Talk:Alfred the Great

NPOV?

Quote from article; "then, four days later, Alfred won a brilliant victory at the Battle of Ashdown"

Quote from Battle of Ashdown page; "he battle was little more than a great clash of shield walls and resulted in a victory for Alfred. The battle, however, was not decisive. This was a pyrrhic victory, for a great many lives were lost on each side and the Danes were subsequently able to win several victories after receiving reinforcements."

I begin to wonder if the article isn't written by someone who rather likes this old king!

Toby Douglass (talk) 11:58, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Birthplace

"Alfred was born in the village of Wanating, now Wantage, Oxfordshire"

This is stated as a fact, but my understanding is that there is some doubt about it. Should we change this to "probably born in", or is it more certain than I'm thinking? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.165.23.169 (talk) 21:03, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Uncritical

The article is on the level of the Catholic Encyclopedia. Norman F, Cantor's assessment is that "he made no contribution to the growth of royal leadership in Anglo-Saxon society" and that though his successors recovered the Danelaw, "they were unable to stem the rise of lordship and the passage of real power in society to the earls and thanes who constituted the local nobility" (Civilization of the Middle Ages 166).

The blurb about being the only "Great" omits Cnut the Great, no doubt because he wasn't "really" king of England.

Nor was Alfred the Great, he was only King of Wessex, as the article makes clear. 78.146.168.192 (talk) 23:05, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia has moved on beyond this. Alfred the Great needs some editing to catch up. --Wetman (talk) 01:24, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

Cnut was known as "the Great" and so was William I but these epithets have not really lasted. Many of the Wessex kings had quite flattering cognomen. Edmund the Mganificent, Athelstan the Glorious, Edgar the Peaceful etc. Perhaps it is more accurate to say that Alfred IS the only king called "Great" but not "WAS"--Streona (talk) 11:11, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

Consul?

In the "Childhood" section, it says 'A letter of Leo IV shows that Alfred was made a "consul"' while he was in Rome. The article does not indicate what a consul is, or why it is given in inverted commas. Clicking on the link doesn't answer much either, eg. why would an Anglo-Saxon be given a Roman political office title (if that is what is meant by "consul" in this case), and why was the Pope handing out this title? Can anyone out there explain? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jaffui (talk • contribs) 08:06, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

A consulship in this period in the West was an honour handed out by the Pope. The Roman consul#Under the Empire article almost mentions this when it says that "the title of Roman consul was offered by the Pope to Charles Martel in 739", but doesn't go into details. The inauguration ceremony was impressive and was "more than once confused with regal ceremonial" (i.e. king-making or "coronation" if you like, although crowns weren't part of either sort of ceremony in this period) here. Angus McLellan (Talk) 08:39, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

Original research

This is one of many articles on pre-Norman England which contains a few vague citations, and lots of (what I suspect is) original research. The section on the Military seams to be an essay using sources rather than an encyclopedic article. I think articles like this need a serious clean up. see WP:Original research Matthewcgirling (talk) 10:19, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

Catholic?

I am very leery about calling Alfred a "Roman Catholic" monarch. It's true he lived in an era when the English church was still in union with Rome... but it was also in union with Constantinople - however we wouldn't call him an Eastern Orthodox monarch! It's my firm belief that people who died before the East-West Schism should be called "early Christians" - not Catholics. More importantly, does the literature refer to him as "Roman Catholic"? --Kevlar (talk • contribs) 01:16, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

Catholic or Christian would be fine. "early Christian" usually means before Constantine, i.e. before the church became the established church. I just usually don't bother much with the "religion" label in infoboxes, it's rather a silly field, honestly. Ealdgyth - Talk 01:24, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

I think you want Chalcedonian Christian since during this time there were still two seperate Christian churches with the Chalcedonian Christians and the Oriental Orthodoxy.--Queen Elizabeth II's Little Spy (talk) 18:23, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

Alfred I?

If Alfred was King of all England, then why isn't he labelled "Alfred I"? Some English kings have nicknames ("the Conqueror", "the Lionheart", etc.) but as long as they are King of all England, they are labelled with a Roman Numeral stating that they are the (number here) king named (name here). I've checked my books, and none of them call him "Alfred I". Does anyone know why? The Shadow-Fighter (talk) 18:59, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

Because he's the only Alfred. John of England is in the same position, as is Stephen of England and Anne of Great Britain. If there are no others that need to be distinguished from, he's just "Alfred". Ealdgyth - Talk 19:07, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

Also, regnal numbers in England began with William I of England (1066-1087); otherwise, Edward I of England (1202-1307) would have been Edward IV, because earlier on there had been Edward the Elder (899-924), Edward the Martyr (975-978) and Edward the Confessor (1042-1066). --Redrose64 (talk) 19:39, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

That's wierd, because my Kings and Queens of England and Scotland book had "Edmund I", "Edmund II (Ironside)", "Aethelred I", and "Aethelred II", and all those kings came before William the Conqueror (this message is in response to Redrose's comment). The Shadow-Fighter (talk) 19:05, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

Different historians name these four kings differently. I can lay hands on six books which style these four kings in up to four different ways (e.g. "Saint Ethelred", "Ethelred I", "Æthelred I", "Ethelred I (St Ethelred)") - and no two of the six books are in complete agreement.

The fact remains though, that there has only ever been one King Alfred of England, Great Britain or the United Kingdom (and, AFAICT, no King Alfred of Scotland or Ireland), so he does not need to be distinguished any further: the epithet "the Great" is itself redundant and is much more of an honour than a necessary identifier. See also regnal number. --Redrose64 (talk) 17:59, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

Health

"Alfred was troubled by health problems throughout his life"

And yet he lived 20 years longer than any of his brothers. I don't get that. Tad Lincoln (talk) 20:58, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

Potential copyright issues in section "Military reorganisation"

This edit and others from the same editor contain large chunks of text that appear to be under copyright from Early peoples of Britain and Ireland isbn 9781846450099 and others, though presumably with permission of its original author(s). Just to be on the safe side, maybe the section should undergo a solid rewrite with proper attributions so as to remove any cloud about compliance with CC-BY-SA and the GFD. I may find the time to do this myself over the next few days. Professor marginalia (talk) 00:27, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

Only English king called "The Great"

We also have Cnut the Great, though perhaps not English, just king of England. The reference/cite actually just goes to a line saying this. Needs sorting.--Mongreilf (talk) 01:42, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

"About a fifth of the law code is taken up by Alfred's introduction" - what kind of sentance is it?, maybe it would be better to write: About a fifth of the law code was presented on Alfred's introdution - you have to understand that these weird sentances are not familier to non-english speakers and since english is an oniversal language and many people read articles in english - the text should be written in a normal english rather then non-simplfied sentances like this - and there are many more unclear sentances in this article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.69.168.95 (talk) 11:36, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

Controversy over educational reforms

Recent work by Malcolm Godden, in 'Did King Alfred Write Anything?' (which I can anecdotally confirm is widely accepted by his fellow Oxford academics, and has thus far remained almost unchallenged) has questioned the notion that Alfred genuinely instigated anything like a systematic educational reform movement, or indeed any cultural project.

Although it's a very recent development (2007, I think) it certainly seems worth at least pointing out in the article that much that was taken for granted about Alfred's political life is now in question.

EDIT: Also, Charlemagne's attempts to 'revive learning' are equally fictitious. In fact, it was the debunking of that myth which prompted a similar movement amongst Alfredian scholars. Quite simply, the timescale in which Alfred supposedly worked on the books he is meant to have translated and prefaced don't add up. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.128.92.148 (talk) 16:38, 5 January 2012 (UTC)