Alfred the Great

Russ Foster asks whether the legend of the heroic king is simply too good to be true.

The market town of Wantage in Berkshire is dominated by a lifesized statue of its most famous son, Alfred, the fifth surviving son of King Aethewulf of Wessex, born in 849. As well as a statue, the Victorians who erected it provided him with an incomparable curriculum vitae:

Perhaps mankind’s respect for the past has diminished over the past century. It is certainly true that, though Alfred’s name remains familiar, his standing in the national pantheon has slipped considerably. Whilst he did not even make the top ten in a millennium poll of the greatest Britons in 2000, those commemorating the thousandth year of his death in 1899 hailed him as the founder of the nation and saviour of its Christian faith. More esoterically, he was credited as being the inventor of the candle clock, founder of Oxford University and the Royal Navy, even putatively of the British Empire. Were the Victorians really so wrong?

http://www.historytoday.com/russ-foster/alfred-great

Alfred or AElfred (used that AE letter from Saxon that doesn't in modern English)
we'll he was the Imposer of Christianity Murdering those that didn't follow his God amongst the Saxons.. He did try his best to exterminate Paganism in his lands
While we Often like to think the 'good' guy won If you look at the Pre England Britannia, Wessex was the ISIS of the region... full blown religious nutjobs.. Some of the Danish leaders in Northumbria sound much better with high levels of religious tolerance (plus Danes were far less sexist than Saxons) many being Pagan Still allowed the Construction of Christians churches.


Bit irrelevant anyway since the William the Conqueror creates a new Leading class (from a different ethnicity) than the Saxon & Angles lead by Alfred.

Imposing?
He was defending against pagan invaders, so that is gobbledygook Veya and he certainly made treaties which is not some crusade to wipe out paganism.
So they were not religious nut jobs and had only been recent converts themselves, sorry, you may want to read the article, because much of what you are claiming makes utterly no sense

Umm no Many Saxon Were Still Pagan Until Alfred got control of Wessex... Christian Revisionist History says they were invaded rather than the Far more Accurate they were invading and converting the Saxon from Woden and Thunear ..

The Exact Saxon Dialect prayer is

   ec forsacho allum dioboles uuercum and uuordum, Thunaer ende Uuöden ende Saxnote ende allum them unholdum the hira genötas sint
   I forsake all devil's work and words, Thunear and Wōden and Saxnōt and all the monsters that are their retainers

He destroy Sacred Sites Through out the South. He Didn't start the War Saxon Paganism but he did finish it.

veya_victaous wrote:Umm no Many Saxon Were Still Pagan Until Alfred got control of Wessex... Christian Revisionist History says they were invaded rather than the Far more Accurate they were invading and converting the Saxon from Woden and Thunear ..

The Exact Saxon Dialect prayer is

   ec forsacho allum dioboles uuercum and uuordum, Thunaer ende Uuöden ende Saxnote ende allum them unholdum the hira genötas sint
   I forsake all devil's work and words, Thunear and Wōden and Saxnōt and all the monsters that are their retainers

He destroy Sacred Sites Through out the South. He Didn't start the War Saxon Paganism but he did finish it.

Sorry that is complete rubbish and Alfred only controlled the southern part of England.
The Vikings had been raiding and settling in many parts of Europe, who do you think the Normans were?
Vikings. The Anglo Saxons had been around for a few centuries by now and new evidence is pointing to a less blood thirsty invasion by them, in fact much of the population adapted their cultures and in the South may converted to Christianity under Æthelberht of Kent', who's wife Bertha was Christian.
So you need to get your facts straight as Christianity was very well adapted by the time of Alfred the Great

If Pagan were Already Defeated why do "Laws of Ælfred" specifically ban many of their religious practices ? and Make it illegal to not follow the Christian god?

http://books.google.com.au/books?id=vbenRwaruTkC&pg=PA40&lpg=PA40&dq=Laws+of+%C3%86lfred&source=bl&ots=UE62hneI5b&sig=vx7IopuInQ1wYbqFp0PjySmvLfg&hl=en&sa=X&ei=IUMNVNyYE9bluQSu6oCgAg&ved=0CFwQ6AEwCQ#v=onepage&q=Wod&f=false

Let alone Records from After his death that show some people still following the old gods.

Nine Herbs Charm

Recorded in the 10th century,[34] the Old English Nine Herbs Charm contains a mention of Woden:

A snake came crawling, it bit a man.
Then Woden took nine glory-twigs,
Smote the serpent so that it flew into nine parts.
There apple brought this pass against poison,
That she nevermore would enter her house

By the 8th century, Anglo-Saxon England was at least nominally Christian, the Anglo-Saxon mission contributing significantly to the Christianization of the continental Frankish Empire.[citation needed] Germanic paganism again briefly returned to England in the form of Norse paganism, which Norse Vikings from Scandinavia brought to the country in the 9th to 10th century—but it again succumbed to Christianisation. Thus, mention of the Norse "Thor, lord of ogres" is found in a runic charm discovered inserted in the margin of an Anglo-Saxon manuscript from the year 1073.[12] Polemics against lingering pagan customs continue into the 9th and 10th centuries, e.g. in the Laws of Ælfred (ca. 890),

So Yeah You could try the Non-revisionist history where Actually the Pagan Danes were A lot nicer and fairer rulers than the Christianised Kingdoms. I wonder why the Christians don't like pointing out that 1000 years ago they were murdering people for their religious beliefs while the 'bad' guys were practising religious tolerance and may of the secular ideal we embrace today

Again what a load of bullshit, again the Danes had been invadaing for sometime, all of them pagans, though much of Britain with the indigenous was Christian, where Christianity was very much adapted under the previous Celtic church which changed after St Augustine.
As per usual you are the one coming out with revisionist bullshit and it clearly shows you did not even read the article, if you did you would know much of what you are claiming is poor to say the least.

The reality is the Danes were invaders and the last real bastion of defense against this was the Saxons in the South. To claim that Isis are comparable to the Saxons, is nothing short of ignorant and complete bollocks, when the Saxons were defending against invasion. You obviously have no idea about the brutality of the Vikings also.


Well, an impressive new exhibition that’s coming to the British Museum next year, Viking, now in Copenhagen, presents a different take on the Vikings than the revisionist notion of them as proto-feminists and early multiculturalists. They were, as we first thought, violent bastards. In contrast to recent exhibitions which have focused on their (perfectly real) record as city founders, brilliant seafarers and traders with an interest in good governance, the exhibits return us to the traditional image of pillagers, raiders and aggressive colonisers: the artefacts are hard to square with them as peaceful farmers with an interest in travel.


Also




A complementary, if not even more important motive, in driving Alfred’s educational programme was religion. He believed that the moral failings of the people had led to the punishment from God that was the Vikings. Certainly this much is implied in his translation of Pastoral Care. In it he paints a grim picture of the church and the state of learning which existed before the Northmen descended. Part of his conception of his duty as a Christian ruler was to atone for these shortcomings and, by so doing, restore to his people both wisdom and happiness.

What this all amounted to in reality, it must be admitted, is impossible to gauge. There was no great religious revival. Alfred’s father, Athelwulf, was a more pious man than he: Alfred only founded two modest religious houses, at Athelney and Shaftesbury. One bishop even dared to criticise him privately to the pope for not having done enough to crush paganism beyond his kingdom. But in the decade or so available to him he had perhaps done as much (or more) as could reasonably be undertaken. The most suggestive clue is the so-called Alfred Jewel discovered near Athelney in 1693, which may well be one of the aestels (or pointers) which he promised to send to every diocese with a copy of Pastoral Care. It provides in itself substance to Keynes and Lapidge’s claim that his later reign witnessed ‘nothing less than a cultural renaissance’.

Saxon were also invaders And were probably just as brutal...
And it is just perspective on which is good and which is bad
As far as the British Celts were concerned, they were both pricks

Fact Remains that Alfred strengthened the Christian Hold on England and that undoubtedly set back decent society generations.. Much of the Misogyny of today comes from men like Alfred that enforced the teaching of the church on the penalty of death. He is a remarkable man BUT was he actually good? the same could be asked of most famous conquerors (Alfred being the re-conqueror of England)

That Article May as well be Nazi Propaganda saying Hitler is Great, which would exist if they had won... Just like If the Danes won he would be shown as Villainous Denier of Religious Freedom and Women's rights that he Also was.

Education!!! he Uneducated and forced LIES on the populace. Instituted systematic denial of evidence. Enforced Theocratic education... If Alfred is a great educator for that! The Imams in the Iranian hills must be awesome!!

the Danes weren't Proto Feminist they just had a non Patriarchal religion that didn't say one gender was better than another like the Abrahamic ones do.

It is pointless Veya when you just come out with utter bullshit, you are so anti English it is beyond belief and thus your bias against the English does not allow for any sensible debate, what you are claiming is nothing short of bullshit, to now bring in a respected historian as if it is now Nazi propaganda, is beyond reason and sheer lunacy.

Christianity had been well established within the country and the Viking worship of their deities including many barbaric practices, one they used extensively on Christians was called the Blood Eagle, though some claim it is myths, it is likely it was used, being as they had no problem slaughtering people and the reality is it was a pagan onslaught onto the British lands, where again the Vikings were a Waring nation who had no problem killing anyone for their own means. I suggest you actually understand history and not make daft claims as you do. This was a time of turmoil where much is not fully understood yet because much was not written down for the time, but it is evident the Vikings were very feared for their barbarity, where by this time the Saxons had been very much established. Again you have no evidence to back your claim

The early fifth century transition from Roman Britain to Anglo-Saxon England is a poorly understood period in British history. Historical narratives describe a brutal conquest by Anglo-Saxon invaders with nearly complete replacement of the indigenous population, but aspects of the archaeological record contradict this interpretation leading to competing hypotheses.

A new study, published in the Journal of Archaeological Science, suggests a more peaceful process, according to Dr Andrew Millard, from Durham University, one of the paper’s lead authors.
‘The main controversy over the years has centred on how many Anglo-Saxons came across the North Sea,‘ he says, ‘Was it a mass invasion, where the existing population was wiped out completely or forced back into Wales, or was it a small band of elites whose ways were then adopted very quickly?’ The evidence the researchers have gathered favours the second option.

Much of the evidence comes from the early Anglo-Saxon cemetery at Wally Corner, Berinsfield in the Upper Thames Valley, Oxfordshire. The site was first identified from cropmarks on aerial photographs taken by Major Allen in June 1934, although its true nature was unknown.
In 1960, Oxford University Archaeological Society carried out an excavation in the area and discovered Romano-British ditches dating from the first to fourth centuries. In 1974 and 1975, Oxford Archaeological Unit (now Oxford Archaeology) excavated the Wally Corner gravel pit at Berinsfield prior to gravel extraction and uncovered the Anglo-Saxon cemetery.
Most of the burials contained grave-goods including weapons, knives, jewellery, spindlewhorls, buckets and pottery which suggested the cemetery was in use for about 150 years from the early/mid 5th century to the early 7th century. This was exactly the right period to examine the the population origin of the interned individuals.
Locals or immigrants?
Were they local people who had adopted Saxon lifestyles and culture or were they immigrants from the continent?
From the skeletal remains, 30 male and 32 female adults were identified. The burials contained about 70 adults, 9 adolescents and 25 children, with most adults ranging between the ages of 20-45. Some of the graves were arranged in groups, suggesting families or households.
According to this newly evaluated evidence, rather than replacement of the local population, either a much smaller group of Germanic immigrants settled in England as part of the social, religious, and political turmoil happening in western Europe at this time; or a rapid acculturation took place in the vacuum of Roman abandonment, with little genetic contribution from Germanic immigrants.

As the number of Anglo-Saxon immigrants arriving in Britain is one of the focal issues of this debate, strontium and oxygen isotopic ratios, with their ability to identify immigrants in a burial population, offered a technique to test competing hypotheses. The researchers examined these ratios in the tooth enamel of 19 individuals from the cemetery at Berinsfield.
Background values from local fauna material and soil samples allowed the scientists to characterize the regional fingerprint for the oxygen and strontium isotopes. In addition, the diet of the burial community as a whole was analysed and cross related against the sex, age and grave goods of the individuals.
The balance of particular chemicals in our teeth can give clues about where most of our food and drink has come from. Scientists can then use this information to work out where people were born, and where they lived in childhood. Had there been a mass invasion, the graves would be expected to contain at least 20 per cent immigrant remains. But only five per cent of the buried individuals seem to have come from out-with the local area.
‘Oxfordshire is quite some distance from the landing point of any invasion, but it seems that there was not a mass invasion everywhere,’ says Millard.
It is true to say that the broader question is still open to debate, and evidence is being gathered, but at the moment it favours a scenario where there was no wholesale replacement of the population, but a strong cultural shift.


While dietary variability was found in all the sub-groups tested, it was still able to identify an apparent distinction between the average diets of individuals classified as “wealthy” and “intermediately wealthy” and those classified as “poor”.
A notable absence of a ‘dietary difference’ between males and females at Berinsfield, indicated that sex-based societal division did not significantly influence access to the various food sources. These additional conclusions drawn from isotopic data are of use in adding to the picture of daily life and social structure in early Anglo-Saxon Britain.
Of course there is still much more study required to investigate if this was an isolated case or a more general picture of cultural change as opposed to population replacement, but this research forms the basis for these further investigations.
Source: Journal of Archaeological Science/Oxford Archaeology

http://www.pasthorizonspr.com/index.php/archives/02/2014/anglo-saxon-cemetery-results-question-violent-invasion-theory

What Is this 'respected' historian basing his claims on? CHRISTIAN PROPAGANDA A Big Fucking Chunk of it funded by Alfred and his Descendants it is about as Biased a source as you can get.

AND the SAXON were Killing People Too
You are just a hypocrite, the Vikings (which is not even a race or a peoples you basically just prove you only believe the Bullshit Hollywood Anglo-centric rubbish of history where everyone else is Wrong and You are perfect. Viking is an Activity) where no more Violent than the Christians, Particularly Under Alfred, at the time there is Absolutely no evidence to suggest they were EXCEPT from a bunch of Rich Monks Which again SUPER biased source!!! and they themselves were themselves were Force converting the populace and ripping off the peasant with Tithes.

I'm not Anti English I'm pro Truth YOU are Just Anti truth is if shows your nation to be no better than everyone else. As if the Saxon were better than the Danes Anyone can look at the cultures at the time and See the Danes Were Far more Advanced in 'social contract' and Technology.. That's why the could go Viking over the northern European coast.

Utterly clueless as the article has nothing to do with Christian propaganda, but a character from early British history and whether he was great or not.

Pro truth ha ha, what did you post truthful, you make me laugh veya, you think a historical article is now something about Christianity, when at the time the nation was in this case going through a time of turmoil, where the article is not even trying to claim Christianity is great you idiot. That is why you re clueless, it is highlighting an era in history, where just because he was Christian and where the Saxons under him were able to stem the tide of the Vikings.

Again you make many assumptions and again cannot back anything up, all this article was about was whether he was great or not, of which the consensus was on this view point not fucking religion you dummy.
You made daft comparisons to ISIS, that was utterly stupid, then claims to comparisons to Nazi Propaganda, all an utter joke and utterly stupid.
You are just some dumb wally who thinks he knows much by looking up google. When Australia has amounted to something, let me know, because it pails in comparison to the greatness of Britain.

You are anti English with the amount of comments where you do slag them off and as seen archaeological evidence is making your views look also wrong, but again it seems you do not like the truth

And the Answer is IF you think Christians are good then his is Good if you think Christians are bad then His is one of the Worst people in the History of Britannic Isles

Get it through your head GOOD is your VERY BIASED opinion on what is GOOD.
The fact is he is was murdering oppressive Theocratic Dictator. His Dream for England and ISIS's dream for Syria and Iraq are the SAME!!! a totalitarian Religious State.

SO MY POINT IS 100% Accurate to anyone that is not a Hypocrite. Totalitarian Religious Nut jobs are NOT good people. Misogynist are NOT good People, leaders using Ethnic Purity in their thinking and Policy are generally Considered EVIL.
ALFRED WAS ALL THOSE THINGS.. I woudl Not want to live under an EVIL leader like him any more than I woudl like to live under ISIS because they are the fucking same Religious Nut jobs.

And Again I am not Anti English I am Anti FALSE Anglo centric History that Denies Every other people everything And makes out the the English are always and were always right and everything that has happen is good there Murdering Bastards are Great Heros while others are Villainous Evil...

You are a Racist Twat that keep spouting Racist Crap.. Your Version of history is Like a Black Face happy Slave Play!!!!
COMPLETE UTTER BULLSHIT WRITTEN BY PEOPLE TRYING TO JUSTIFY THE SHITTY THINGS THEY DID IN THE PAST

Again more waffle with no evidence to back your claims, all assumptions get it in your head your comments to comparisons to Nazi propaganda and ISIS were utterly idiotic as per usual.
You have never studied history and go off daft assumptions.


So he was evil now to you?

Ha Ha, yes I am sure the Saxons saw him as evil saving them from destruction to the Vikings, wow.
Your claims are baseless where again you make this religious is unbelievable. Seems you back tyrants like Saddam, who committed genocide and ethnic cleansing, but a King we actually know relatively little about apart from the fact he stemmed the advance of the Vikings, which we know he did is now some evil to you.
Seriously, you really are embarrassing yourself.
So by your views, next you will be telling me Alexandra the Great was evil also.
People are view on many aspects as to why they are called great, all you have done is make unsubstantiated claims.

You of course though think that the Vikings were all flower power and did not have gods of war, wow, some people make me laugh, but you have over taken smelly for stupidity.

veya_victaous wrote:And Again I am not Anti English I am Anti FALSE Anglo centric  History that Denies Every other people everything And makes out the the English are always and were always right and everything that has happen is good there Murdering Bastards are Great Heros while others are Villainous Evil...

You are a Racist Twat that keep spouting Racist Crap.. Your Version of history is Like a Black Face happy Slave Play!!!!
COMPLETE UTTER BULLSHIT WRITTEN BY PEOPLE TRYING TO JUSTIFY THE SHITTY THINGS THEY DID IN THE PAST

That shows how clueless you are little boy, as biologically races do not exist, we are one race and I would like to see the day people are defined by nationalities not the colour of their skins and I have been very much anti racism, I guess this points goes way above your pay grade you pathetic small minded child.
I have qualifications in history, you I guess must have a certification in Kangaroo turds.

When you make daft comparisons to ISIS and Nazism, then I will belittle your stupidity, again there is little evidence for this time period, and yet you make unsubstantiated claims, based on your hatred also it seems of Christianity and Christians, you are as bad as Islamophobes. I maybe Atheist, but I do not show hatred towards religions as you do.

The English are not always right either, never see people claim that, we have bad and good within our history and recognise that,showing again your stupidity! I have always stated this nation has been and always has been very multicultural and it has what has made it great.

Alfred baked some great cakes, so what if he burned them!!!

nicko wrote:Alfred baked some great cakes, so what if he burned them!!!

typical man....told to mind the oven then gets distracted and they burn and he gets remembered for that! pfft.....x