Unit F965 - Historical Investigations
How Strong was Wessex at the death of Alfred in 899?

It is a commonly held belief that Alfred, the only English king to have ever been afforded the epithet “Great”, successfully strengthened the kingdom of Wessex by the end of his reign (871 to 899). Indeed, by expanding his kingdom to include the rump of Mercia Alfred became known as anglorum saxonum rex or King of the Anglo-Saxons and not merely Wessex whose kingdom he had strengthened by such expansion. Despite Alfred’s organization of the administration of his kingdom, his extensive military reforms such as the establishment of his Burghal System, and his attempts to secure the throne for his successors some historians argue that in fact Alfred’s successors were the true strengtheners of Wessex, covering his failures and shortcomings even suggesting that “Alfred owed much to his successors”. It is true that Wessex became stronger and more powerful in the years following Alfred’s death by encompassing East Anglia in 917 and the entirety of Mercia and some may credit this to Alfred’s successors. However, the systems of administration and defence that Alfred put in place through his reign were capitalised on by future monarchs and that Wessex was indeed left in a strong position at the death of Alfred in 899.

Some historians believe that Alfred’s Burghal System, described as “the most important element in his programme”, was integral in ensuring the strength and survival of his kingdom, with historians such as Abels remarking that the Burhs were “the single most important factor in the survival and future success of his dynasty”. Yet other historians have argued that in fact Alfred left Wessex in a weak position as his defensive reforms were incomplete at the time of his death. Indeed, DJV Fisher describes the successful Danes landing in 893 as a storming of “one of these forts which was occupied by a few peasants and only half built”. Fisher argues that this incomplete fortification was not exclusive to the mouth of the Lympne and that in fact the completion of the defence projects “was the work of… King Edward” Other historians have cited Alfred’s ordering of longships to be built twice the length of the Viking ships as another example of leaving his kingdom in a weak position as his ships were useless against Vikings in rivers as Viking ships has shallower hulls than Alfred’s”. Therefore, one could argue that Alfred left an inadequate and incomplete system of burhs and a poorly planned commission of longboats and as a result left Wessex in a militarily weak position at the time of his death.

However, it is difficult to accept completely this damning view of Alfred’s military reforms as it overlooks the scope and success of the burghal structure he put in place. Many historians note this organisation and effectiveness, indeed “no burh was more than 20 miles – a day’s march – from at least one other burh” and during Alfred’s reign “some thirty fortified centres of varying sizes were either built or refurbished”. Moreover, the burhs neutralised the Viking threat by taking “their major strategic advantages: surprise and mobility” away from them. As a result of Alfred’s integrated system of both creating a standing fyrd (army) and splitting it into two armies, verified in the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle for 893, the Vikings were unable to travel through Wessex quickly and stealthily without alerting a burh. It is little surprise, therefore, that the successful landing by the Danes in 893 is the example that Fisher cites in an attempt to undermine Alfred’s reforms as this was in fact the only success of note that the invaders had in attacking a burh. Equally, it would appear that Alfred’s naval reforms did more to strengthen Wessex than some historians would give him credit. Naval warfare and a naval presence was important at the time of Alfred’s reign and when he became king, there was no navy at all. However, as Hunter Blair points out, by 875 “Alfred’s own ships had been able to engage and rout a small force of Vikings at sea”. Indeed it would appear, as Alfred Smyth argues, that “the key to West Saxon success - and one for which Alfred himself must be given credit - lies in the effectiveness of West Saxon fortifications” and that therefore, in this most important area of military reform (as well as in establishing a naval presence), at Alfred’s death Wessex was strong.

It is perhaps from this extensive military reform, that another of Alfred’s successes that led to a strong Wessex came, namely the serious improvement of the administration of his kingdom. As Abels explains “to maintain thirty burhs, however, was a formidable task that required Alfred to develop a sophisticated and effective administrative system”. However, Alfred’s administrative improvements and reforms were not solely undertaken to run the burghal system, rather to improve the administration of his entire kingdom which often had other positive benefits. Perhaps the best example of this is the use of his carefully constructed law code in which he “selected that which was most just from the laws of Ine of Wessex, Offa of the Mercians and Ethelberht of Kent”. This inclusion of laws from the previous Kings of his various kingdoms he not only created a new set of laws but also a document which united his different subjects by appealing to their respective legal traditions. Despite some claims that Alfred’s legal codes and cultural renaissance were more intended as political propaganda than to better the lives of his subjects, it is important to note that for a strong kingdom, the control of a king’s subjects is imperative. Indeed, as Pollard notes, “Alfred had completely overhauled the defence and administration of his realm” and thus, one can confidently believe, left Wessex in a strong position at his death.

In spite of this extensive reform, some historians argue that whilst Alfred may have attempted to better his kingdom’s defences and administration, he did less to disestablish other claimants to the throne and thus left Wessex in a dynastically weak position. It is important to note that at Alfred’s death in 899, the Vikings still ruled large parts of the island such as East Anglia and that even in 909 when Alfred’s son and successor Edward sent his campaign to attack the Danes, it was “in their Northumbrian homes.” There is more evidence to support the presence of the unruly Vikings who did not abide by their agreed treaties when in 871 after Alfred had secured the Vikings departure from Wessex through a mercenary agreement, they returned just five years later in 876. Such threats remained right up until the end of Alfred’s reign, as in 899 Alfred was subject to a rebellion, led by Æthelwold. This shows, according to Sir Frank Stenton, “the instability of the peace which Alfred had made, and helps to explain the readiness with which the Northumbrians supported Æthelwold’s claim”. Therefore, perhaps it could be argued that despite the military and administrative reforms, Alfred’s expansion of his kingdom had led to accumulation of some disgruntled subjects and as a result, the King could be seen to have left Wessex in a vulnerable position at his death with his successor facing threats to the throne.

Indeed, as Christopher Brooke states “when Alfred died…his kingdom was still precarious”
However, to paint England as an island inhabited in part by a strong group of Vikings threatening the dynastic succession of the kingdom of Wessex in 899 is somewhat sensationalist. Despite the initial difficulties in removing the Vikings from Wessex that Alfred experienced in the 870s, by 893 he had successfully driven them out of Wessex. The Vikings were not nearly as formidable a force as the had been at the beginning of Alfred’s reign, a view supported by Paul Hill, who sates “the Danes in England were not the same mobile offensive force that they had been a generation or two ago,” and undoubtedly this was in part due to the extensive burghal reforms undertaken by Alfred that severely hampered the Viking armies. Moreover, it is perhaps easy to paint the Vikings as nefarious pillagers who Alfred could not control with treaties, yet the King managed successfully to make amends with Viking leaders such as Guthrum and Guthfrith, shown in their conversions to Christianity and baptisms following their defeat at the Battle of Edington in 878. Moreover, the Vikings settling in York shows that Alfred has successfully quelled their appetite to expand into his kingdom. This lack of threat is supported through numismatic studies that show that while the Vikings had no native coinage by “the late ninth century coins were struck in Danish-occupied England, some by English moneyers recruited to York” which shows a desire from the Vikings to work with the English and settle and establish themselves in York following their defeat rather than expanding and attempting to threaten Wessex. Finally, after unprecedented peace which Alfred had secured towards the end of his reign, the King in fact did all he could to minimise the success of Æthelwold’s rebellion, which he foresaw. Alfred ensured there was a loyal, useful and wise witan to advise Edward and looked to slowly prepare his son to be his successor. As Woodruff notes, “the Witan was well satisfied that Edward, in over ten years as his father’s lieutenant, had proved his worthiness to succeed”. Therefore it seems difficult to suggest that Alfred left Wessex facing grave threats to its dynastic succession. Instead, his military campaigns and reforms had quelled the majority of Vikings and his diplomacy had made friends of them. Moreover, his counseling of Edward ensured that any future rebellions would face a prepared king or as pollard remarked, Alfred gave “his son those vital tools with which to defeat this last claimant”.

It is a commonly held belief that Alfred inherited “a doomed kingdom,” yet by the time of his death in 899 “Wessex was more settled [and] more powerful.” Rather than claiming that Alfred’s legacy and place among the pantheon of English monarchs is the result of his successors victories and kingships, perhaps the credit for those successes should lie with Alfred himself. The military successes of Edward the Elder and Æthelstan in the years following Alfred’s rule are not merely as a result of their own skills as leaders, but rather they take the advantage of Alfred’s reforms and developments. The burghal system which effectively defended the realm, the combination of diplomacy and military victories that led to a largely quelled group Vikings and the galvanisation of his people under administrative documents such as his law code all made for a kingdom that his successors could more easily govern and defend. There is no doubt that the doomed kingdom that Alfred inherited was far from idyllic at the time of his death yet he had managed extensive reforms such that much of the threats the kingdom had faced were no longer present and subsequent dynastic success can be traced back in more than one way to such reforms. Alfred’s reign as King strengthened Wessex’s defenses, improved the administration of the kingdom itself, strengthened its dynastic succession and provided the framework for future monarchs to continue to better the kingdom. Therefore, there can be little doubt that Wessex was a stable, successful and most importantly strong kingdom at the death of Alfred in 899.

Bibliography

Abels, Richard. Alfred the Great: War, Kingship and Culture in Anglo-Saxon England. London, 1998
Keynes, Simon and Michael Lapidge. Alfred. Preface to Gregory’s Pastoral Care, Alfred the Great: Asser’s Life of King Alfred and other Contemporary Sources, London, 1983.
Bachrach, Bernard and Rutherford Aris. Military Technology and Garrison Observation: Some Observations on Anglo-Saxon Military Thinking in Light of Burghal Hidage. Technology and Culture 31, 1990, pg.1-17
Blair, John. The Anglo-Saxon Age: A Very Short Introduction. Oxford, 2000
Hill, Paul. The Age of Athelstan, Stroud, 2004

Loyn, Henry. The Vikings in Britain, Oxford, 1995

Merkle, Benjamin. The White Horse King: The Life of Alfred the Great, London, 2009
Pollard, Justin. Alfred the Great: the Man who made England, London, 2005

Stenton, F.M. Anglo-Saxon England. Oxford, 1943
Woodruff, Douglas. The Life and Times of Alfred the Great, London, 1974

--------------------------------------------
[ 1 ]. D.J.V Fisher, The Anglo- Saxon Age c.400- 1042 pp. 220-221.
[ 2 ]. J. Blair, The Anglo-Saxon Age – A Very Short Introduction, pg. 44.
[ 3 ]. R. Abels, Alfred the Great: War, Kingship and Culture in Anglo-Saxon England, pg.199.
[ 4 ]. D.J.V Fisher, The Anglo- Saxon Age c.400- 1042 pp. 220-221.
[ 5 ]. Ibid.
[ 6 ]. R. Abels: Alfred the Great War, Kingship and Culture in Anglo-Saxon England, London, pp.306-307
[ 7 ]. B. Bachrach and R. Aris, Military Technology and Garrison Organization: Some Observations on Anglo-Saxon Military Thinking in Light of the Burghal Hidage, pg.3.
[ 8 ]. Richard Abels, Alfred the Great: War, Kingship and Culture in Anglo-Saxon England, pg.201
[ 9 ]. Ibid, pg.196
[ 10 ]. P. Hunter Blair, An Introduction to Anglo-Saxon England pg. 73
[ 11 ]. A. P. Smyth, King Alfred the Great pg.135
[ 12 ]. R. Abels, Alfred the Great: War, Kingship and Culture in Anglo-Saxon England, pg. 204
[ 13 ]. H. R. Loyn, The Making of an English Nation. From the Anglo-Saxons to Edward I pg. 66
[ 14 ]. J. Pollard, Alfred the Great: the Man who made England, pg. 302
[ 15 ]. P. Hill, The Age of Athelstan, pg. 85
[ 16 ]. F. M. Stenton: ‘Æthelwerd’s Account of the Last Years of King Alfred’s Reign’ The English Historical Review 24 p84
[ 17 ]. C. Brooke: From Alfred to Henry III, pg. 32
[ 18 ]. P. Hill, The Age of Athelstan, pg. 81
[ 19 ]. H. Loyn: The Vikings in Britain pg. 45
[ 20 ]. D. Woodruff: The Life and Times of Alfred the Great p176
[ 21 ]. J. Pollard, Alfred the Great: the Man who made England, pg. 302
[ 22 ]. C. Brooke: From Alfred to Henry III p31
[ 23 ]. Ibid, p33