Talk:Alfred the Great/Archive 2

Age at death
This edit claims Alfred was 50 or 51 years old when he died. This is inconsistent with the claimed birth year of 849. I do not have the sources used to support the death date and age at death, either before or after the edit, so I don't know what light the sources would throw on the issue.

Calculation details: assume Alfred was exactly 50 years old at death. His birth date would have been 26 Oct 849. If the birth date were between 1 Jan 849 and 25 Oct 849 inclusive, we would say he was age 50 death. If his birth date were 27 Oct 849 to 31 Dec 849 inclusive, we would say he hadn't reached his birthday so was age 49 at death. Jc3s5h (talk) 12:18, 12 December 2018 (UTC)


 * the work by Abels is a recent biography of Alfred. The Blair work is 20 years older than Abels and is a generalized introduction to the history of the period. As a generality, a newer biography by a scholar of the period should be considered more definitive than an older general history, even if by another scholar of the period. I’ll dig further, but I’d go with Abels any day in this situation. Ealdgyth - Talk 12:34, 12 December 2018 (UTC)


 * Alfred's age at death is based on Asser's statement that he was in his twentieth year - and thus nineteen years old - when he married in 868. If he married at the end of the year and was just nineteen he would have been 49 when he died on 26 October 899, but it is far more likely that he was 50 or 51. However, this is original research and I have gone with the reliable source. Also the revert adds back the place of death, but this is unknown. Dudley Miles (talk) 13:08, 12 December 2018 (UTC)


 * ODNB gives a birth date for Alfred of 848/849, and says "Alfred died on 26 October 899. He was barely fifty." Patrick Womald, the author of the ODNB article, is a scholar of the period. I'll note that the birthdate in the infobox of 849 is not actually referenced to a secondary source - the bit where he is said to be four is sourced to the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle - which is going to be fuzzy on the age and is a primary source anyway. We prefer secondary sources. I think we can safely say that the birthdate should be 848 or 849 (sourced to the ODNB) and that the age at death is 50 or 51. And no one reports a death-place for Alfred. I own Abels' biography of Alfred but it's packed up, unfortunately. Dudley, do you have it available? Ealdgyth - Talk 13:29, 12 December 2018 (UTC)


 * Yes I have Abels. On p. 308 it says "On 26 October 899 King Alfred died. He was either fifty or fifty-one years old and had reigned twenty-eight and a half years. The details of his passing are unknown." On pp. 45-46 Abels quotes Asser as saying that Alfred was born in 849, and that he was in his twenty-third year when he ascended the throne in 871. However, a regnal list states that he was 23 when he became king and ASC says that the acceded after Easter in 871, which implies that he was born between Easter 847 and Easter 848. Abels does not decide between the sources. Janet Nelson in Reuter ed, Alfred the Great, 2003, p. 295 dates Alfred's birth 847x849. The statement that he was four when he went to Rome is a comment by the editor and is not in ASC. Dudley Miles (talk) 14:44, 12 December 2018 (UTC)
 * There's also the point that the year didn't increment on January 1; it varies, as I recall -- sometimes on 25 December, and sometimes on 25 September, I think. That makes it even harder to figure this sort of thing out.  I don't think we should do any calculations; we should just go with the most recent good quality source. Mike Christie (talk - contribs -  library) 17:42, 12 December 2018 (UTC)
 * If it turns out the best source we can gives one earlier source for the birth, and a different earlier source for the death, and points out a contradiction, we can point out the contradiction too, if we think it's worth addressing. But in any summary, in the lead or the infobox, we should give a wide enough range for the birth date, death date, and age at death to encompass the contradictions.
 * The point about calendars starting on different days of the year is also a factor. I have no idea what the custom was in the 800s. In some cases in the 1700s I've used primary sources to determine when the year began, if I could find a relevant dated list where there are entries every few days. Jc3s5h (talk) 18:18, 12 December 2018 (UTC)
 * I don't have my refs in front of me, but I think I recall that the ASC is demonstrably inconsistent, presumably because different scribes differed with respect to the start of the year. I think there's a mention of this in Kirby. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 18:19, 12 December 2018 (UTC)
 * So far as I know, historians are confident that they have solved the date problem. The year started in this period in September, and dates in modern histories are adjusted accordingly. I think we can give Alfred's DOB as 847-9, citing Abels and Nelson and death on 26/10/899 at 50 or 51, citing Abels. Dudley Miles (talk) 19:02, 12 December 2018 (UTC)

Religion
Why do we keep removing reference to Alfred's religion? SleeplessNight12 (talk) 02:05, 17 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Same reason we do for other medieval kings. It's too obvious. Johnbod (talk) 09:48, 17 April 2019 (UTC)
 * The relevant RfC is Village pump (policy)/Archive 126 and thus the religion here isn't useful. And making it "Chalcedonian christianity" is even worse - that's not a term that historians use to describe anyone from this period. Unless there are objections that trump the RfC... the religion field should be removed. Ealdgyth - Talk 15:36, 17 April 2019 (UTC)
 * I see it's returned - stated as "Chalcedonian Christianity" which is sourced to this religious press which does not ever call Alfred "Chalcedonian Christian" - he's just Christian. And the fact that a religious site/press/newspaper/etc brings up Alfred's religion isn't really surprising - it doesn't make the field relevant per the RfC above. The other source is Christianity.com, which again, has the same issues - there is no mention of Alfred being "Chalcedonian" christian... and it is again a religious site so it doesn't show that his religion is noted by mainstream historians as being out of the ordinary for his time period (hint - it's NOT...) Ealdgyth - Talk 17:21, 18 April 2019 (UTC)


 * Some of his successors have that phrasing of Chalcedonian Christian attached. Alfred is an important Christian and a symbol of Christianity. His religion should absolutely be mentioned. I can change it up to simply Christianity. But you cannot deny that his Christianity is important. --SleeplessNight12 (talk) 20:51, 18 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Which "of his successors have that phrasing of Chalcedonian Christian attached"? None of them should. Johnbod (talk) 02:56, 19 April 2019 (UTC)
 * I deleted them after he saw the phrasing. Dudley Miles (talk) 10:19, 19 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Ah, quicker than me! Johnbod (talk) 13:22, 19 April 2019 (UTC)
 * You've been reverted by three (four?) different editors - and you keep returning the information. That's the classic definition of edit warring. Please self-revert and bring actual sources to the discussion that make it clear that historians (not religious websites, but academic historians) make a big deal of his religion. If you keep edit warring, someone is going to report you to WP:AN/3. Ealdgyth - Talk 20:57, 18 April 2019 (UTC)


 * Sorry. I self-reverted. Why should we keep out his religion? --SleeplessNight12 (talk) 21:02, 18 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Because .. you need to read the RfC linked above. Alfred was Christian, but so were most of the people in Western Europe at the time. It was nothing unusual for him to be Christian. The RfC depreciated the religion field in infoboxes unless "religion is significant to the article subject" - which basically means if they are a bishop/clergyperson in this time period. Infoboxes summarized the significant facts of the article subject - a religion that he shared with all his subjects and most of the rest of Western Europe is not significant. Ealdgyth - Talk 21:05, 18 April 2019 (UTC)
 * "Alfred was Christian, but so were most of the people in Western Europe at the time." In the 9th century? That is not true. See: Christianity in the 9th century.


 * The Christianization of Scandinavia had begun in the 820s, but would not be completed until the 12th century. (The Sami minority resisted Christianization until the 18th century).
 * The Christianization of Bulgaria had begun in the 860s, but would not be completed until the 890s.
 * The Christianization of Kievan Rus' had begun in the 860s, but would not be completed until the 1070s.
 * The Christianization of Bohemia had begun in the 880s, but would not be completed until the 930s.
 * The Iberian Peninsula was still dominated by the Emirate of Córdoba (756–929), a Muslim state.
 * Sicily was dominated by the Emirate of Sicily (831–1091), a Muslim state.
 * The population of 9th century Europe was still a typical mix of Pagans, Muslims, and Christians, as it had been since the Umayyad conquest of Hispania in the 8th century. Dimadick (talk) 11:32, 19 April 2019 (UTC)
 * perhaps you noted the qualifier there, “Western Europe “...Scandinavia is Northern Europe, Bulgaria is Southeastern Europe, Bohemia is Central or Eastern, and the Kievan Rus  is Eastern Europe. And a good number of the inhabitants of the Iberian Peninsula we’re still Christian under Muslim rulers...Ealdgyth - Talk 11:45, 19 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Whatever, Dimadick. In Britain, the Anglo-Saxons were pretty much defined (especially against the Danes) by being Christian, though there were no doubt some unorganized pagans around. The Welsh were still more Christian. With, say, a Viking king of York, or a much earlier AS one, religion is worth mentioning, but not with an AS king by Alfred's day. Johnbod (talk) 13:22, 19 April 2019 (UTC)

Creating the Danelaw?
In the second paragraph of the lead, this article now states :"He won a decisive victory in the Battle of Edington in 878 and made an agreement with the Vikings, creating what was known as the Danelaw in the North of England." This is not very precise - Alfred certainly didn't create the Danelaw, Scandinavain dominated areas of England were not called "Danelaw" until the 11th century and it wasn't strictly in "the north of England". Best regards, Finn Rindahl (talk) 18:06, 25 October 2019 (UTC)

Aldred's dream?
Why is there no mention of his reported dream of St Cuthbert? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.71.16.173 (talk) 20:36, 7 March 2020 (UTC)

Born in Berkshire?
Thank you for your link Dudley Miles. According to this source, Berkshire was first mentioned in 860, and even then only indirectly, by reference to the 'people of Berkshire'. Alfred was born around 847, so we cannot be certain that Berkshire existed when he was born. Much safer would be to omit any county reference and say he was born in Wantage, Wessex. However, the source used (Abels), says he was born "in Wantage, Berkshire, in what until recently had been in Mercia" (halfway down under 'Rise of Wessex'. No mention of 1974, which makes me assume it is OR. The note about 1974 is meaningless and anachronistic anyway: what was there in 1973 and what was there in 1975 are not comparable to what was there in 860. I think Wantage, Wessex is best; Wantage, Berkshire is possible based on Abels; 1974 should not be mentioned in what otherwise seems to be a pretty good article. Roger 8 Roger (talk) 08:48, 18 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Abels is unambiguous in saying Alfred was born in Berkshire, and comments "Berkshire passed permanently into West Saxon hands some time before Alfred's birth at Wantage" -- pp. 29 in my copy -- so it's clear he is saying Berkshire did exist at that time. Abels is a reliable source for this; I think we should follow his usage.  I also think the note about the current location of Wantage is a good idea -- without that many readers familiar with the area will be baffled. Mike Christie (talk - contribs -  library) 09:11, 18 April 2020 (UTC)

Thank you for that reference on p.29 which I did not see, and I accept Abels is reliable. The other source also seems reliable, and it says there was no mention of Berkshire till 860, so there seems to be a contradiction. The second source does say though that (I paraphrase) the lack of written evidence should not necessarily be used to assume Berkshire as an extant entity did not exist before 860. Whatever, I don't really have an issue with using Wantage, Berkshire, so let's leave it. I have more of an issue though with 1974, which is off topic. I agree that some people might be puzzled to learn that Wantage is in the historic county of Berkshire, but this is meant to be an encyclopedia and we cannot cater for every person's every piece of ignorance. Some people might not know that Wantage is in England, or that Berkshire is in the south of England, and on we go. If there are links to the Wantage article, readers can check up for themselves if they read something that puzzles them. Leaving the 1974 detail there still does not change it from being OR. From what I could see from the Abels citation used after the 1974 comment, it does not refer to 1974, presumably because it does not need to. Roger 8 Roger (talk) 09:51, 18 April 2020 (UTC)
 * The note next to the Wantage, Berkshire in the Infobox referring to the boundary change in 1974 (after the Local Government Act 1972), was a clarification. There had been a minor edit war with various editors changing the county back and forth between Oxfordshire and Berkshire. The note fixed that problem, and if anyone was interested they could follow the link to List of Oxfordshire boundary changes, for an explanation. Wilfridselsey (talk) 10:18, 18 April 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for that explanation, I can quite see how that edit war might have occurred. However, I think the remedy is not what the note says. Simply put, we need to use the area that existed at the time. That is all. That is what the note said, but by adding 1974 we are continuing the cause of the edit war by throwing in an opinion. I think the note should say, if it is needed at all, 'In 860, Wantage was in the recently formed shire of Berkshire'. That avoids any opinion about later changes to counties. Roger 8 Roger (talk) 21:06, 18 April 2020 (UTC)

Winchester Museums Service
Winchester Museums Service is only cited for the statement that Alfred's body has been lost. This could be retained but it may be significant that only an archive copy of a deleted post is available, and I thought it better to delete it until I or another editor finds out whether it is out of date based on reliable sources. The point of the paragraphs is to claim that a bone of his or Edward's body may have been subsequently found, and that is based on press reports (and a dead link to the Church Monuments Society) that a bone of the correct date had been found in the museum collection. Dudley Miles (talk) 08:34, 3 July 2020 (UTC) ???You deleted whole rafts of stuff referenced to various sources. Please look at it more carefully. Johnbod (talk) 13:13, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

Doubts about Asser's Life
I believe some modern scholars assert that Asser's Life of Alfred was not contemporaneous, but written much later and based on the Anglo Saxon Chronicles; in the same vein, they doubt Alfred ever wrote anything, particularly the translation of Boethius' Consolatio. David Pratt, Alfred Smyth, Malcolm Godden. Should at least be noted in the education section. Shtove (talk) 01:09, 11 July 2020 (UTC)

Bone of King Alfred?
A recent edit by at  reports a claim at  to have found a bone of Alfred or Edward the Elder among bones excavated at or near the location of the high altar of Hyde Abbey. The source is reliable, but it appears to me to be talking up highly dubious evidence. The source claims it cannot be Alfred's brother because he is not known to have been buried at the high altar, but that does not mean that he was not buried there. It could also be the first abbot Grimbald or a later abbot. The dating is given as 895-1017, presumably with a 2σ confidence, 95%, but a date in the middle of the 10th century must be more likely than Alfred right at the beginning of the time span in 899. can you advise on this? I am starting to work on this article with the aim of bringing it up to FA, and it will be very long when his life is fully covered. I do not think space should be given to a speculative claim about a possible bone. Dudley Miles (talk) 10:29, 21 July 2020 (UTC)
 * the source isn't peer-reviewed, and is primary; anything based on it should at least be attributed. Having said that, the content as it's written seems to do that - it's saying that they found a pelvis and that they believe that it belonged to Alfred. The source is from 2014 though - there might be some more recent, and more reliable, scholarship on this, which would allow something more definitive to be said? Girth Summit  (blether)  10:53, 21 July 2020 (UTC)
 * (ec) My reaction is similar to Dudley's. I looked in Google Scholar to see if anyone had mentioned this claim in the six years since it was published, and I can't find anything.  Tucker is reliable, but this is her reporting her own research, rather than an external evaluation of her work.  I would prefer to exclude it until it gets cited elsewhere, but if we do include I'd relegate it to a footnote and hedge it further -- give the year range, and simply say that it's possible. Mike Christie (talk - contribs -  library) 10:59, 21 July 2020 (UTC)
 * I agree that if there's no follow-up on this, it should probably be come out until some actual peer-reviewed work is published on it. Girth Summit  (blether)  11:02, 21 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Yes I did say that they "believe" it to be rather than "it is". I did try and see whether there were any follow up papers for this or whether it was peer reviewed, but couldn't find anything. However the provenance is good and it would be difficult to do a proper review without repeating the radiocarbon dating in another lab. therefore I don't see anything happening anytime soon. Consequently I think that it should be noted, either in the main body or in the note section. The existing section about the graves was not complete as it did not mention the prisoners scattering the bones, so if the consensus is to move the research on the pelvic bone to the notes section, we should leave the scattering of the bones where it is, as that is secure.  Other archaeologists have commented, but have essentially said they would like more evidence. I believe that there has been some follow up. They were hoping that they could match DNA from the pelvis fragment could be matched with those of King Alfred’s grand-daughter, Eadgyth, who was buried at Magdeburg, in Germany. But apparently couldn't get a useful sample from Eadgyth. The other point was that although it could only be Alfred and his family buried at the high altar, as the prisoners were throwing the bones all over the place, it is possible that it may have been pelvic bone thrown from elsewhere rather than Alfred or Edwards.Wilfridselsey (talk) 11:29, 21 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Tucker is a non-peered reviewed source which states that a bone has been found which dates to 895-1017. It probably dates to the mid-tenth century but could be as early as the end of the ninth, and if so could Alfred's. I do not think we should cite the source or its claims.


 * In "which were presumably interred before the high altar" we should remove "presumably" as the Hyde Community Archaeology Project source is definite on this. Dudley Miles (talk) 14:10, 21 July 2020 (UTC)
 * I guess the reason why it has not been peer reviewed is because the data is not complete. The same team at Oxford carbon dated Richard III's bones, but they were able to find a living relative who could provide DNA to back up their findings. Tracing someone who was directly related to the House of Wessex maybe a little more problematic. The Hyde Community Archaeology Project I believe are still excavating the area, however even if they find some more bones that fit the profile they will still have problems with corroborating evidence. Tom Higham is a well respected source for radiocarbon dating so I believe his findings to be solid but identifying someone related to Alfred/ Edward alive or dead who can provide DNA is the problem. Until they solve that, I do not believe there will be a peer review. Who is going to risk their reputation on saying a define yes or no on the evidence so far? There maynot be a peer review in place but plenty of historians and archaeologists have commented on these findings in a positive way, but say they need more data. We can do the same. Wilfridselsey (talk) 16:06, 21 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Thomas Higham is one of the world's leading radiocarbon dating experts and no one is disputing his findings, only Tucker's interpretation, which we should delete. Wikipedia is not the place to speculate about the possibility of a reliable peer reviewed report. Dudley Miles (talk) 16:48, 21 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Just rechecked the press conference not sure that it's just Tucker. Wilfridselsey (talk) 17:44, 21 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Three editors are for deleting and one for keeping. I will delete. Dudley Miles (talk) 18:16, 21 July 2020 (UTC)
 * OK - I can see that you have strong feelings about this, so I will agree too. However, leave the section about the prisoners scattering the bones about as that is well documented and in any case the preexisting citation works. Also it is not speculation, a speculation or guess  is a hypothesis. There is supporting evidence so it is a theory. Wilfridselsey (talk) 18:25, 21 July 2020 (UTC)

Edit Soon
I will be making significant changes to the Death and Burial section of the article very soon. If anyone would like to review what I've done before I edit the official page, you can view it early here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:CJMcKenna98/Alfred_the_great I hope these edits will improve the article in some way. CJMcKenna98 (talk) 07:19, 5 October 2020 (UTC)

Veneration in Eastern Orthodox church
A new reference has been added for Alfred's sainthood, but the link provides no explanation of why this came about. I note Edward Martyr is also venerated in that church. My understanding is that both kings are significant because they date from before the schism of the churches, but beyond that I have no idea why they have such standing in eastern Orthodoxy. Any insight? Shtove (talk) 08:20, 3 March 2021 (UTC)
 * I have reverted the change. I was over-hasty as I missed the citation, but I do not see that it supports the claim that Alfred is regarded as a saint by the Eastern Orthodox church. He presumably has a claim as a defender of Christianity. Edward the Martyr does not but was venerated in the Anglo-Saxon period because they regarded any royal who was murdered as a martyr. Dudley Miles (talk) 11:44, 3 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Yes - the source, such as it is, doesn't confirm beatification or veneration. Edward Martyr's purported relics were at issue in a High Court case brought by the Attorney General in 1995, and are now under Orthodox lock and key in Surrey. There seems to be a semi-official devotion in the east to these two kings, but internet queries get into a tangle of views on the filioque controversy and possible links to ex-patriot Russians and Moscow as the Third Rome. Part of the story is here: https://trueorthodox.eu/king-martyr-st-edward/ Shtove (talk) 21:38, 3 March 2021 (UTC)
 * I see that there is no explanation in the source of why the amateur archaeologist's claim to have remains of Edward are accepted. The view of Edward is also very saccharine. He seems to have been a singularly unpleasant young man according to what I have read, much given to beating his servants. Dudley Miles (talk) 22:59, 3 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Alfred the Great is venerated on October 26th in the Orthodox Church, which I believe was included in the reference I provided. One can also quite easily come across Orthodox iconography of Alfred. I believe his canonization was at the same time as the many other Western saints recognition in the Orthodox Church by the Patriarch of Moscow and All Russia. http://orthodoxengland.org.uk/athlifea.htm https://orthochristian.com/91953.html SvoHljott (talk) 17:53, 10 March 2021 (UTC)
 * The first link you provide says "There are a number of reasons why Alfred has not yet been canonized." Dudley Miles (talk) 20:36, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 25 August 2020 and 14 October 2020. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): CJMcKenna98. Peer reviewers: Stewartjordan625.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 13:49, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

Dates for Alfred's epithet of 'The Great'
It says in this article Alfred was coined 'The Great' the 16th century, but I cannot find a source to back this up. S. Keynes seems to suggest it was first seen in Matthew Paris' work in the 1200s, suggesting it was a title given much earlier. (this information can be found in Keynes' 'the cult of King Alfred the Great') Could anyone provide a source for the claim that he was given it in the 16th century that is mentioned in the article? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Clemsw (talk • contribs) 15:05, 17 April 2022 (UTC)

"Aelfred cyning" listed at Redirects for discussion
An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect Aelfred cyning and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 September 7 until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. MB 02:35, 7 September 2022 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion: Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 19:41, 18 September 2022 (UTC)
 * AlfredtheGreatbyGeorgeSStuart.jpg

Great Heathen Army and historicity
The section on Viking invasions has Alfred fighting alongside his brother against the Great Heathen Army and is written as if it is established historical fact that the Army was led by the sons of Ragnar Lodbrok, including Ivar and Ubba. However, the main article on the Great Heathen Army states "Later legend has it that the force was led by three of the five sons of Ragnar Lodbrok, including Halfdan Ragnarsson, Ivar the Boneless and Ubba, but this has no credible basis in contemporary sources." Note that other related articles such as the Battle of Edington have similar issues.

Should these articles be reconciled to provide a consistent stance on the historicity or otherwise of the sons of Ragnar?

Czetie (talk) 12:15, 24 September 2022 (UTC)


 * The leadership by the three brothers is accepted in academic histories. Note c of the Great Heathen Army article says that it is Norse sagas about them that are considered legendary. I have corrected the misleading statement in the lead to the army article. Dudley Miles (talk) 13:17, 24 September 2022 (UTC)