[go: up one dir, main page]
Jump to content

Talk:Alfred the Great

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Former featured article candidateAlfred the Great is a former featured article candidate. Please view the links under Article milestones below to see why the nomination was archived. For older candidates, please check the archive.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
February 11, 2008Featured article candidateNot promoted

880s

[edit]

Hi there,

Just informing on some proposed changes that I plan to make to the page under the ‘880s’ subheading. I will attach my changed paragraphs underneath and run you through the changes that I have made. In the first paragraph, I have revised the date from 880 to 878 and referenced it, added the Alfredian effects of the treaty to the sentence on neutralising Guthrum and widened the point on Viking migration and settlement as the previous sentence was somewhat vague. I have also narrowed the date range from 878-892 to 878-885 as a more focused period for Viking migration whilst still mentioning the return in 892.

In the second paragraph, I have tidied up the point on naval conflict and referenced this to the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle. I have also slightly changed the point on Alfred’s naval conflict as the source material states “taken” rather than “destroyed.”

Thanks:

‘With the signing of the Treaty of Alfred and Guthrum in 878[1], Guthrum’s people began settling in East Anglia, Guthrum was neutralised as a threat and Alfred’s standing amongst the English people was enhanced.[2] During the lull in the wake of Alfred’s pacification of Guthrum, Viking forces in England dissipated with some settling in East Anglia whilst others sailed to Frankia on the mainland. Between this point and 885 there was a steady stream of Viking forces travelling to Frankia and Ghent before the return of the Viking threat in 892.[3]

Some conflict persisted with local raids on the coast of Wessex throughout the 880s, notably in 882 in which the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle details Alfred’s naval conflict with four Viking ships, of which the Chronicle states he took two.[4] This was one of four sea battles recorded in the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle, three of which involved Alfred.[5] Similar small skirmishes with independent Viking raiders would have occurred for much of the period as they had for decades.[6]’

(I shall tidy up the referencing before editing.)

[1] Anglo Saxon Chronicle, AD. 878

[2] Keynes in A Companion to Alfred the Great, p. 22.

[3] Woodruff, The life and times of Alfred the Great, p. 176, Keynes, Simon; Lapidge, Michael (1983). Alfred the Great, Asser's Life of King Alfred and other contemporary sources. Harmondsworth, England: Penguin. ISBN 0-14-044409-2.

[4] Anglo-Saxon Chronicle, AD, 882.

[5] Abels, Richard (1998). Alfred the Great: War, Kingship and Culture in Anglo-Saxon England. Longman. ISBN 978-0-582-04047-2.

[6] Smyth, Alfred P. (1995). King Alfred the Great. Oxford: Oxford University Press. ISBN 0-19-822989-5. Alfredcerdicing (talk) 12:03, 18 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Most of the sources look fine, but the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle needs interpreting by experts. It is not reliable for dating and I think Abels is best for this. I am also doubtful about Woodruff. I have never seen it cited by historians which suggests that is not considered a reliable source. Dudley Miles (talk) 12:52, 18 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I shall revise the references before publication and as for the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle, on page 152 of Abels’ ‘Alfred the Great’, he cites the chronicle entry for 878 as his source for detailing the events of Alfred and Guthrum’s conflict. I can change the reference to Abels if needed however I see little need there. Regarding Woodruff, his book is informed and detailed and I would still like to include his work.
In addition, I have redrafted a small part of the introduction:
‘He defended Wessex, the last remining Saxon-controlled kingdom, from Viking conquest and consequently became the dominant ruler amongst the Kingdoms of England. As detailed by 9th century Welsh scholar and bishop Asser, Alfred became King of “all the Angles and Saxons”[1] from 886 after he reoccupied London, which he went on to rejuvenate.’
----
[1] ASC, 886 A.D. Alfredcerdicing (talk) 13:11, 21 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I would at a minimum add the Abels reference, rather than citing only the ASC; it's the Abels reference that allows us to use the ASC. I think it would be better to remove the ASC reference but that's not as important as adding the Abels cite. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 13:17, 21 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Just to confirm the finalised changes I intend to make:
Introduction
He defended Wessex, the last remining Saxon-controlled kingdom, from Viking conquest and consequently became the dominant ruler amongst the Kingdoms of England. As detailed by 9th century Welsh scholar and bishop Asser, Alfred became King of “all the Angles and Saxons”[1] from 886 after he reoccupied and rejuvenated London.
880s
‘With the signing of the Treaty of Alfred and Guthrum in 878[2], Guthrum’s people began settling in East Anglia, Guthrum was neutralised as a threat and Alfred’s standing amongst the English people was enhanced.[3] During the lull in the wake of Alfred’s pacification of Guthrum, Viking forces in England dissipated with some settling in East Anglia whilst others sailed to Frankia on the mainland. Between this point and 885 there was a steady stream of Viking forces travelling to Frankia and Ghent before the return of the Viking threat in 892.[4]
Some conflict persisted with local raids on the coast of Wessex throughout the 880s, notably in 882 in which the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle details Alfred’s naval conflict with four Viking ships, of which the Chronicle states he took two.[5] This was one of four sea battles recorded in the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle, three of which involved Alfred.[6] Similar small skirmishes with independent Viking raiders would have occurred for much of the period as they had for decades.[7]’
----
[1] Abels, Richard (1998). Alfred the Great: War, Kingship and Culture in Anglo-Saxon England. Longman. ISBN 978-0-582-04047-2.
[2] Abels, Richard (1998). Alfred the Great: War, Kingship and Culture in Anglo-Saxon England. Longman. ISBN 978-0-582-04047-2.
[3] Simon Keynes, “Alfred the Great and the Kingdom of the Anglo-Saxons,” in Nicole Guenther Discenza and Paul E. Szarmach (eds.), A Companion to Alfred the Great (Leiden: Brill, 2015); Simon Keynes, “The Cult of King Alfred the Great”.
[4] Douglas Woodruff, The life and times of Alfred the Great, p. 176 and Keynes, Simon; Lapidge, Michael (1983). Alfred the Great, Asser's Life of King Alfred and other contemporary sources. Harmondsworth, England: Penguin. ISBN 0-14-044409-2.
[5] Anglo-Saxon Chronicle, AD, 882.
[6] Abels, Richard (1998). Alfred the Great: War, Kingship and Culture in Anglo-Saxon England. Longman. ISBN 978-0-582-04047-2.
[7] Smyth, Alfred P. (1995). King Alfred the Great. Oxford: Oxford University Press. ISBN 0-19-822989-5. Alfredcerdicing (talk) 18:11, 1 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Just to confirm, reference 5 is also Abels Alfredcerdicing (talk) 18:13, 1 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

King of the English?

[edit]

Two editors are insisting on describing Alfred as King of the English. The only source given is a book by John Cannon, a specialist on the 18th century, and Ralph A. Griffiths, a Tudor specialist. No historian of the Anglo-Saxon period gives him this title. Asser is quoted in th article as describing him as King of the Anglo-Saxons. Ditto Patrick Wormald in ODNB on Alfred, and Richard Abels in the standard biography p. 9. Sarah Foot in her biography of Æthelstan p. 12 says tha Edward inherited the kingdom of the Anglo-Saxons from Alfred. Simon Keynes has a chapter heading 'Edward, King of the Anglo-Saxons' in Higham and Hill eds, Edward the Elder. This is the title universally accepted by experts on the period. Dudley Miles (talk) 10:20, 31 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The historians can say what they like about the matter but the fact that "Rex Anglorum" is inscribed on one of his coins says enough to what he was actually referred to during the time period, which is what's most important. Faren29 (talk) 12:59, 31 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It's "Rex Anglo" actually, so there's still room for interpretation. Celia Homeford (talk) 13:10, 31 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
And on top of that, saying "the people called him this, look at this coin" is original research based on a single, self-published primary source. Woodroar (talk) 13:24, 31 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia is based on reliable sources, not the personal views of editors. Dudley Miles (talk) 14:51, 31 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The fact that "Rex Anglo" is inscribed on one of his coins isn't a personal view. Faren29 (talk) 15:29, 31 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The interpretation of inscriptions in medieval Latin on coins is defintely something that we should leave to historians - such as Wormald, Abels, Foot, Keynes, etc. Ealdgyth (talk) 15:32, 31 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
May I ask why Alfred and Edward the Elder are on the English monarchs list if they were so unequivocally not kings of England (or the English)? Faren29 (talk) 15:39, 31 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
This was the result of an argument some years ago. An editor claimed that Alfred is descibed as the first king of England in some popular books and that using academic sources is original research. I should have continued the argument but I could not be bothered so I just deleted the list off my watchlist. Dudley Miles (talk) 16:01, 31 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I think it's an issue that all of us need to come together to resolve. If two pages are saying two completely different things about who the first king of England is, it will just make Wikipedia more unreliable. Faren29 (talk) 16:39, 31 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Ideally, yes, but we should not leave this page with incorrect information just because another page is also incorrect. I agree with Dudley that Alfred should not be described as King of the English. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 17:12, 31 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Fine by me to revert the edits on Alfred but we should start discussion on the list page and try and sort this issue out. Faren29 (talk) 17:46, 31 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

From what I know of the issues here, some early kings used the titles King of England, King of the English and King of the Anglo-Saxons interchangably, it could be a bit ahistorical to treat these titles as fundamentally different. There is some dispute about who was the first King of England, I feel inclined to give it to Alfred, for reasons I could go into, but it may not be worth going to the barricades over this issue. PatGallacher (talk) 17:39, 31 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Kings used all sorts of titles including King of Britain. We go by experts, not bombastic claims. Sarah Foot's biography is called Æthelstan: the First King of England. This description is generally accepted by experts. A few have questioned it on the ground that his control of Northumbria was insecure and it was not finally conquered until 954, but no expert argues that any king before Æthelstan was king of England.
I agree that the inconsistencies need sorting out. Alfred the Great (until recently) Edward the Elder and Æthelstan have King of the Anglo-Saxons. Template:English, Scottish and British monarchs starts with Alfred but Template:English monarchs starts with Æthelstan. Template:Wessex monarchs ended with Æthelstan until this edit in 2020 added kings up to the end of the Anglo-Saxon period.
Strictly, Edward the Elder fits in neither template as he is the one king who is exclusively within the period from c. 886 to 927 when King of the Anglo-Saxons was the correct title. I have created Template:Kings of the Anglo-Saxons, which is very small but seems the least bad way of dealing with the problem. I am happy to carry through the edits to make the articles and templates consistent if it will not start another edit war. Dudley Miles (talk) 18:01, 31 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Don't use it, per Dudley, Ealdgyth etc. Whatever title he may have claimed at times, he certainly necver ruled all of England or the English. This is silly. Johnbod (talk) 20:12, 31 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • However, he did by the end of his reign rule over all or nearly all the English who were not under Danish rule. You could find quite a few examples of monarchs who ruled over territory which was substantially smaller than their countries current borders. PatGallacher (talk) 20:01, 4 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Main image

[edit]

The main image has been changed frequently, often to a later portrait. It's invariably changed back with an edit summary that we prefer a contemporary image. (I've just done that myself.) However, I'm not seeing anything in Talk about that, or in any of our MOS pages. Is there something I'm missing? Should we finally have "the talk" and make it a consensus decision? Does it really matter? Woodroar (talk) 04:27, 2 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I think it should be this one. It is a later portrait but it qould do the job. Gwlaadhwylhwyl (talk) 19:45, 20 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
There are a bunch of different repetitions of the basic concept. Inter alia, you could look at WP:IMGCONTENT. The important bit is relevant. Gwlfiahfaoifhow's image is less relevant than the coin because the contemporary minter can be assumed to have roughly copied the actual guy's actual face, versus the medieval copyist having absolutely no idea who he was making a picture of.
That said, there can be a trade-off between essentially unhelpful images versus highly culturally relevant ones. If there's a specific piece of art that everyone in the English speaking world would picture instead, that might have enough weight. George Washington leads with a portrait instead of a death mask. If you could show the coin was just copied off the same press used by Alf's dad, e.g., it would go back to being essentially irrelevant and you could use any generally accepted artistic representation of the guy. Given the lack of 1st century Judaean sculpture, Jesus currently defaults to a Greek icon of a constipated bearded white guy. If there were a 1st century mud effigy in a clearly Christian context, we'd probably lead with that even though it would almost certainly be uglier. See, e.g., Julius Caesar leading with a fairly ugly bust given that it has the potential to have been a work based directly on the living guy. — LlywelynII 20:59, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

What the heck, fam

[edit]

Article badly needs a specific separate treatment of the works credited to Alfred, given with their generally accepted titles. If it's not too long, there should also be a list of the English editions of them. If it is too long, the list should be on Wikisource but still available somewhere via this article. — LlywelynII 21:02, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Polemical tone in Death and Burial

[edit]

I tried to edit the following section in "Death and Burial" from:

“In 1536, many Roman Catholic churches were vandalised by the people of England, spurred by disillusionment with the church during the Dissolution of the Monasteries. One such Catholic church was the site of Alfred's burial, Hyde Abbey. Once again, Alfred's place of rest was disturbed for the now 3rd time. Hyde Abbey was dissolved in 1538 during the reign of Henry VIII, the church site was demolished and treated like a quarry, as the stones that made up the abbey were then re-used in local architecture.The stone graves housing Alfred and his family stayed underground, and the land returned to farming. These graves remained intact until 1788 when the site was acquired by the county for the construction of a town jail.

“Before construction began, convicts that would later be imprisoned at the site were sent in to prepare the ground, to ready it for building. While digging the foundation trenches, the convicts discovered the coffins of Alfred and his family. The local Catholic priest, Dr. Milner recounts this event:

Thus miscreants couch amidst the ashes of our Alfreds and Edwards; and where once religious silence and contemplation were only interrupted by the bell of regular observance, the chanting of devotion, now alone resound the clank of the captives chains and the oaths of the profligate! In digging for the foundation of that mournful edifice, at almost every stroke of the mattock or spade some ancient sepulchre was violated, the venerable contents of which were treated with marked indignity. On this occasion a great number of stone coffins were dug up, with a variety of other curious articles, such as chalices, patens, rings, buckles, the leather of shoes and boots, velvet and gold lace belonging to chasubles and other vestments; as also the crook, rims, and joints of a beautiful crosier double gilt.

”


To


“During the English Reformation many churches were vandalised, beginning with the Dissolution of the Monasteries. One such was the site of Alfred's burial, Hyde Abbey. Once again, Alfred's place of rest was disturbed for the now 3rd time. Hyde Abbey was dissolved in 1538 during the reign of Henry VIII, the church site was demolished and treated like a quarry, as the stones that made up the abbey were then re-used in local architecture. The stone graves housing Alfred and his family stayed underground, and the land returned to farming. These graves remained intact until 1788 when the site was acquired by the county for the construction of a town jail.

“Before construction began, convicts that would later be imprisoned at the site were sent in to prepare the ground, to ready it for building. While digging the foundation trenches, the convicts discovered the coffins of Alfred and his family. A local recusant priest, Dr. Milner recounts this event:

Thus miscreants couch amidst the ashes of our Alfreds and Edwards; and where once religious silence and contemplation were only interrupted by the bell of regular observance, the chanting of devotion, now alone resound the clank of the captives chains and the oaths of the profligate! In digging for the foundation of that mournful edifice, at almost every stroke of the mattock or spade some ancient sepulchre was violated, the venerable contents of which were treated with marked indignity. On this occasion a great number of stone coffins were dug up, with a variety of other curious articles, such as chalices, patens, rings, buckles, the leather of shoes and boots, velvet and gold lace belonging to chasubles and other vestments; as also the crook, rims, and joints of a beautiful crosier double gilt.

”

Which was a brief attempt to remove the apparently meaningless mention of 1536 when Hyde had not yet surrendered, being a larger house, and remove the driving polemical mention of the split in religion.

I’m a Roman Catholic myself so I know what my own denominations polemicism looks like and that it’s not appropriate in a shared encyclopaedic context. Can we look at revising that section to include the Bishop James Milner quote still but with more neutral language in our surrounding commentary? Me.Autem.Minui (talk) 03:55, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks again for your consideration, I've tried my best to rewrite it. How is that? Remsense ‥ 论 04:01, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Sound rewrite mate. Takes the polemical undertone out of it. I only noticed it perhaps because I agree with its thrust - there’s nothing more heartbreaking than lost monasteries and royal and saintly relics. However I fear someone let that understandable emotion dribble a bit too much when writing. I’m going to add a link to “Dr Milner”, he’s got a page, and perhaps remove the repetitive reference to Hyde by name but you solved the “eek sectarianism” vibe Me.Autem.Minui (talk) 04:13, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Actually on reflection going to swap recusant with Catholic. It’s lost the heavy overtones and the 1780s is a a few decades too late for full blown recusancy status to still apply. Perhaps me being overly cautious to remove all RC references in the first place Me.Autem.Minui (talk) 04:17, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Alfred_the_Great&oldid=1244327442"