Talk:Treaty of Alfred and Guthrum

Comments
N.B. I think there's a problem with the dating of Alfred in London in 886. I'll do some more research into the matter. Harthacanute 14:28, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

When is a boundary not a boundary...?
Can someone explain what is meant by this: "The first point is the most famous. First concerning our boundaries: up on the Thames, and then up on the Lea, and along the Lea unto its source, then straight to Bedford, then up on the Ouse to Watling Street. This has been used by many as the boundary of the Danelaw. However, there is no mention of this, and it appears to be primarily a political boundary, perhaps created in the wake of Alfred's taking of London." It seems peculiarly redundant to suggest (as I understand it) that the boundaries set out in the treaty might not represent the boundary of the Danelaw, and then to observe that 'it appears to be primarily a political boundary'. It begs the question, 'When is a boundary not a boundary?' Nortonius (talk) 11:30, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

I must agree with you, a political border sounds weird, and it definatly isn't explained well in the article for why it is supposed and assumed as a "political border", the expllenation for this is - "perhaps created in the wake of Alfred taking London" - what does it supposed to mean? it would be much easier if the writer wouldn't save so much in word and explain a - little bit - more this thing.

In addition, the "coerl" is not explained well at all in the article and the following sentances after the cite, are completly make the reader go lost because it's not clear to what they refer to - as much I understood it refered to that - the coerl lives in his land is refered as a novel. There's no clear interpetation of the cites given and the following sentances refers to the cites as "it" when it's not clear what the word "it", refers to in the cite or in the following sentance after the cite. In other words - the article is not well-written and it makes it extremely hard for non-english native speakers to understand the text. These text should be written more simplified and, even if it requires two or three more sentances. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.69.168.95 (talk) 18:05, 30 November 2011 (UTC)