BREVARD COLLEGE

THE SCOURGE OF BRITANNIA – KING ALFRED’S DEFENSE AGAINST THE VIKINGS

A THESIS SUBMITTED TO

THE FACULTY OF THE DIVISION OF THE SOCIAL SCIENCES

IN CANDIDACY FOR THE DEGREE OF

BACHELOR’S IN HISTORY

DEPARTMENT OF HISTORY

BY

SHAUN POUR

BREVARD, NORTH CAROLINA

MAY 2015

1

In 871, King Alfred of Wessex’s war against the Vikings had ended in disaster. His

armies lay in ruins, morale had collapsed and he had suffered defeat after defeat in a disastrous

attempt to take the fight to his enemy. With his entire military campaign an absolute failure and

no way to continue the fight, Alfred’s only option was peace. He was able to sue for peace with

the Vikings who subsequently withdrew back into Mercia, a kingdom located to the north of

Wessex which was formerly ruled by Alfred’s brother in-law. This period of peace with the

Vikings did not last and Alfred was defeated and driven into exile within the marshes of

Somerset in 876. Alfred was eventually able to rally his men and lead a guerilla campaign

against the Vikings before he finally counterattacked against the Vikings at Edington where

Alfred defeated the Vikings and drove them out of Wessex for good. The treaty with the Viking

leader after the Battle of Edington gave King Alfred control of the western half of Mercia while

the Viking leader, Guthrum, retained control of eastern Mercia. Alfred’s victory was of great

importance because it ended any chance of establishing Viking dominance over England and

established Alfred as king of both Wessex and Mercia.

Who was King Alfred the Great to deserve such a title? How did he manage such a

herculean feat like the defeat of the Vikings? King Alfred was born in 849 A.D. At the time, he

was the youngest of five sons of King Aethelwulf of Wessex and, as a result, Alfred was

nowhere near being in line to inherit the throne. Then, over a period of time between 858 and

865, many of Alfred’s brothers died childless, which left only Alfred and his brother. Alfred’s

brother did have two children, which should have secured the line of succession and led to

Alfred being relegated to the background as a lord of some minor title. The arrival of the Vikings

in the British Isles in the middle of the 9th century would change all that. Alfred’s only surviving

brother, Aethelred, who was king at the time, died fighting the Vikings when his children were

still very young, and the nobles of Wessex decided that it would be a colossally bad idea for

them to crown a child as king during a time of war: they circumvented the traditional laws of

2

succession and crowned Alfred as the new king of Wessex instead of one of his nephews.1

Alfred fought the Vikings for almost a decade before finally defeating them at the Battle

of Edington in May of 878 A.D. Prior to engaging the Vikings at Edington, Alfred, and a few

retainers that were with him, fled to the marshes of Somerset where he and his men fought a

guerilla war against the Vikings before defeating them at Edington in 878. In 878, Guthrum was

the commander of the Viking forces that engaged Alfred in Wessex as well as being the overall

ruler of the Danelaw, which was the Viking realm in England. In 878, Guthrum desired to

conquer all of Wessex and add it to Danelaw. Any hope of successfully conquering Wessex was

crushed in 878 when Alfred and his men defeated Guthrum at the Battle of Edington, routing the

Viking army and forcing him to surrender and convert to Christianity which, ironically enough,

actually helped give Guthrum’s rule legitimacy in Christian Europe.

Is this battle, then, what makes Alfred, the “Great?” This investigation looks at the major

historiography of the Battle of Edington in order to answer this question about why Alfred was

successful when no other Anglo-Saxon ruler even came close. One of these views is expressed

by Asser, a Welsh priest whose view is that Alfred’s victory was the will of God. Although “the

will of God” is not typically accepted by historians as a single cause of any event’s success,

Asser is an important primary source about Alfred’s campaign against the Vikings. Asser

expresses this view in the book Asser’s Life of King Alfred.2 Asser is a Welsh priest whose view

of Alfred’s victory is that it was the will of God that Alfred was able to defeat the Vikings. While

Asser does concede that Alfred was a popular ruler and a skilled military commander, he

constantly goes back to the idea that the most relevant part of Alfred’s victory is that God willed

Alfred to be victorious against the Vikings. This viewpoint that Alfred’s victory was the will of

God is one of the prominent ones but hardly the only one. Another view is the one expressed by

1 Asser, The Life of King Alfred, (Cooper Square, 1966) 2 Alfred Smyth, King Alfred the Great, (London: Oxford University Press, 1995) 36.

3

historian Eleanor Duckett; that Alfred and his men were more inspired to fight since the Vikings

expected victory while Alfred and his men did not.

One of the secondary sources about Alfred the Great’s war with the Vikings is the book

called Alfred the Great – The King and His England, which was written by Eleanor Duckett.

Unlike the Welsh priest, Asser, who views the victory Alfred experienced over the Vikings as

some kind of miracle or the will of God, Duckett takes a more practical view. Her opinion is that

the most likely explanation for Alfred’s victory is that his men were more inspired to fight harder

and were more determined to win. After defeating the Vikings under their leader, Guthrum, the

Vikings fled to their fortress of Chippenham to try and escape Alfred. He forced them to

surrender by trapping them there. “For fourteen days Alfred and his men blockaded the Danes

encamped within its walls, until, starving, cold and hopeless of relief, they surrendered and

yielded hostages in surety of their word.”3 After Alfred defeated Guthrum’s army in the

field, they ran to their fortress, Chippenham, to try and force Alfred to leave them by virtue of

the fact that Alfred and his forces had no siege equipment to speak of. Needless to say, their plan

did not work.

Beyond simply the fact that Alfred’s men were more willing to fight, another

important thing is why he had men to call to war at all. At this point in the Battle of Edington,

Alfred was defeated by a surprise attack that forced him to flee, becoming a king with no

kingdom. Just before the planned battle at Edington, Alfred came to a location called Egbert’s

Stone where he assembled his forces, calling his subjects in the surrounding areas to rally to his

banner there. “At Egbert’s Stone, as Alfred had planned gathered on this day all men of Somerset

and of Wiltshire who could bear arms and many from Hampshire.”4 This meeting of

Alfred and his troops demonstrates one very important thing: despite his being driven into exile

3 Eleanor Duckett, Alfred the Great – The King and His England, (University of Chicago Press, 1956) 79.4 Duckett, 78.

4

within the marshes of Somerset in the southwest-central area of England by the Viking assault,

Alfred still retained the loyalty of his subjects who rallied to his banner when called to fight his

enemies. One of the reasons why Alfred’s subjects stayed loyal to him is that during his reign, he

confiscated land from the church for defensive purposes and gave that land to his subjects in

order to ensure their loyalty to him.

Some of the other reasons expressed by Duckett for Alfred’s victory against the Vikings

were that his people remained loyal to him, his men were more determined to fight, and they

were more inspired than the Vikings. The fact that Alfred’s people were willing to come when he

called was extremely important, mainly because it meant that he actually had an army to fight

against the Vikings. In addition to the determination and tenacity of Alfred and his men to win

no matter what, another idea is that one of Alfred’s more controversial decisions played into his

victory. That decision was Alfred’s choice to confiscate lands of the church in order to both build

defensive fortifications and give the land to his subjects in exchange for their loyalty.

Another of the sources regarding Alfred the Great and his war against the

Vikings from 871 to 886 C.E is an article “Monastic Lands and England’s

Defense in the Viking Age,” which was written by Robin Fleming in 1985. The primary

focus of this article is the Viking raids against English monasteries and how these

monasteries survived the Viking age.5 It also talks about certain kings, Alfred amongst

them, and specifically emphasizes their appropriation of church lands for the purpose of

redistributing them as suited his purpose. “After the death of King Aethelraed his brother

Alfred assumed power. He alienated the vill in which the monastery [of Abingdon] is

situated, . . . with all the appurtenances of the afore-mentioned minster, rendering to the

5 Robin Fleming, “Monastic Lands and England’s Defense in the Viking Age”, The English Historical Review No. CCCXCV, (April 1985) http://www.jstor.org/stable/568623?seq=1#page_scan_tab_contents [March 22, 2015]

5

Lord of victory an unjust injury for the victory which he had enjoyed.'6 Elsewhere in the

Abingdon account, Alfred is likened to Judas among the twelve apostles for taking church

lands.”7

The views of the monks in terms of what they think of these supposed

confiscations went back and forth a bit with some sections claiming this was done for

greed and want of land and others claiming that the monastic lands were being held in

trust to repair the lands after the damages done by the Vikings before either selling the

land back to the church or simply giving it to them. According to Fleming, the Vikings

repeatedly raided the monasteries of England for money and other valuables which they

carried off while killing anyone who got in their way. Their reason for attacking was

primarily to steal treasures and other valuables from them, rather than it being an

attempt to kill the residents for the sake of it and razing buildings to the ground.

The main reason given for the confiscation of these lands, according to Fleming’s

account, is that the king needed them for defensive purposes. At the time, the Vikings were

encroaching on the lands of Wessex and these lands were in areas where King Alfred needed to

place defenses. As a result, the lands were confiscated by the crown and used to build defensive

fortifications that were used to defend against future attacks by the Vikings.

Another important source about Alfred’s victory over the Vikings at Edington was an

article called “Alfred the Great Strikes Back” by Michael Carr which covers Alfred’s actions

against the Vikings after being repeatedly defeated by the Vikings in battle after battle. In 878,

King Alfred had been decisively defeated by the Vikings several times and has been driven into

exile in the marshes of Somerset. He was forced to resort to guerilla warfare in order to continue

fighting the Vikings in England.8 Alfred and other kings in both England and on mainland

6 A vill is an area of land, usually church owned property or the area surrounding a manor7 Robin Fleming, “Monastic Lands and England’s Defense in the Viking Age”8 Michael Carr, Alfred the Great Strikes Back, Military History Vol. 18 Issue 2, page 62, June 2001, (http://search.proquest.com/docview/212652338?pq-origsite=summon)

6

Europe, accepted peace with the Viking forces that had attacked and harassed them on many

occasions. Every time, however, the Vikings broke their peace and attacked again, frequently

driving the kings of Europe into exile after forcing these kings from their kingdoms. This was the

fate that was almost shared by King Alfred.

The fact that Alfred was able to defeat the Vikings is amazing in itself, but what is

even more astounding is that he emerged from his period of guerilla campaigns against

the Vikings and still retained the overwhelming support of his people. When he called for

soldiers to take the fight to the Vikings, his subjects came. When Alfred fought the Vikings at

Edington in 878, they were well equipped and confident to the point of arrogance after years of

experiencing victory after victory all across Britain and mainland Europe. Carr argues that

Alfred’s troops were more determined to fight because they had no reason to think that their

victory was guaranteed. Since they had first arrived in Britain, the Vikings had been an

unstoppable tide and nothing had stood in their way. Every enemy they faced and every king

they fought had been swept aside, and defeated with ease. Yet Alfred and his men were able to

win the initial battle against the Vikings and starve them into surrender at the fortress of

Chippenham.

There are a number of reasons why Alfred’s subjects may have remained loyal to

him. For one thing, he came from a long line of good kings who respected the law, did

not rob the church and were, overall, considered to be good rulers. Wessex was also a

stable kingdom, in comparison to the rest of England at the time.

Alfred followed his victory at Edington and the forced withdrawal of the Vikings

from Wessex with a large military construction project on the border with the Danelaw,

the Viking controlled area of England. Alfred built a long line of heavily fortified towns to

act as a defensive barrier that would assist in keeping the Vikings at bay when they

inevitably broke their treaty with Alfred. Carr also argues that King Alfred was successful

7

against the Vikings because he learned from the failures of his fellow kings in their wars against

the Vikings as well as his own failures and changed how he fought against the Vikings.9 Most

Anglo-Saxon kings fought the Vikings in lengthy pitched battles and massive direct engagements

which frequently, if not always, led to defeat for the Anglo-Saxon troops in question.

One extremely important factor regarding the outcome of Alfred’s campaign against the

Vikings is the weaponry of both sides. Despite the Vikings possessing a clear initial advantage

against the Anglo-Saxon armies of England, there is no evidence of either side having superior

weaponry. In almost every battle between Vikings and the Anglo Saxon forces opposing them,

the weapons being used by both side had virtually no impact on the outcome of the battle as their

weapons were equal in capability and neither side had an advantage due to weapons of a superior

material. Both sides made their weapons in a relatively similar manner which means that they

were technologically equal. The main factor in most battles that led to a Viking victory was

nothing to do with the weapons in use during the battle.

Another scholar of Alfred the Great, his life and his war against the Vikings, is Alfred P.

Smyth. This biography, called Alfred the Great covers a good deal more than simply Alfred’s

war with the Vikings as it also covers his rule as king after defeating the Vikings as well as the

period of his life before being crowned king (during the reign of his brothers). Smyth’s

justification for why Alfred won against the Vikings was the fact that Alfred’s people were loyal

to him and willing to fight for his cause when he asked and that his army was more determined

than the Vikings.10 After several years of battles in the British Isles where they had experienced

nothing but complete and utter victory against their enemies which made the Vikings expect their

victory, they had come to believe that they would always win and that their enemies posed no

threat to them. Contrary to this, Alfred and his men had no legitimate reason to believe they

would be able to defeat the Vikings and they had to fight hard in order to have even a small

9 Carr, Alfred the Great Strikes Back10 Smyth, 36.

8

chance at victory.

Smyth’s biography of Alfred the Great also describes Alfred’s guerilla warfare against

the Vikings as well as the tried Anglo-Saxon battle tactic against the Vikings, and how it always

failed to produce a victory. Between his defeat and the battle of Edington, Alfred fought the

Vikings repeatedly with guerilla warfare in order to do some kind of damage to his enemies and

attempt to contain them. “In the second war from 875 to 878, we find the Danes constantly on

the move, covering huge stretches of countryside, and constantly concluding bogus treaties with

Alfred, while constantly giving him and his army the slip. Alfred for his part, now also seemed

reluctant to risk a pitched battle, and although the initiative still clearly lay with the Danes, the

West Saxon army seems to have adopted the role of trying to contain the activities of the Danish

warband by shadowing their progress throughout Wessex. For a large invading force to survive

in hostile territory, it had to fragment into small foraging parties to live off the land. By

shadowing the main force of invaders with his own large army, Alfred hoped to prevent the

Danes from fanning out over the countryside in smaller groups.”11 This period of guerilla

warfare was a part of the reason for King Alfred’s victory but it was The Battle of Edington

which was the point when he showed that he had learned from his previous defeats at the hands

of the Vikings and had learned how to fight them.

Contrary to the tactics utilized by the typical Anglo-Saxon army during the war

against the Vikings, Alfred tended to avoid direct engagements and pitched battles

where they engaged the enemy directly on many different occasions. All of these

engagements between the Anglo-Saxon armies and the Vikings are almost always a

complete disaster. On nearly every occasion, these attempts ended in defeat for the

Anglo-Saxon troops. “The West Saxons, on the other hand, embarked on meeting the

first Danish threat head-on in a series of pitched battles and perhaps one frontal assault

11 Smyth, 67.

9

on Reading which for the most part badly wrong.”12 The next source is The Northern Conquest:

Vikings in Britain and Ireland by Katherine Holman whose stated opinion about the reason for

Alfred’s victories over the Vikings is that it was due to an internal schism within the Viking

ranks between Guthrum and Halfdan, the two Viking commanders in Britain.

Holman’s view is that the reason for Alfred’s victory is the result of a military

disagreement between Halfdan and Guthrum, the two leaders of the Viking army in England.

“The threat that the Vikings posed to England at this point can hardly be underestimated, but

luckily for Wessex - and indeed England - there seems to have been some kind of dispute within

the ranks of the Great Army. After spending the winter of 874 at Repton in Derbyshire, the

Viking army split into two: one half, under Halfdan, went north into Northumbria, where they

settled in 876; the other half, under its leader Guthrum, headed into Wessex.”13

This source is primarily a discussion of the Viking raids themselves as well as a discussion of a

previous trading relationship between England and Scandinavia prior to the beginning of the

Viking raids. The Viking raids in the British Isles started in the 790s with a series of raids on a

number of monasteries located in the coastal regions of Britain. After the success of their initial

raids on the British Isles, the Vikings began to ramp up their operations with more and more

attacks all across Britain. They hit everything from monasteries to rich towns, all of which were

located very close to a river or the sea which made it all too easy for the Vikings to attack

without warning.

“When did the Viking raids on the British Isles begin? Thanks to the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle and

the Annals of Ulster, this question seems quite easy to answer: during the 790s, when a series of

raids on the coastal monasteries of present-day England, Scotland and Ireland are recorded. The

monastery of Lindisfarne was looted in 793, the Annals of Ulster mention the ‘devastation of all

12 Smyth, 68.13 Katherine Holman, The Northern Conquest: Vikings in Britain and Ireland, Signal Books Ltd (October 29, 2007) Page 38

10

the islands of Britain by the gentiles’ in 794 and, in the following year, Iona, Skye, Rechru

(almost certainly Rathlin Island), Inismurray, Inisboffin, and St Patrick’s Island all suffered at

the hands of the Vikings.” 14

The Viking attacks on the British isles and Alfred’s claim to fame as the only

Anglo-Saxon ruler to challenge them might never have happened. There are a number of pieces

of evidence that point to a peaceful trading relationship between Britain and Scandinavia,

specifically Norway, for many years prior to the start of the Viking age. In addition to trade,

there was also some speculation about an agreement with certain rulers in the British Isles about

allowing Scandinavians to settle the costal islands around Britain. “One British expert, John

Hines, concludes that what changed with the attack on Lindisfarne was that the Vikings were

acting not only as traders, but also as raiders, signalling a shift in political relationships between

western Europe and Scandinavia. The Norwegian archaeologist, Bjørn Myhre, supports Hines’s

conclusions, pointing to the evidence for considerable trade between Norway and the British

Isles in the eighth century and, more tentatively, the possibility of Scandinavian settlement on the

islands around the coast of Britain at this early date”15

After the death of Alfred’s brother and the defeat of Mercia, there seems to have

been some kind of internal dispute amongst the Vikings as their Great Army split in two

under Halfdan and Guthrum. Guthrum headed south towards Wessex and would eventually be

defeated and made to convert to Christianity by Alfred at the Battle of Edington.

The threat that the Vikings posed to England at this point can hardly be underestimated, but

luckily for Wessex - and indeed England - there seems to have been some kind of dispute within

the ranks of the Great Army. After spending the winter of 874 at Repton in Derbyshire, the

Viking army split into two: one half, under Halfdan, went north into Northumbria, where they

settled in 876; the other half, under its leader Guthrum, headed into Wessex. Following a surprise

14 Holman, 2915 Holman, 31

11

attack on his residence at Chippenham in 878, Alfred and a small force took refuge from

continued Viking attacks in the marshes of Athelney, Somerset, where he built a fortification and

waged a guerrilla war.16

The primary reason expressed by Holman as a justification for Alfred’s victory is

that the schism in the Vikings forces between Halfdan and Guthrum divided the Vikings

forces and made it so that Alfred and the people of Wessex did not have to face the full

force of the Viking army as only half of it marched south to invade Wessex. This

reduction in force was fortunate for Wessex as the Vikings were smaller in number

which meant a greater chance of victory for Alfred and his men.

The sources about why King Alfred The Great was able to beat the Vikings vary between

religious, biographical, and tactical reasons. What seems to be in agreement is that King Alfred’s

victory against the Vikings was extremely unlikely and that the loyalty of Alfred’s subjects was

an important factor in his victory. Asser’s view an important one because his biography of King

Alfred was written during Alfred’s lifetime. Asser’s view is religious because Asser is a priest

serving in Alfred’s court after his war with the Vikings. Another view expressed about the

reasons for King Alfred’s victory is Duckett’s view that he and his men were far more inspired to

fight than the Vikings because they didn’t have any reason to think they would win. The main

primary source used by Duckett is Asser, although Duckett takes the information presented and

makes her own interpretation of the source since she does not follow Asser’s view that Alfred’s

victory was preordained by God. Fleming is another author whose view is that Alfred defeated

the Vikings because he confiscated land from the church to build defenses and reward his

subjects in exchange for their loyalty to him.

The view expressed by Carr is again different. Carr wrote the article, Alfred the Great

Strikes Back where he expresses the view that Alfred’s use of guerilla warfare against the

16 Holman, 28

12

Vikings was an important reason for his victory. Another significant view is that of Smyth and

his biography of Alfred called King Alfred The Great where he expresses the view that a change

in how Alfred fought in comparison to typical Anglo-Saxon kings was why he won. The most

important one of the sources used by Smyth is the Anglo Saxon Chronicle, a collection of Anglo-

Saxon historical records. Holman also expresses a different view in his book, The Northern

Conquest – Vikings in Britain and Ireland. Holman’s opinion is that Alfred’s victory was as a

result of a division within the ranks of the Viking army that split up their forces, resulting in

Alfred having to face a much smaller Viking army than he would have done otherwise. Holman

also discusses the fact that there was a trade relationship between the British Isles and

Scandinavia. The primary sources that Holman uses to this end are a number of precious objects

such as Viking coins and other such items which are used to prove the existence of substantial

trade between the two groups. In terms of Holman’s view of the reason for Alfred’s victory, the

main source used is the Anglo Saxon Chronicle, a collection of records of Anglo-Saxon history.

My opinion is that King Alfred’s victory over the Vikings was due to a combination of

several different factors. The reasons for Alfred’s victory are that his men were more inspired to

fight, his utilization of guerilla warfare and his willingness to learn from past mistakes made in

battles against the Vikings. There are also several other views expressed by the few other authors

which I either do not subscribe to or think are far less relevant. Personally, I do not find the view

that Alfred’s victory was preordained by God realistic in the slightest as it completely ignores

any military aspects and suggests that Alfred’s skills as a leader and warrior were completely

irrelevant as his victory was decided long before the Battle of Edington or the arrival of the

Vikings in Britain, regardless of how skilled or unskilled he was in warfare. The other view that I

don’t support is that his victory was due to confiscating church lands for defensive purposes.

While this was a part of why he won, I don’t think it was nearly as important as the other views

about why Alfred was able to defeat the Vikings.

13

King Alfred’s various different strategies against the Vikings are a very important part of

why he was able to defeat them, and I consider them to be the majority of why he won. Alfred’s

capacity to recognize that the typical strategy of engaging in a lengthy, pitched battle with the

Vikings was not working is very important because it allowed him to recognize that he needed a

different approach and that he needed to adapt his strategy and fight in a different way or he

would be defeated for good, just as his fellow Anglo-Saxon kings had been. If Alfred has simply

kept using the same old strategy that his fellow kings had tried, he would have lost because those

strategies, which mostly consisted of a direct battle with the Viking forces, had proven to be a

disaster many times already and had never defeated the Vikings in open battle. The other reason

that I think Alfred defeated the Vikings is that his men were more inspired and fought harder.

This is extremely important because the Viking and Anglo-Saxon armies were equal in terms of

equipment. Neither army’s equipment was superior in any way so the weapons and armor of one

side did not give them any advantage whatsoever over their enemies. The importance of Alfred’s

men being inspired to fight is because they had no reason to believe that they could win since the

Vikings were such an overwhelming force and Alfred’s men were going up against this force

with no reason to think that they had a guarantee of victory, unlike the Vikings who had won so

many battles before invading Wessex that they started to consider their victory as inevitable. In

the end, this study of the Battle of Edington shows an unlikely hero rising to a great military

challenge with enough charisma and tactical brilliance to defeat a colonizing army. And

wouldn’t this earn a man the title, “Great?”

Bibliography

Asser. 893. Life of King Alfred

Carr, Michael. June 2001. Alfred the Great Strikes Back. February 6, 2015

14

Duckett, Eleanor. October 15, 1958. Alfred the Great – The King and his England. University of Chicago Press

Fleming, Robin. April 1985. Monastic Lands and England’s Defense in the Viking Age. The English Historical Review No. CCCXCV. February 4, 2015

Holman, Katherine. October 2007. Signal Books Ltd. The Northern Conquest: Vikings in Britain and Ireland

Smyth. 1995. Alfred. King Alfred the Great. Oxford University Press

15