|
The earliest sections (i.e. from much before Alfred's time) of Anglo-Saxon history are not first hand accounts. Much of the ancestry and origins of the people we call Anglo-Saxons are vague. This is partially because few really knew the difference between an Angle, a Saxon or a Jute, and also probably deliberately vague because the men writing the "Chronicle" were Christians, writing about a pagan past. Most early Anglo-Saxon kings claimed descent from Woden, the king of the gods, and the extensive geneologies of the some of the early books show things like "Cerdic, son of Elesa..... son of Woden, son of Christ".
The Chronicle's explanation for how the Anglo-Saxons came to be here was taken from a wide range of sources- including the Native British. Hengest and his brother, Horsa, were shipwrecked and brought to Vortigern, a native British ruler, who was very impressed with them. He hired them as mercenaries, and they had "success wherever they went". They then "saw the worthlessness of the Britons and the choice nature of the land" and decided to turn against Vortigern.
A couple of British sources give roughly the same story and it is thought that a book by the British writer Nennius (9th century) was a primary source for the writers of the Chronicles.
However, large chunks of the "Chronicles" (there are 9 surviving books, not all are the same) relate stories that are otherwise unrecorded. It is impossible to know the truth of them.
The Christian bias is fairly apparent, as you'd expect. Another cause for confusion would be the calendar for the events described. For instance, the scribe may tell us that something happened "At easter", and he would mean the modern time of easter, but this would not necessaily be an accurate date for events before the Synod of Whitby. Likewise New Year.
But otherwise, it is a unique series of documents and we're extremely lucky to have it.
| 
Linear Mode
