London Under Attack E-Book

Michael Foley

• Herausgeber: The History Press
• Kategorie: Geisteswissenschaft
• Sprache: Englisch

Veröffentlichungsjahr: 2011

Beschreibung

London has been under attack for literally centuries.London Under Attack charts the military history of the capital from Roman times until the Second World War. Throughout this period London was at the centre of hostilities, not always instigated by foreign enemies, but more often from its own inhabitants or those from other parts of Britain. As well as the terrible Blitz on London during the Second World War, earlier conflicts which made an impact on the city are also documented, including the Civil Wars of twelfth and seventeenth centuries, the war between King John and the barons, uprisings against the poll tax, the uprising against Queen Mary's marriage to Philip of Spain, the Gordon Riots, the riots and deaths at the funeral of Queen Caroline in the nineteenth century and numerous other uprisings and conflicts that have mainly been forgotten in the twenty-first century. London Under Attack is a must-read for all those interested in military history as well as the turbulent history of our nation's capital.

Leseprobe

To Joseph Kox,

A very special person sadly missed.

I would like to thank Pam Kox for her help in writing this book.

CONTENTS

Introduction

1. Roman London

2. Saxon London

3. Norman London

4. London Becomes More English

5. Tudor London

6. Civil War

7. Royal London Again

8. The French and Napoleon

9. Victorian London

10. The Twentieth Century

11. The Second World War

12. The Post-War Period

Bibliography

Copyright

Other books by Michael Foley

Front-Line Essex

Front-Line Kent

Essex Ready For Anything

Hard As Nails

Front-Line Suffolk

Front-Line Thames

More Front-Line Essex

Essex in the First World War

INTRODUCTION

Although one may consider the position of London as being in the front line of the various conflicts that have overtaken the country throughout history, there would seem to be only a very few occasions when the city has actually been threatened by the forces of some foreign power. In fact the number of threats that occured between the raids of the Vikings in the ninth and tenth centuries and the German air attacks of the First World War would seem to have been minimal. There was undoubtedly a long period when no foreign power attacked the inhabitants of the city at all, despite some coming quite close to the capital, including sorties on a number of occasions by various foes who sailed up the River Thames by ship.

There were, however, numerous times when the fear of a foreign power reaching the city gripped the population of London. There have been even more occasions when it was not only foreigners that the government and the population of London had to fear. When Napoleon threatened to invade the country in the early nineteenth century, those responsible for protecting the city were as worried about the danger from their own population as they were about French troops.

That is all far from the whole story, however. In this long period of what appears to have been a peaceful existence, there were numerous battles that actually took place in London itself. These occurred when the city was often attacked by the armies of its own countrymen. The seemingly peaceful existence of the royal family in the present day was virtually unknown during much of London’s history. There were constant periods of political battles between monarchs and parliament, the aldermen of the city and rebel barons. In many cases, the political battles broke out into open violence. The attackers were often the recognised forces of those involved in civil war or the semi-military mobs of those men with a grievance who displayed it with violence against the inhabitants of London.

Even then, the story of conflict in the city is not finished. Since its foundation the city of London has been continuously riven by violence as political and religious differences have driven the population to fight among themselves in large-scale riots. These were often the cause of numerous deaths and injuries to the people and to the property of Londoners.

One often hears of the violence on the streets of London today and wonders how unsafe the city has become. Mention knife crime, robbery, murder and the problems of immigration, the policing of riots and even the rules of ‘stop and search’ followed by the police, and you could be reading this morning’s newspaper. However, these events were just as common – if not more so – before the twentieth century and the emergence of what we now see as ‘modern London’.

The episodes in this book will show how London of the past was a much less safe place than it is today. Knife crime in London is not a modern phenomenon at all; the Middle Ages were a time when the rights of lordship were imposed and quarrels between men were settled with a knife or a sword. There was little difference between private or state wars and violence on the city streets has been the norm throughout the past and was not a rare occurrence.

A look into its history will also show how there seems to be nothing new in modern events. The claim that foreigners living in London are better thought of and treated than English citizens could be the headline of one of the tabloid newspapers of today. In fact it was said of foreigners living in London during the reign of Henry VIII and at numerous other times. Often the way foreigners were dealt with was much more severe than what we would expect to see happen today. Outbreaks of robbery in the mid-nineteenth century were openly blamed on the swaggering, stiletto-carrying Italians of Whitechapel, and respected newspapers called for their deportation – all this with no proof of their guilt at all.

The treatment of miners during the violent strikes of the premiership of Margaret Thatcher led to police from London being involved in the violent exchanges. This was also not a modern phenomenon and the same thing had occurred in the past. The recent disputes over the police methods of dealing with demonstrations are also nothing new; they have been going on since the nineteenth century when the police first appeared on the capital’s streets.

The position of London as a front line city goes well beyond the few events of foreign war that have reached its limits. The majority of the violence it has seen has come from within and been carried out by its own population or the inhabitants of neighbouring areas. Perhaps this book will make you feel that the London of the present day is not such a dangerous place after all.

www.authorsites.co.uk/michaelfoley

1

ROMAN LONDON

Although some historians like to argue that London existed before the Romans arrived on our shores, there has been little evidence found to prove this. Thornbury, writing in the late nineteenth century in Old And New London, suggested that the capital of the Cassivellanus tribe, attacked by Caesar during his invasion, might have been on the spot where London stands today. Walter Armstrong suggests in his 1880s book The Thames From Its Rise To The Nore, that the settlement that stood on the site before the Romans arrived was called Llyn-Did and was a Celtic fortified village on the bank of the Wallbrook stream. He also stated that this was the site of the first Roman fort in the area between what is now Mincing Lane and Cannon Street station.

The position of London has been important to almost everyone since the Romans arrived so it is not implausible to suggest that those around before the Romans would have also found it so. One of the Time Team programmes was concerned with digging out a Bronze Age structure on the bank of the Thames at Vauxhall which could have been a home, a jetty or even a bridge – perhaps the first bridge to cross the Thames in what we know as London. The finds of Bronze Age spearheads in the Thames nearby also seem to point to pre-Roman life in the area. The area was described as being just above the tidal head of the river where salt water met fresh water, which would have been an important site for Bronze Age man. Whether this means that an actual settlement existed on the site is not as clear. It could have been some kind of religious site that was often visited but not settled on.

Roman soldiers must have been common in early London, except when Boudicca arrived to attack in AD 60.

A plan of what Roman London probably looked like.

There is no doubt, however, that London did become an important settlement once the Romans settled in Britain. According to some it was eventually to become a walled town with five gates: Ludgate, Bishopsgate, Aldersgate, Aldgate and Bridgegate. According to Collingwood in The Archeology of Roman Britain, the Roman city covered 330 acres and had a population of around 15,000. Much of the Roman wall was built around AD 200 and also included an earlier fort that had been the original Roman military site.

Up until the eighteenth century there were a number of remnants of the Roman wall still standing, but as London grew these were demolished or were built over and were only rediscovered later. In 1763 the remains of a Roman tower were found in Houndsditch while part of the Roman wall was found at Tower Hill in 1852. Bombing during the Second World War also revealed several other remains of the Roman defences.

A Dr Stukeley supposedly found evidence of a Roman camp at St Pancras, called the ‘Brill’, by the old church in 1758. As with many suspected finds, proof seemed to be in short supply and this find was later derided by a Mr B. Woodward in a Gentleman’s Magazine of 1866.

Part of the Roman wall is visible at Tower Hill although the medieval wall has been built on top of it.

❖❖❖

It seems that the first major conflict that London had to face was the attack by the forces of Boudicca and her Iceni tribe and their allies, including the Trinovantes, in AD 60. The city seems to have been completely destroyed along with the majority of its inhabitants, which at that time almost completely comprised of civilians. The main area of the city then was believed to be around the King’s Cross area and the aptly named Battle Bridge. In 1842 a stone was found in the area marked with the symbols of one of the Roman legions that was supposedly part of Gaius Suetonius Paulinus’ army which defeated Boudicca, although this battle did not take place in London. Despite Boudicca’s destruction, London was to grow again, and stronger and better than it had been before.

A plan of the supposed Brill Roman camp at St Pancras, as found by Dr Stukeley.

Part of the old London Wall by the Museum of London.

London Wall and the remains of a Roman fort. A number of remains were found due to bomb damage in the Second World War.

A statue of the emperor Trajan near the Roman wall at Tower Hill.

Roman remains found at Billingsgate in the nineteenth century.

Boudicca’s statue at the entrance to Westminster Bridge. The chariot also carries her daughters whose treatment was partly responsible for the revolt against the Romans.

There does seem to have been another battle in London during the Roman habitation of Britain. This took place when Carasius declared himself Emperor of Britain and was defeated in 293. His successor was Allectus who was then attacked by Constantius Chlorus to regain control of Britain for Rome in 296. There would seem to have been some fighting in London when Allectus’ men fled there from the invading forces. The County Hall ship, found in 1910 when County Hall was being built, was thought to have been one of Allectus’ warships as one of his coins was found with the wreckage.

2

SAXON LONDON

After the Romans left Britain there is a period of uncertainty about what happened in London. There are views that the Saxon invaders who came when the Romans left had little use for towns. Surely this does not mean that all the inhabitants of London followed suit and left as well?

The idea of London being deserted during this period seems to be disproved by the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle. In AD 449, King Vortigern of Kent asked the Jutish leaders Hengist and Horsa for help against Pictish raiders. The Jutes landed at Ebbsfleet in Kent with their warriors and as more of their countrymen arrived they became an invasion force rather than an ally against the Picts. There was eventually a battle against the Kent people in 457 when the Jutes slew 4,000 of the men of Kent. According to the Chronicle, the men from Kent abandoned their lands and fled to the stronghold of London, which would seem to show that the city was still well-occupied and fortified.

From 601, London was the seat of a bishop but at about this time it became part of Mercia. It is a period of uncertainty in the history of the capital that was to last until the arrival of warlike visitors from the north in later centuries. In 825 Egbert of Wessex took London but it was soon to fall into foreign hands as it was in the ninth century that London was to become a city controlled by the Vikings. There were a number of attacks on the city by the Vikings; for example in 842 when a large number of the native population were slaughtered. Then, again, in 851 the Vikings attacked and destroyed most of London. At the same time they captured Canterbury and defeated the Mercians. They were, however, less successful against the kingdom of Wessex. There was another raid in 871, which led to a longer stay and a Viking army marched from Reading and spent the winter in London while making peace with the Mercians.

This period is a confusing one for the history of London. It was never a simple case of the Saxon population of London fighting the invading Vikings. Alliances changed quickly and one group of invaders might become allied to Saxons and find themselves fighting their own countrymen or those from other parts of Scandanavia.

London was, it seems, just another town that seemed to have lost the important position that it had held in Roman times. Eventually the Vikings stopped raiding and settled in the country, controlling much of the east including London. It seems that the town had extended beyond the old Roman walls at this time.

The re-emergence of London’s importance to the country came when King Alfred took the town back by force from Viking control in 886 (this was after he had failed to do so in an attack in 882). From this point on it became the chief city of Mercia, then one of the most powerful kingdoms in Britain. Not that this stopped the attacks by the Vikings.

There was an incident between Alfred and the Vikings near London on the River Lea. It seems that the Vikings had fortified the area and had their ships drawn up in the river. There is a legend that Alfred changed the course of the river, trapping the Viking ships. Whatever did happen, it seems that the Vikings were driven off, leaving their ships behind.

In 994, Olaf, King of Norway, and Sweyn, King of Denmark, attacked London with ninety-four ships but were driven off despite their attempts to burn the city down. There was a wooden bridge across the Thames at this time and in 1008 when the Vikings returned they held the crossing. The defenders solved the problem by pulling the structure down.

In 1009 Sweyn had taken most of England but had still failed to capture London and many of his men died in the Thames while trying to cross the river and take the city. He eventually did take control of London, but then died soon after.

A Saxon warrior. The Saxons spent many years defending London against the Vikings.

London was the scene of further battles between Canute, Sweyn’s son, and Edmund Ironside in 1013, until the Viking Canute finally overcame his foe and became King of England. The conflict did not stop there, however, as Edmund successfully returned in 1014. After leaving, Canute returned in 1016 with 160 ships to fight Edmund again. While Canute burned and killed in the countryside, the new king Edmund gathered an army to fight him, which included the garrison of London. Edmund died around this time which was fortunate for his enemy and Canute became king once again.

By the time that Edward the Confessor became king in 1042, Saxon London had evolved from a collection of small huts and the king lived in what was considered great splendour for that time, at Westminster.

The conflict over London was not yet ended however, and recommenced when Harold Godwin was banished from the country after a disagreement with Edward. Harold later returned with his men, sailing up the Thames to London in 1052 where the population cheered his arrival. The population of Southwark decided to let Harold and his men pass through the bridge where they surrounded the king’s smaller fleet. Even the king’s men did not seem keen to fight Godwin which was part of the reason, no doubt, that Edward decided to welcome him back and even made his son the heir to the throne.

London Bridge was the only bridge in the area for many hundreds of years and was a structure that helped to defend the city on numerous occasions as it blocked the river to those trying to sail up the Thames. On the south bank Southwark became a buffer between those who wished to attack London and the city itself. The defence of the Southwark end of the bridge was usually quite firm. It was only breached during the much later peasants’ revolts because someone helped them to get across by opening the gates.

3

NORMAN LONDON

The Saxon reign over London was to be short-lived and, following his victory at Hastings, William the Conqueror was crowned in London in 1066. The coronation was followed by an outbreak of violence that left many of the inhabitants of London dead and part of the city destroyed due, it seems, to a misunderstanding. Trouble at coronations was not an unusual event in the past and after his coronation, William built the Tower of London to keep the town’s inhabitants in order. The tower was built close to the old Roman wall by Gundulf, the Bishop of Rochester.

Although Normans were the dominant force after William’s success, not all Saxons lost out. Waltheof, Earl of Huntingdon, had opposed William but then joined him and married William’s niece Judith. However, despite seemingly being on William’s side Waltheof secretly still opposed the new king but his wife Judith informed her uncle of his deeds and he was executed. The earl’s castle was later owned by Robert the Bruce who lost it because of his revolt against Edward I.