or at least one that’s recognized. But kingship isn’t hereditary in the way most of us expect. The witan–a council of the most powerful nobles–chooses the king from within the royal family.

Don’t worry about that. You’re not likely to meet any of them, so fix your attention on the lower ranks.

24 thoughts on “The class hierarchy in Anglo-Saxon England”

  1. I think there’s a typo in the paragraph about the geburs. You wrote mid 1100s, but I think you meant mid eleventh century.

    Did ANglo-Saxons call villeins villeins? I thought it was a word that came with the Normans. One of my books says that it was used all over Europe (because it came from a Latin word) to mean peasant, but only in England from the 12th century did it mean an unfree peasant..

    Liked by 1 person

    Reply ↓

    • St. Patrick was from what’s now England and was sold into slavery in Ireland. I can’t remember the rest of the story, but that’s the part that’s relevant here. Slavery wasn’t defined by nationality (to use a word that belongs, really, to a different time) or ethnicity. And yes, they must’ve been bad indeed at time–and for some people.

      Like

      Reply ↓

  4. In the states of the former Confederacy the worst fate for a slave was to be “sold South” (to worse climate and harder field labor, supposedly). Apparently in this world being “sold North” to Iceland would have been no picnic either.

    Did some of those designations evolve into the terms “burghers” and “churls” and “thanes” and “aldermen”?

    Selling yourself into slavery to keep from starving foreshadows the enrty into prostitution by many women. (Sorry, I’ve been reading background on the “Jack the Ripper” victims, who are too often seen as mere meat left over after the butchery.)

    Liked by 1 person

    Reply ↓

  5. Thank you, Ellen. I have, of course, spent many an hour planning what to do if I’m suddenly transported back in time. A lot depends on circumstances. Have I still got my smartphone (not that I expect an internet signal)? It risks suspicion of witchcraft and execution, but might elevate me to god status.

    I’m sure my trainers would be quite impressive, and my clothes generally, so I’ll decline the offer of the period costume. And the translator. I’d probably be taken for foreign royalty and shown every courtesy, and once I’d settled in I could teach them how to make funny cat videos.

    Seriously though, we live in an age of miraculous technology, but most of us haven’t a clue how to do anything that would impress our ancestors. It’s the other way round. We’d be the idiots who can’t catch, skin and gut dinner, or start the fire to cook it.

    Liked by 1 person

    Reply ↓

    • The phone, I fear, would just be a shiny, strange rectangle without a signal. A pity, since those cat videos might’ve changed human history for the better.

      Personally, if I’m dropped back into large chunks of English history I’ll have to go for period costume if I’m not going to get torn to pieces for cross-dressing. I’m not sure how well I’m manage those damn skirts, though. It must’ve been quite a trick. It’s not just about walking in them (and not walking up the inside when you go uphill or upstairs) but keeping them out of the fire. I’m sure you’re right about how clueless we’d be. I can just see myself offering to make supper and asking if they have a can of tomatoes on hand.

      Liked by 1 person

      Reply ↓

      • Goodness, yes, that’s an aspect of females’ suffering I’d not really considered; keeping skirts out of the fire must have been quite a big deal.

        However, don’t prematurely dismiss the idea – should a time portal open up – of communicating that you’re the Queen of Somewhere Very Distant and Special, and your attire is entirely appropriate for your elevated position. Polish up on your Anglo-Saxon first, and I don’t just mean the swear words.

        I appreciated the link to bel-hús, by the way – that’s a fascinating dictionary. I noticed bel-hringes beácn, “a sign by bell-ringing,” which is wonderful, presumably the origin of “beacon” and “beckon” – unless the bell hringer is summoning the throng for breakfast when the rashers are nice and crispy.

        I guess a bell house was very important for broadcasting the need to gather in times of emergency (invasion, uprising or whatever) as well as for prayers. They no doubt used different “signs” for different things: three rings, Vikings!; two rings, prayer time; one ring, bacon’s ready; no rings, summon the blacksmith, we need a new bell.

        Liked by 1 person

        Reply ↓

        • One if by land and two if by sea
          And I on the opposite shore shall be
          Eating all the bacon without you.

          Sorry–you may need to be from the US to know the origin of the poem, so I’ll give you a link: https://poets.org/poem/paul-reveres-ride It’s not as interesting as the bel-hus, but what the hell, I suffered with it in grade school and I don’t see why I shouldn’t inflict it on someone else.

          Thanks for (a) the interesting info on beacon, beckon, etc. and (b) adding a laugh to my day. I’ll memorize the meaning of the various number of rings. You can never tell when you’ll need to know.

          Liked by 1 person

          Reply ↓

  7. I read some time ago that six Saxon men shared one woman. Women were in short supply. They had a death penalty, but that was rarely used. Murderers had to give cattle, etc., to the family, or they were banished from the village, never to return.

    Liked by 1 person

    Reply ↓

    • Their system of justice focused much more on restitution than punishment (unless you were a slave, in which case all bets were off). So yes, if you killed or disabled someone, giving something of value to the family would be a form of restitution–something that would help make up for the loss of a productive member of the family. They had a sort of sliding scale, and the amount the assailant owed depended on the social standing of the injured party. Coming from a culture that focuses on punishment, I found that shocking when I read about it and still do to an extent, but it has an undeniable logic.

      The business about an imbalance of men and women is questionable. I’ve never seen anything that even hints at it, and nothing I’ve seen backs up the claim of polyandry–one woman married to or living with multiple men. (You can call that men sharing a woman if you like, but that takes it very much from the male point of view. We don’t tend to talk about polygamy as multiple women sharing a husband, although I suppose they do. Anyway, I’m going for the more neutral term.)

      Like

      Reply ↓

    • Oh, hell, I’m sorry. I can forward your comment to WordPress and see if they can fix the problem, but in case they need it would you email me (ellenhawley@yahoo.com) and give me your email address? When I have problems, they always ask something I don’t know the answer to. Thanks.

      Like

      Reply ↓

Leave a reply to Ellen Hawley Cancel reply