• General Notes

  Ruled c488-c516.
  The later kings of Kent styled themselves as Oiscingas, meaning of the tribe or family of Oisc, from which we can deduce that Oisc was, to a large degree, the founder of the kingdom. He is treated in the chronicles as either the son or grandson of HENGEST, but dates and events are uncertain and mixed with tradition. Oisc is elsewhere called Oeric or Eric, surnamed Oisc, which suggests that Oisc was a nickname. Elsewhere, though, Oisc is referred to as the son of Octha and the grandson of Hengest. This confusion serves to underscore the vagueness of historical data at this period. Even the dates are uncertain, but may be regarded with a degree of accuracy as by this time other Saxon and Frisian hopefuls were staking their claims on British soil, in particular AELLE in Sussex and possibly CERDIC in Hampshire or Wiltshire. It is quite likely that Oisc had already established a kingdom in Kent. As the part of Britain closest to the continent, Kent already had a long tradition of trade with the European mainland, and communities of these tradesmen were establishing themselves in Kent during the fifth century. If the stories about Hengest are correct, the Kentish lands were bought from the British in return for services rendered. Thus we may reasonably regard Oisc or Eric as the first to rule Kent as an established king rather than a conquering warlord. Hengest had sent Oisc to command the armies of the north, and Oisc may have been a leader of a northern Saxon or Jutish contingent who returned to Kent after Hengest's death.
  
  Details of his reign are sparse, but we can imagine it was one of safeguarding the small Frisian and Saxon enclave against the Britons who, under AMBROSIUS and later ARTHUR, sought to repel them. What is significant is that Oisc is the only English king named at the battle of Badon where Arthur was victorious. Since Aelle was, at this time, regarded as the sovereign English ruler, Oisc was evidently fighting under his command, but Arthur destroyed the Saxon armies and we may presume that Oisc was killed. The date of Badon would therefore define the date of his death though, as the entry on ARTHUR explains, that date remains open to question. Oisc's death no doubt left the kingdom of Kent in disarray and it took some while for it to become re-established. This explains the lack of real continuity in the line of succession of kings, despite the attempts of later genealogists to re-define it.

Details of Oeric's family