The Battle of Clontarf, myth or history?
The
Battle of Clontarf pitched the forces of the Munster over-king Brian Boru and
his allies against the armies of north Leinster, Dublin, and Viking mercenaries
and allies from across the sea. Brian has been seen as a paragon of Christian
leadership, who struggled against all odds to rid Ireland of the perils of
conquest by pagan Vikings. He won the battle, but made the ultimate sacrifice
in losing his life while praying for victory.
 |
| 'Battle of Clontarf' - Hugh Frazer 1826 |
According
to a study by Cambridge University in 2014, link here to mark the millennial anniversary
of the battle, much of what we know about Clontarf may be rooted not in
historical fact, but a brilliant work of historical literature which modelled
sections of its text on an earlier account of the siege of Troy.
Rather than a trustworthy description
of the battle itself, this account – The War Of The Irish Against The
Foreigners – was really a rhetorical masterpiece designed to place Ireland’s
legendary past in the context of a grand, classical tradition, stretching back
to the works of Homer and classical philosophy.
During the eleventh and twelfth centuries, a genre of
propaganda literature developed that celebrated historic Irish victories over
Vikings. Through negative portrayals of foreigners, these stories provided a
justification for Viking ports to be brought under Irish rule. They also
promoted an enhanced sense of Irish identity, which can be linked to the struggles
of over-kings to impose their authority across the island. ‘The War of the Irish and the Foreigners’, was
written for Muirchertach Ua Briain, great-grandson of Brian Boru, between 1103
and 1113. It was the archetype for the development of many later legends about
Clontarf.
During the later Middle Ages, Brian’s victory at Clontarf
continued to be celebrated in Irish bardic poetry, particularly because the
island was troubled by another wave of invaders, the English. Some expressed
hope that another king like Brian might rise up to crush the foreign
oppressors. As circumstances worsened for the Irish during the seventeenth
century, there was a flurry of prose writing about Brian Boru, perhaps to
inspire or comfort people during troubled times.
 |
| Brian Boru is martyred while praying for victory |
Over the centuries fictional elements have been added to
accounts of the Battle of Clontarf. These include the introduction of magical
and supernatural occurrences, for it was often believed in the Middle Ages that
great events were heralded by strange wonders and prophecies. In addition, the
numbers that participated in the battle grew with successive retellings.
Characters also became greater or more evil, depending on whose side they were
on. Thus the foreigners became more outrageously horrible, and Brian was more
frequently (but not always) praised as Ireland’s greatest hero. Each of these
narrative developments added to the dramatic impact of the Clontarf story.
Another feature in literary accounts of the Battle of
Clontarf is the way in which characters become more extreme. This is a standard
element in dramas where a conflict between good and evil is part of the plot.
The Vikings were a fairly easy target for demonisation. By the time of the
Battle of Clontarf the Vikings already had a long history in the European
literary imagination as bloodthirsty barbarians. In literary accounts of the Battle
of Clontarf the number of Vikings opposed to Brian generally increases over
time, and they are portrayed as evil oppressors who threatened to destroy
Ireland. Another feature of the polarisation,
especially during the 17th century, was the portrayal of Brian’s
reign as a ‘golden age’. During his years in power the political and natural
world were shown to work in harmony. Brian was portrayed as a patron of
justice, education, and of building works that benefited his subjects. These
idealistic images obscure the brutal realities of Brian’s time in power, when
warfare was employed almost continuously to quell those who opposed him.
In the nineteenth and early twentieth centuries, romantic
nationalism came to the fore in Irish literature and political thinking. The
Battle of Clontarf had long been a rallying point in developing perceptions of
nationhood, and the conflict was celebrated as a struggle by the people of
Ireland against foreign domination. It was at the forefront of Irish nationalist
propaganda during the struggle for independence with Britain.
 |
| Nationalist propaganda |
The Cambridge
study diminishes the importance of Clontarf to a mere sequence in the
inevitable demise of Viking power over Ireland.
However the study
argues that the eloquence of the literature and legends surrounding the battle should
be seen as evidence that the cultural achievements of Brian Boru’s successors
in medieval Ireland were complex, highly sophisticated, and the equal of
anywhere else in Europe.
It also means, however,
that despite the widespread portrayal of Clontarf as a heroic, quasi-national
conflict in which the lives of Brian and others were sacrificed in the Irish
cause, the specific historical truth is unknown. While the advent of the battle
itself and its significance is beyond question, the details of what happened
are likely to remain a mystery.
‘The casting of Clontarf as a national
struggle in which the aged, holy Brian was martyred still defines what most
people know about the battle, and it has probably endured because that was what
numerous generations of Irish men and women wanted to read,’ - Dr Ní Mhaonaigh
stated.
“Academics have long
accepted that Cogadh couldn’t be taken as reliable evidence but that hasn’t
stopped some of them from continuing to draw on it to portray the encounter.
What this research shows is that its account of the battle was crafted, at
least in part, to create a version of events that was the equivalent of Troy.
This was more than a literary flourish, it was a work of a superb,
sophisticated and learned author.”
Another reason that the
story may have endured is a lack of physical evidence for the battle. No
archaeological remains have been found, and the precise location, presumed to
be somewhere around the modern Dublin suburb of Clontarf, is disputed.
Compared with the very
basic information in contemporary chronicles, Cogadh provides by far the most
comprehensive account of what happened. It was, however, written about a
century later, probably at the behest of Brian’s great-grandson. Historians have
rightly treated it as partial, but also as the written version of oral accounts
that had been passed on from those who witnessed the battle itself.
The new research suggests
that this pivotal source was even more of a cultivated fabrication than
previously thought. Through a close study of the text, Dr Ní Mhaonaigh found
that the imagery, terminology and ideas draw inspiration from a range of earlier
sources – in particular Togail Troí (The Destruction of Troy), an
eleventh-century translation of a fifth-century account of the battle for Troy.
In particular, the unknown
author overtly cast Brian’s son, who it is believed led a large part of his
father’s army at Clontarf, as an Irish Hector, whom he describes as “the last
man who had true valour in Ireland”. Tellingly, Togail Troí is also found in
the same manuscript as Cogadh – suggesting that the author utilised this when
describing the battle. The study stresses that the work bears
witness to the cultural achievements of Brian’s successors. The parallel between Murchad and Hector was
in fact part of a complex and deeply scholarly analogy which drew on the
recurring classical motif of the 'Six Ages of the World' and 'Six Ages of Man'.
It shows that whoever wrote it was not simply describing a battle, but crafting
a brilliant work of art.
Bibliography
http://www.cam.ac.uk/research/news/irelands-troy - Cambridge research project
http://www.historyireland.com/medieval-history-pre-1500/the-battle-of-clontarf-in-irish-history-and-legend/
Comments
Post a Comment