Ancient and ArchaeologyÌý permalink
Alfred the Great
This discussion has been closed.
-
Message 1.Ìý
Posted by Priscilla (U14315550) on Wednesday, 16th June 2010
Well was he? I have only a limited book resource - Churchill's History (Nordmann groans here) He seemed greatly impressed by Alfred's pragmatic dealing with marauding Vikings who, according to this account, renegaded on their word many times. He also mentions a recorded philosophy of Alfred's -"Don't do to others what you don't want them to do to you."
I know there are several experts in this period of history who come to the boards so your opinion would be appreciated.
Regards, P. -
Message 2
Posted by Haesten (U4770256) on Wednesday, 16th June 2010
Æthelred had eight sons all named after previous kings, Alfred was number eight.
-
Message 3
Posted by LairigGhru (U14051689) on Wednesday, 16th June 2010
He had a great deal of wisdom and he gave us our first navy. He does indeed warrant the epithet 'Great'.
-
Message 4
Posted by Catigern (U14419012) on Thursday, 17th June 2010
Surely the Emperor Carausius gave us our first navy when he broke away from Rome...
Alfred was 'Great' from a Wessex expansionist or militant Christian point of view. Otherwise, he was just another imperialist who used violence to assert control over as many acres and people as possible.
-
Message 5
Posted by islanddawn (U7379884) on Thursday, 17th June 2010
"Alfred was 'Great' from a Wessex expansionist or militant Christian point of view. Otherwise, he was just another imperialist who used violence to assert control over as many acres and people as possible."
Well yes, from a modern perspective this could be true but those areas were by then controlled by the Norse. Is the desire to drive out hostile invaders expansionist? And Alfred did successfully defend Wessex from continuous Dane & Norse incursions when most other English Kings had failed miserably. He did his job and did it well.
It also could be argued that if it wasn't for Alfred's religious and scholastic zealousness we would not today benefit from the records of what is a fascinating period of English history. -
Message 6
Posted by TwinProbe (U4077936) on Thursday, 17th June 2010
Hi catigern
It's a really stimulating experience to encounter a three line post and disagree with every word except the indefinite and definite articles!
I suppose the position of the Emperor Carausius with regard to our navy very much depends who you think 'our' is in this context. I guess that that Carausius would have thought of himself as a Roman emperor, commanding Roman ships manned by Roman sailors. So I don't think we can envisage him as the progenitor of the British, or English, navy.
In the sense that Alfred's kingdom had been reduced to the Isle of Athelney I suppose that his career subsequent to Ethandun could be called expansionist but, in view of the known proclivities of the Great Army, I imagine this was quite a popular move with the population of Wessex. I would however be very interested to know what course of action you would have preferred him to have taken under the circumstances.
I'm not sure exactly what a militant Christian was in the 9th century. Alfred was certainly a devout Christian. He desire to cement an armistice with Guthrum with conversion to Christianity was surely, at least partially, an attempt to create the circumstances under which he could believe in Guthrum's promises. There was never any hint of a war of extermination against non-Christians.
I have to say I find Alfred a most sympathetic character. To me his battles seem proportionate in the circumstances of the time, and he placed his life at risk in each conflict. I'm not sure whether your 'violence to assert control' is intended entirely seriously; to me he seems to have headed a popular movement and was entirely prepared to use non-violent methods (such as diplomacy and paying ransom) when possible. For an early medieval king he seems remarkable for his shrewdness, his strategic grasp, his literacy and love of the arts. Even the mythology is favourable. Can you imagine the 'cake burning story' being told at the expense of Charlemagne of William the Conqueror?
The fact that this whole thread is not being undertaken in some modern derivative of Old Norse seems very much to be laid at Alfred's door; he well deserves his soubriquet.
Kind regards,
TP -
Message 7
Posted by Stoggler (U14387762) on Thursday, 17th June 2010
Alfred was 'Great' from a Wessex expansionist or militant Christian point of view. Otherwise, he was just another imperialist who used violence to assert control over as many acres and people as possible.Ìý
Doesn't that completely ignore the politics, situation and society of the day?
Lairig
I've often pondered the navy thing. Certainly the Victorians thought he was the father of the Royal Navy, which is silly really as there is no uninterupted naval service from Alfred's time through to Henry VIII for example. However, he did form a small naval force to combat the Norse nautical threat, so he was clearly open to learn new tactics and to take the fight onto the seas - credit for that.
He also set up the Burh system for combating the Norse invasions, which again had its successes.
However, from what I remember, wasn't he given the "Great" epithet due to his scholastic/literacy endeavours? -
Message 8
Posted by Catigern (U14419012) on Thursday, 17th June 2010
Evening all...
Is the desire to drive out hostile invaders expansionistÌý
No, but the desire to extend his rule over parts of England other than Wessex was.
Doesn't that completely ignore the politics, situation and society of the day?Ìý
No. The situation prior to the Viking invasions was, of course, that there were several Anglo-Saxon Kingdoms. The situation that still exists today, with all ‘England’ being ruled from a southern capital that’s distant and alien to many, derives originally from Alfred’s (and his heirs’) determination to grab as much territory as possible.
Carausius ... I don't think we can envisage him as the progenitor of the British, or English, navy.Ìý
I didn’t say that the RN descends from Carausius’s Classis Britannica, just that it was a British navy that predated Alfred’s. Those who descend from Danes might also regard the Danish invasion fleets as ‘our’ first navy.
would however be very interested to know what course of action you would have preferred him to have taken under the circumstances.Ìý
Ideally, convert to Paganism.
Besides that, limiting his territorial ambitions to the reconquest of Wessex, rather than setting the ball rolling for a southern-dominated ‘England’.
I'm not sure whether your 'violence to assert control' is intended entirely seriously; Ìý
Deadly seriously. Violence or the threat of it is how ALL governments maintain control of their original territories, let alone acquire new ones.
The fact that this whole thread is not being undertaken in some modern derivative of Old NorseÌý
But it IS, in the sense that modern English descends from an Anglo-Scandinavian tongue shot through with Viking vocabulary, rather than West Saxon with a few loan words.
I suppose the nub of it is that I see the Scandinavians as every bit as much an ancestor culture of ours as the West Saxons and other A-S groups are. -
Message 9
Posted by Haesten (U4770256) on Thursday, 17th June 2010
However, from what I remember, wasn't he given the "Great" epithet due to his scholastic/literacy endeavours?
Ìý
I have a feeling that the Great tag is to do with him being made a saint, Victorian? -
Message 10
Posted by TwinProbe (U4077936) on Thursday, 17th June 2010
Hi Catigern,
I think that there are several small points and one very important point in last post reply. Among the small points is the creation of the a 'Royal' navy. Neither Carausius nor Alfred really had a hand in this since the whole concept is a medieval, if not a post-medieval, one. Also my limitations as an interpreter of language and place name studies is ruthlessly exposed on these boards every few months. Certainly Shetland (which I known very well) and West Yorkshire (where I live) both positively abound in Old Norse derivatives, a fact I am reminded of every time I visit the local beck or walk in the Dales. So if you insist I'll have to agree that I speak a heavily modernised Anglo-Scandinavian dialect, although I may grumble.
The important point, which is one of the themes that crops up at regular intervals on this board, is whether one should form one's opinion of historical personalities according to modern moral, behavioural and cultural standards, or those pertaining at the time the person in question lived. There is no reason, of course, why one shouldn't do both.
Judged by our individual modern enthusiasms it is improbable that you and I would ever agree on an assessment of Alfred. Personally I am rather taken with Christianity, laws, ordered government, a unitary state and literacy. I rather imagine that you could cheerfully manage without all but the literacy.
When trying to judge Alfred by contemporary standards I think you are being a little harsh. I can't see that 'conversion to paganism' was ever remotely possible for a Christian king in a Christian state who, as a boy, had been made Roman consul by the Pope himself. Did Alfred and his successors really desire to 'grab as much territory as possible'? The Great Army had killed the king of East Anglia and driven the royal family of Mercia into exile. I can't remember without checking what happened to the Northumbrian kings but the fact that there was a flourishing Scandinavian kingdom in York gives us the general gist. On the whole, even if he could have found legitimate heirs to the residual kingdoms of the heptarchy, Alfred, Edward and Athelstan probably saw no future in recreating a model of government that had already failed so comprehensively. A pagan People's Republic of Mercia may represent an attractive concept to a 21st anarchist but it never was a realistic consequence of the Treaty of Wedmore.
No, consider it how you like, Alfred was deservedly 'England's darling'.
Best wishes,
TP -
Message 11
Posted by Catigern (U14419012) on Thursday, 17th June 2010
Hello again TP,
Among the small points is the creation of the a 'Royal' navy. Neither Carausius nor Alfred really had a hand in this since the whole concept is a medieval, if not a post-medieval, one.Ìý
My point was that Carausius gave Britain its 'first Navy', and thus that Alfred doesn't deserve to be credited with that. Perhaps the difference in opinions comes back to my seeing the A-S as just another one of the peoples who constitute our ancestor cultures, rather than drawing a line under British Romanitas and seeing 'us' begin with the establishment of A-S identity on this island (picking my words very carefully so as not to drift into the ongoing debates about the nature and chronology of that establishment...
).
West Yorkshire (where I live)Ìý
I send you my heartfelt sympathies from the veritable Eden that is Lancashire...
So if you insist I'll have to agree that I speak a heavily modernised Anglo-Scandinavian dialect,Ìý
I'm primarily a textual historian rather than a linguist, but the Prof who taught me Old English as an undergrad was very keen to emphasise the significance of Scandinavian influence on the English language.
although I may grumble.Ìý
Understood. Grumbling is, after all, a fundamental part of Yorkshire culture...
The important point, which is one of the themes that crops up at regular intervals on this board, is whether one should form one's opinion of historical personalities according to modern moral, behavioural and cultural standards, or those pertaining at the time the person in question lived. There is no reason, of course, why one shouldn't do both.Ìý
I arrived at my anarchistic stance as a result of studying western history since the late Roman Republic. I suspect I drifted towards it precisely because its principles seem to me to be as applicable to any era at all as to our own.
Personally I am rather taken with Christianity, laws, ordered government, a unitary state and literacy. I rather imagine that you could cheerfully manage without all but the literacy.Ìý
More or less true, but it's entrenched 'authorities' rather than laws themselves that I'm against. I went to an IHR seminar on Anglo-Saxon Paganism given by the great James Campbell a while ago. According to him, pre-Wodenist (Freyan) A-S tribes practised something we'd call the 'separation of the powers', in that kings couldn't order the corporal or capital punishment of individual offenders, that power being reserved for priests, who in turn didn't wield kingly authority.
I can't see that 'conversion to paganism' was ever remotely possible for a Christian king in a Christian state who, as a boy, had been made Roman consul by the Pope himself.Ìý
Well, in principle I could point to Julian the Apostate, but I was asked what I'd have liked, not what I'd have liked that seemed possible. Certainly, if Alfred had seen the light and reverted to the religion of his glorious ancestors then he'd have crippled his claim to Christian Wessex.
Did Alfred and his successors really desire to 'grab as much territory as possible'?Ìý
Yes, just as the kingdoms of the heptarchy and their Celtic neighbours had been engaged in what Stephen Bassett called a 'fiercely contested knockout competition' before the Vikings ever arrived. Alfred's heirs would have pushed their boundaries all the way up to Orkney if they hadn't come up against the Scots coming the other way.
I can't remember without checking what happened to the Northumbrian kingsÌý
Northumbria had seen multiple coups in the century or so preceding the Great Army's conquest of York, and there were many contenders who might have claimed to be 'legitimate heirs'. In the event, the nearest thing to a surviving Northumbrian kingdom was the rump of Bernicia with which the House of Bamburgh was left. They were described as 'Kings' up until about 915.
On the whole, even if he could have found legitimate heirs to the residual kingdoms of the heptarchy,Ìý
AFAIC, royal descent confers no legitimacy whatsoever. The only thing that matters is acceptance by the governed.
Alfred, Edward and Athelstan probably saw no future in recreating a model of government that had already failed so comprehensively.Ìý
I may be misunderstanding you, but you seem to me to be presupposing the existence of a united English kingdom for which there was no precedent. I'd hotly dispute the notion that being A-S gave the Cerdicings any more 'right' to rule Northumbrians than any other imperialist conqueror. Individual Northumbrians may have seen a shared language etc as making the House of Wessex more attractive as overlords than the Scots, for example, but that's entirely their decision.
No, consider it how you like, Alfred was deservedly 'England's darling'.Ìý
The darling of those who benefited from the establishment of a centralised English state, perhaps, but the bane of everyone else. You're not much closer to London than I am - do you really think either of our local areas gets as good a deal from being part of England as the South East does?
Cheers,
Catigern -
Message 12
Posted by an ex-nordmann - it has ceased to exist (U3472955) on Thursday, 17th June 2010
Any king who makes it a priority during a lull in attacks on his kingdom to take the time and effort to appoint a commission whose job it was to translate all the "great works" he knew about into the vernacular so that anyone could read them is "great" in my view. Or at least exceptional.
Sellar and Yeatman probably got closest to the truth when they christened him Alfred the Grate (of cakes fame). As TP inferred, when a myth can encapsulate not only its primary subject's historical import by contrast of circumstances but also a basic human inclination to screw up, then not only the myth-makers but its subject too deserve respect. That too is a rarity. -
Message 13
Posted by TwinProbe (U4077936) on Friday, 18th June 2010
Hi catigern
"The only thing that matters is acceptance by the governed." Ìý
Well, yes, I think I can live with that. So which inhabitants of Anglo-Saxon England do we suppose gave the greatest acceptance to their rulers? Those in Alfred's Wessex or those in the Danelaw?
TP -
Message 14
Posted by Catigern (U14419012) on Friday, 18th June 2010
I’m not sure that the Danelaw can be considered part of Anglo-Saxon England – surely it was definitively Anglo-Scandinavian... The fact that Alfred and his successors were able to hang on to the bits of Mercia they grabbed without much difficulty suggests that, on the whole, they were at least preferable to the Danes to most. However, I’ve no doubt that some in that region would have preferred to manage their own affairs without being subject to the Cerdicings.
The political machinations of the first Archbishop Wulfstan of York demonstrate that the House of Wessex could not assume that the ‘Englishmen’ of the Danelaw wanted to swap the Vikings for the southerners... -
Message 15
Posted by Haesten (U4770256) on Friday, 18th June 2010
The political machinations of the first Archbishop Wulfstan of York demonstrate that the House of Wessex could not assume that the ‘Englishmen’ of the Danelaw wanted to swap the Vikings for the southerners
Ìý
Wulfstan was a Norseman. -
Message 16
Posted by Priscilla (U14315550) on Saturday, 19th June 2010
TP, I liked your post and it set me to reading a bit wider. Alfred seemed to me to be a genuine sort of guy trying to do his best - rather like a nice family man whose street is gradually being overrun by rowdies. I had been swayed by champions of the Vikings but the first waves of invader/settlers and susequent piratatical hordes have dented that.
I assume there were so many of them, Vikings, I mean because they thrived in their homelands. That suggests well organised communities who carried order about with them. The land grabbing, theft and danegeld though deplorable was a means to an end and has the same uncomfortable smack of much later empire building.
I must read more. I suggest that it was the viking influence that developed the navy later. Alfred only had a fleet of larger ships built and incompetent seamanship failed him in his first and probably only battle(?) The Vikings surely made Britain become aware of what being an island really means. What happened later? I ought open another thread on that because it interests me.
I ramble, sorry. Regards, P. -
Message 17
Posted by TwinProbe (U4077936) on Saturday, 19th June 2010
Hi Priscilla
Very few people have ever had a bad word to say about Alfred who, with due deference to Catigern, seems a great deal braver, cleverer and kinder than the average king.
We haven't had a Viking thread for some time but they pose many problems. Actually there can't have been all that many of them but their incomparable boat building and navigational skills meant they could unexpectedly place a large (by early medieval standards), trained, army almost anywhere in Europe. But they could be resisted as Alfred demonstrated.
Perhaps we make too much of their destructive aspects, deplorable though these must have been to coastal religious sites. The development of York and Dublin indicate their mercantile skills, and they managed to create wholly new farming communities on unpopulated islands such as the Faroes and Iceland.
The Danegeld paid by Ethelred was probably an error, although it is a testimony to the economic strength of Anglo-Saxon England that it was paid for so long. Perhaps in these financially difficult times we should ask for it back!
Kind regards,
TP -
Message 18
Posted by islanddawn (U7379884) on Sunday, 20th June 2010
" Actually there can't have been all that many of them but their incomparable boat building and navigational skills meant they could unexpectedly place a large (by early medieval standards), trained, army almost anywhere in Europe."
Yes, and every Viking on a battle field was a highly trained, properly armed and usually mailed warrior. Unlike the English, where over half of any fighting force consisted of the fyrd, armed with anything that came to hand and needing to be home in time for the harvest.
It is no wonder that the Norse swept so easily through England but it also highlights just how brilliantly Alfred used and managed what was available to him. -
Message 19
Posted by Stoggler (U14387762) on Monday, 21st June 2010
Unlike the English, where over half of any fighting force consisted of the fyrd, armed with anything that came to hand and needing to be home in time for the harvest.
Ìý
Which Alfred reformed so that there was always a fyrd available at all times, regardless of time of year. It was for that reason that the new burhs were able to be manned. -
Message 20
Posted by Catigern (U14419012) on Monday, 21st June 2010
Can't give the boards more than a few minutes at the mo' folks, but look fwd to returning to this thread in due course.
TP,
I'm still trying to work out whether you used the wording "due deference to Catigern" because:
a) you were just being your usual, charming self
or...
b) you have a truly evil sense of humour and know exactly how to tease an ardent anarchist -
Message 21
Posted by TwinProbe (U4077936) on Monday, 21st June 2010
Yes.
TP -
Message 22
Posted by stanilic (U2347429) on Sunday, 4th July 2010
The original question was King Alfred truly the Great.
It has been mentioned severally here that he was both a successful warrior and a great scholar. I think the latter predicates his high reputation amongst historians. He also had the good sense to recruit Bishop Asser as his hagiographer. We should all recollect that Asser was Welsh which rather transcends certain perspectives.
Now I live in one of those parts of England that was Mercian but became merged into a greater Wessex some years after the agreement with Guthrum. I am researching the actual Danelaw boundaries which do not seem to be as defined as exactly as we think. Also the Mercians usurped something that was here before them so where do we draw the line?
One thought I cannot get from my mind is that in arranging the Danelaw boundary as he did, Alfred was also asserting the historical boundaries of the territories of the Gewisse who became the Kingdom of Wessex. This is a complex geographical as well as historical argument which depends upon some debatable data including the historic site of the battle of Biedcanford.
What is apparent is that the Danelaw did not have a central polity as, if anything, it was a seething pot of warlords squabbling amongst themselves. It is no wonder that Edward the Elder saw it ripe for conquest.
The one thing we must all understand, as others have alluded to, is that loyalties were expressed differently in those days. Alfred fulfilled the former Anglo-Saxon custom of being Bretwalda, namely the foremost of all the Angelcynn. For that reason I would argue he and his descendants acquired the customary right to lead all of the English-kind. However, that right perished with the last of his line. -
Message 23
Posted by Herewordless (U14549396) on Friday, 16th July 2010
I’m not sure that the Danelaw can be considered part of Anglo-Saxon EnglandÌý
It was- Alfred's son, Edward the Elder and daughter Aethelflaed recaptured those parts from 911-18 during the 'Reconquest', and then built a string of military burhs along the line from (approx) modern-day Liverpool towards Hull.
Edward's son, Athelstan definately stamped his authority on the regions, and beyond, subduing the Brythonic Celts in (today) Scotland, Wales and Cornwall. -
Message 24
Posted by glen berro (U14271421) on Friday, 16th July 2010
I agree with you, ManUpstairs.
I'm sure I shall be corrected, but I always thought that, though Alfred may have brought some temporary peace, it was Athelstan who brought order.
glen
About this Board
The History message boards are now closed. They remain visible as a matter of record but the opportunity to add new comments or open new threads is no longer available. Thank you all for your valued contributions over many years.
or Ìýto take part in a discussion.
The message board is currently closed for posting.
The message board is closed for posting.
This messageboard is .
Find out more about this board's
Search this Board
Â鶹ԼÅÄ iD
Â鶹ԼÅÄ navigation
Â鶹ԼÅÄ links
Â鶹ԼÅÄ Â© 2014 The Â鶹ԼÅÄ is not responsible for the content of external sites. Read more.
This page is best viewed in an up-to-date web browser with style sheets (CSS) enabled. While you will be able to view the content of this page in your current browser, you will not be able to get the full visual experience. Please consider upgrading your browser software or enabling style sheets (CSS) if you are able to do so.