Alfred the Great
The Greatest Figures of our History – Episode 1
This is the first in a monthly series where I will discuss the greatest figures of our history. I subscribe to the great men and, indeed, great women theory of history, that it is individuals who have made us the nations that we are - who have created and developed our civilisation.
Early Kings of England were known by epithets, rather than regnal number. Notable examples include Ethelred the Unready, Edward the Confessor and William the Conqueror, and this tradition continued until numbering took over after Edward I, also known as Longshanks.
Yet of all of these, only one was known as ‘the Great’, and that was Alfred. He was fundamental to the creation of the country of England and his legacy is still felt in many countries of the world.
In the second half of the 9th Century, the Vikings had conquered almost everything. The Anglo-Saxon Chronicle recorded a ‘great army’ in 865 and a ‘summer army’ in 871. The kingdoms of Northumbria, East Anglia and most of Mercia were conquered, and the attacks were not mere raiding parties, but massive bands of men and hundreds of ships, who wrought havoc in the same way that the Huns had destroyed Rome. Kingdoms and bishoprics were destroyed, never to be revived, and Viking rule was established across the north of the country.
Wessex, where Alfred was fortunate to have a stronger inheritance, was under fierce attack from the Viking leader Guthrum in early 878. According to the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle, he ‘occupied the land of the West Saxons and settled there’. This was the dire situation faced by Alfred when he retreated to the Somerset levels. (He may not have burnt any cakes, the earliest source for this is far from contemporary, but he was certainly pretty desperate when he was in the Somerset levels.)
In 878, Easter was late, 22nd April, and it was, again as recorded in the Chronicle, seven weeks later, so about 10th June, that Alfred ‘rode to Egbert’s Stone, and there came to meet him all the people of Somerset and Wiltshire and a part of Hampshire, and they rejoiced to see him. And then, after one night, he went from the encampment to Iley, and after another night, to Edington, and there fought against the whole army and put it to flight’. Other than the fact of Alfred’s victory, there is little information about the battle but, crucially, he captured Guthrum, who was then baptised, with Alfred standing as his Godfather. This was by no means the end of the Danish threat, it was in some respects Trafalgar rather than Waterloo. However, Wessex lived to fight another day, when it could have been totally destroyed.
Nonetheless, Alfred was not Great simply because of one battle. He was not just a successful leader in war, but a brilliant ruler in peacetime and masterful in preparing for future conflict.
Alfred knew that Wessex, whose borders he extended by retaking London, needed to be defended. He recognised that to deal with an overseas enemy that could raid where it wanted at will, there needed to be a challenge at sea as well as on land. Hence he built ships of sixty oars, and used to be thought of as the founder of the Royal Navy. He also reformed the army, in a way that allowed men to be on military service but also ensured that agricultural production did not suffer, which was essential for the subsistence economy of the time.
Most crucially, he developed the ‘Burhs’, a network of fortified towns. These are recorded in the ‘Burghal Hidage’, which set out how much land was required to provide enough men to protect a certain length of a town’s defensive wall. This meant that Alfred’s subjects could seek ready refuge from Viking raids as the ‘Burhs’ were so distributed that no one in Wessex was more than twenty miles from one. These ‘Burhs’ became important towns and places of business, so had an economic as well as a defensive benefit. It took 27,000 men to create the network, which shows Alfred’s remarkable administrative efforts.
These administrative efforts were not simply intended to secure the kingdom from outside attack. He also wanted domestic security, hence his ‘Doom Book’ (‘dooms’ being laws or judgments), which aimed to codify the law. It was, as with so many English constitutional documents, not intended to be an innovation as much as a confirmation of existing policies. It was a heavily Christian document, with its prescripts based on the Ten Commandments, and seeking penance rather than punishment for transgressors. He acknowledged the influence of former kings, including Ine of Wessex, whose code he attached to his own, even though it is contradictory in places, Æthelberht of Kent and Offa of Mercia. As Alfred looked to rule what we now know as England, so he also sought to unify the law, based on the codes of the component kingdoms as well as showing due respect for tradition.
Lawgiving is fundamental to early societies, as it is the dividing line between anarchy and civilisation. Alfred expected the rule of law to be applied by local courts and, if necessary, by royal officers. Interestingly, Asser, a monk from St David’s and biographer of Alfred, records that Alfred decided that judges who could not read had to resign, quite a powerful means of improving justice. By removing the root cause of anarchy, Danish raids, Alfred made such lawgiving realistic and helped set out the basis for a unified England, that came about formerly under his grandson.
Alfred was also a deeply religious man and wanted learning spread to his people, especially regarding his faith. He had no doubt that his success was dependent on God’s favour, which required him to honour God and obey the teaching of the Church.
Why does all this matter? Even if we accept that Alfred was Great in his own time, would not England have been united anyway when St Dunstan crowned King Edgar in Bath in 973?
I believe not. If Alfred had been defeated at Edington, then Guthrum would have ruled Wessex and would have been a destroyer, not a builder. The heathen looting and pillaging would have been terrible. Alfred noted, in his translation of Gregory’s ‘Pastoral Rule’, that ‘everything was ravaged and burned’, which is, fundamentally, what the Vikings did. They killed kings and destroyed bishoprics; the systems of law and government were replaced by the power of the sword. They were not lawgivers or town builders.
Without Alfred, especially in war but also in peace, England as we know it today would never have come into existence. Without England there is no common law, no Magna Carta, no Parliament and no Bill of Rights. In their place, there would have been the continental habit of absolute monarchs, periodically overthrown in revolutions.
Alfred made England, and England made the modern world. The constitutions of the United States, Canada, Australia and New Zealand are all drawn from it. His greatness is thoroughly deserved and we enjoy its fortune every day.
Sources/Further reading
The Anglo-Saxons, Edited James Campbell, 1982.
Alfred the Great, Asser’s Life of King Alfred and other contemporary sources, translated with an introduction and notes by Simon Keynes and Michael Lapidge, 1983.
Alfred the Great, Justin Pollard, 2006.
The next in the series will be Sir John Fortescue (1394 – 1479), Chief Justice of the King's Bench and author of ‘De Laudibus Legum Angliae’ (Commendation of the Laws of England).
If you have enjoyed this article, then please do share it with your friends.
If you are a paid subscriber, then your comments would be most welcome. Please click the button to join the conversation. Thank you.
Really enjoyed your first in the series of historical figures to help shape and bind our constitution as it today . As I keep reiterating and emphasising like a fine wine the notes and harmonies interlocking together like one well well oiled machine. Keep up the splendid work JRM .
I enjoyed your letter but I take issue with one point you make. There has been only one king of England called “great” and that was Cnut the Great. Alfred was never king of England as you rightly stated. Cnut, although of Viking heritage is truly deserving of this title.