The Lessons of Kingship: The Tale of Beowulf to King Alfred of Wessex

 

 

By Bryan Mooney

The concept of kingship and what it means has been explored for centuries. Historians must analyze contemporary sources to understand the qualities and traits of a good king in a certain time period and place. The combination of historical sources and an epic poem provides a special case for understanding the qualities of a good king according to the Anglo-Saxons. The poem Beowulf was written sometime between the eighth and eleventh centuries in Anglo-Saxon England, during a tumultuous time of Viking invasions. While it tells the story of Beowulf, a young Geatish warrior, and his heroic actions, it also spends many instances conveying what defines a good king. King Alfred was the king of Wessex in the late 9th century. Alfred’s career and reputation provide us with evidence of Anglo-Saxon ideals of kingship. Alfred of Wessex began his rule in the year 871 C.E., and long after his death he received the epitaph “The Great.” The Life of King Alfred and the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle are two sources that provide different perspectives and information on Alfred’s life. The Life of King Alfred is a narrative of Alfred’s childhood, rise to kingship, and part of his reign. This work was written during his reign by a Welsh monk named Asser, who was invited to Alfred’s court. The other main source of our information on Alfred is the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle, a set of annals chronicling the history of the Anglo-Saxon people. Unlike Asser’s work, the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle doesn’t focus primarily on Alfred, but it provides another perspective on Alfred’s actions and the years Asser misses. Did Beowulf and King Alfred’s admirers share similar views on kingship? Or is there evidence of divergent views and thoughts on how a king should act? A comparison between the ideals of kingship presented in Beowulf and King Alfred’s reputation is necessary. The views of kingship presented in Beowulf parallel the direct ideals Anglo-Saxons had for their kings. According to Beowulf, winning battles, giving out gifts to deserving people, protecting their subjects, and showing great bravery or strength are all qualities of a good king. These qualities attest to Alfred the Great’s reign as an effective and worthy king in the eyes of the Anglo-Saxons.

The author of Beowulf  and the exact time it was written is unknown. While there are theories about when exactly it was written down, all we know for certain is that an Anglo-Saxon wrote it in Old English. It is essential to directly examine what the qualities of a good king are in Beowulf. Our first mention of a good king is on the eleventh line, where the narrator exclaims that Scyld Scefing was a good king. Before the exclamation, Scyld is described as having “seized mead-benches from enemy troops” and “terrified enemies.”^[1] From these first lines, we can gather that being a successful warrior was an immediate criterion for a good king. Scyld’s seizure of mead-benches could point to the Scyldings treating the benches as war trophies, placing importance on the fact he was able to take them in the first place. The mead-benches may have served a double purpose, representing both military and political victories.

In Beowulf, Hrothgar’s actions reveal the characteristics of a good king. Hrothgar is a descendant of Scyld and eventually becomes the king of the Scyldings. He is the main king we see during the events of Beowulf. On line 130 Hrothgar is called a good king. This label makes Hrothgar’s actions and rise to kingship essential to understanding the qualities of a good king. Lines 64 to 85 give us insight into the actions of Hrothgar. In this section, Hrothgar is described as having won a battle, a similar trait he shares with his ancestor. Lines 80 and 81 shed light on Hrothgar’s actions and character:“ He broke no promises, but dealt out rings, treasures at his table.”^[2] Often in Beowulf we see the term “ring-giver.” The fact that Hrothgar gives out rings and treasures presents a king as a gift-giver, who provides riches for deserving men. Gift-giving was paramount to a king’s success because it incentivized their loyal men to follow and listen to them. This act showed a reward for serving a king well and it was a price a king had to pay.

Two qualities of a good king that Beowulf exhibits are bravery and the protection of his subjects. In the last few sections of Beowulf, the last good king in the poem is introduced, which is Beowulf. An analysis of  Beowulf’s actions in this section is useful for further understanding the qualities of a good king in the poem. finds himself king of the Geats after the deaths of Hygelac, his cousin, and Hygelac’s child. Beowulf demonstrates his courage throughout the poem. Two instances where Beowulf displayed his bravery were when he faced Grendel barehanded and fought a dragon. While his bravery is illustrated through his battles involving both humans and monsters, protecting one’s people was never directly stated as being a quality of a good king. However, Beowulf is called a guardian of his homeland, which implies that protecting one’s subjects is another quality of a good king. Beowulf’s kingship is often called into question by modern scholars because after his death the Geats were conquered by the Weders, the people north of the Geats. Before this eventual conquest, Beowulf had ruled peacefully for fifty years. Beowulf’s ability to stave off this event for fifty years demonstrates that a king’s duties include protecting his homeland and his people from external threats.

A king who possesses one or two good qualities is not a good king. The author of Beowulf makes it clear that having just one or two of these qualities does not make you a good king. The poet recounts the tale of two kings, Sigemund and Heremod. Sigemund is described as a hero, one who, like Beowulf, slays a dragon. The glaring difference between the two is that Sigemund is declared a bad king. Lines 904 to 913 describe Sigemund as having “black moods” and having “brought to his peoples a lifetime’s sorrow.”  On line 914, the poet outright says that Beowulf is “the dearer by far.”^[3] Heremod is not much different from Sigemund, as a man with great strength, yet he killed his own people in his own hall. The other grievous act Heremod neglected to do was to give gifts to those who proved themselves worthy.^[4]

Gift-giving was a prerequisite to becoming a good king. The act of gift-giving was so important to the cultures in Beowulf that it is unheard of for a bad king to be a gift-giver. The significance of the tales of Sigemund and Heremod is that both kings were presented as being brave and winning battles, but neither gained any title having to do with gift-giving. Throughout the entire poem, there is no instance of a king that is a gift-giver presented as cowardly or weak. This could indicate the importance of giving gifts and possibly suggest that this is the ultimate trait a king should have. Or this could just mean that the thought of having a weak king was so impossible to the cultures presented in Beowulf that there could never be a weak king in the first place. It’s as if there were an order of operations to becoming a king, where winning battles and being brave came first, then after one became a strong king, his next duty was to reward their thegns and men with gifts. Winning military battles and showing bravery are not enough to earn that title without the presence of the other qualities.

The Anglo-Saxon warrior culture can explain the significance of a good king’s qualities. Warrior cultures placed significance on their prowess in battles and war, which meant it was important for a good king to win battles and show their strength. The importance of a powerful warrior was not only supported by their writings and poetry, but also through their grave goods. A hoard was found in 1939 at Sutton Hoo that held the treasures of a wealthy Anglo-Saxon warrior. This hoard sheds light on what the Anglo-Saxons saw as important enough to transcend mortal life. The hoard consisted of a helmet, a sword pommel and other war ornaments (Figure 1). Based on the type of grave goods found at Sutton Hoo, the Anglo-Saxons deemed military items worthy of bringing with them into their life after death. The grave goods from Sutton confirm that the Anglo-Saxons placed importance on their victories.^[5]

 

King Alfred of Wessex was born in the year 849 C.E. in Wantage.^[6] His birthplace and year of birth are disputed, as the location of his birth is solely attributed to the Welsh monk Asser, author of the biography The Life of King Alfred.  Asser, who was invited to Alfred’s court, began writing The Life of King Alfred around 893 C.E. We can confidently place the start date of Asser’s writing as such because he mentions the current age of Alfred being 44 when speaking about Alfred’s health. Since Asser places Alfred’s birth at 849 C.E., 44 years later would place the current time at 893 C.E. Because Asser does not mention that the disease has left Alfred, we can safely assume that Alfred is still sick in his current day and proceed with our dating.

The Life of King Alfred is an essential resource for understanding Alfred’s life. The last date mentioned in The Life of King Alfred is 887 C.E., six years before Asser began writing and twelve years before the death of King Alfred as recorded in the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle. The reason for The Life of King Alfred ending at a seemingly random date is unknown, though there is one possibility for the abrupt ending. Only a single copy of the manuscript exists, meaning that this was most likely not a text that was being widely read. The abrupt end date could be due to The Life of King Alfred being a draft that was left unfinished. Asser mentioned he was granted land by Alfred, which comes with busy work. It is plausible that Asser became busy managing his own land and stopped writing The Life of King Alfred. Another possible explanation is that he slowly worked on The Life of King Alfred until his own death in 910 C.E. Whatever the case may be, Asser provides a firsthand account of Alfred’s early reign and actions as a king.

The Anglo-Saxon Chronicle is another significant primary source for understanding Alfred’s reign. Asser did not write about Alfred’s life during the years 887 C.E. and 901 C.E. To understand those last twelve years of Alfred’s life, we must rely on the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle. Unlike The Life of King Alfred, the author of the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle is unknown. However, it is often accepted that the work was written by multiple people and has multiple versions spanning from the first century to the twelfth. Simon Keynes places the timing of the section written on Alfred around the time he was alive. Keynes even claims the events recorded downplay the severity of the situation Alfred finds himself in after he is caught by a surprise Viking army attack on Chippenham.^[7]

Alfred was not expected to become king of Wessex. He was born the fifth son of the King of Wessex, Aethelwulf. Alfred did not expect to become king because he was the youngest in the line of succession. In fact, his eldest brother was appointed King of Kent 10 years prior to his birth, and three of his older brothers were consecutive kings of Wessex. Following the deaths of his brothers and father, he became the King of Wessex in the year 871 C.E. Now as king, Alfred would face the same trials his brothers had, and continue to fight for the survival of Wessex.

When Alfred became king, he found himself in a perilous time for the Anglo-Saxon kingdoms. Before Alfred’s rise to the throne,  a large army of Vikings, composed of various North Germanic people, came to conquer and settle all of Britain. After this invasion, most of the Anglo-Saxon kingdoms ceased to exist, and the ones that were still able to fight were all but subdued. In the time before Alfred became king, he and Aethelred, his elder brother, fought the Vikings in four battles at Reading, Ashdown, Basing, and Marden. Of those four aforementioned battles, the Anglo-Saxons had only won at the battle of Ashdown. After the defeat at Marden, Aethelred had died and left Alfred as King of Wessex. Alfred then faced the Viking army alone for a fifth engagement at a town called Wilton, where he also lost this battle.^[8]

Alfred’s victory at Ashdown displayed one of the traits of a good king presented in Beowulf. At this point, Alfred had lost a total of four of the five battles he was present at. Alfred’s victory at Ashdown showed his ability to win battles, which is a prerequisite to being considered a good king in Beowulf. However, the victory at Ashdown did not achieve much in the long term for the Anglo-Saxons, so I am hesitant to count this as a great victory. Alfred would have the chance to prove not only a victory in battle, but another quality needed to be a good king: bravery.

Alfred displayed his bravery in his escape to Somerset. In the year 878 C.E., Alfred was beset at his royal estate at Chippenham, where he was forced to flee to the marshlands of Somerset to the west with only a small host of men. Asser writes:“ He had nothing to live on except what he could forage by frequent raids, either secretly or openly, from the Vikings as well as from the Christians who had submitted to the Vikings’ authority.”^[9] This paints the dire situation Alfred was in. Instead of submitting to the invaders, Alfred continued to survive even when grossly outnumbered. Not long after Alfred’s escape, another large army led by the Vikings Ivar and Halfdan landed at Devon and faced Alfred’s thegns at a fort called Cynuit, where the thegns defeated the Vikings. From there, Alfred fortified himself in a village called Athelney and harassed the Viking army with constant raids. By mid-May, men from Somerset, Wiltshire, and Hampshire had joined up with Alfred. King Alfred then led all his men to face the Viking army led by Guthrum at Edington, where “he destroyed the Vikings with a great slaughter.”^[10] It is clear from this event that Alfred shows a strong sense of personal bravery following the fall of Chippenham and his subsequent time in Somerset. Alfred’s victory at Edington bolstered his position in Wessex and demonstrated that he was a worthy and good king. Following the battle of Edington, Alfred reclaimed all of Wessex, converted Guthrum to Christianity, and even gained some territory in Mercia, the Anglo-Saxon kingdom directly north of Wessex. Unlike Ashdown, Alfred capitalized on this victory and strengthened the position of Wessex, which deems this battle a great victory. Alfred goes on to defeat a small fleet of Vikings in 882 C.E. and then defeats the Viking Hastein at Benfleet in 884 C.E. These battles were more significant victories for Alfred. ^[11]

With the reclamation of Wessex and the acquisition of new territories came new wealth. Alfred had shown he would be the dominant power of the Anglo-Saxons and the King of Gwynedd, Anarawd ap Rhodri, had decided to come to an agreement with Alfred to forge an alliance. Asser recounted this meeting:“ And Anarawd ap Rhodri…eagerly seeking alliance with King Alfred, came to him in person; when he received with honor by the king and accepted his son in confirmation, at the hand of a bishop, and showered with extravagant gifts, he subjected himself with all his peoples to King Alfred’s lordship.”^[12] First, this meeting clearly illustrates an example of Alfred’s gift-giving. Secondly, Alfred gained overlordship of Gwynedd, a kingdom located in present day Wales. Similar to when Alfred influenced the Mercia kingdom with the marriage of his daughter to the Ealdorman Athelred, Alfred expanded the influence he held over his neighboring kingdoms.^[13]

Alfred’s gift-giving reinforced his authority as king. As mentioned earlier, Alfred also gifts Asser with land and two valuables. While land is not gold, silver or a ring, it certainly counts as a gift. Land is a gift that generates its own wealth, making it arguably the most valuable. Asser wrote in The Life of King Alfred:

 

I was summoned to him at the daybreak of Christmas Eve, and he presented me with two documents in which there was a lengthy list of everything which was in the two monasteries named Congresbury and Banwell in English. On that same day he granted those two monasteries to me, with all the things which were in them, as well as an extremely valuable silk cloak and a quantity of incense weighing as much as a stout man.^[14]

 

Based on the type of gifts Alfred had to offer, he was able to give gifts like this not only to Asser but also to  other members of his court. Since it is difficult to believe Alfred viewed Asser as his highest court member, it is reasonable to assume that Alfred would have most definitely granted gifts of land and treasures to his thegns and others in his court. This action solidified Alfred’s position as a gift-giver.

King Alfred also valued a system of defenses and fortifications. Burhs were created as a response to the aggression of the Vikings. A burh is a fortified settlement with the secondary function of minting coins. Robin Fleming highlighted the effectiveness of burhs as a source of power and control for the Kings of Wessex:“ Landholders had an obligation to help defend their kingdom by supplying the king with the resources they needed to build and maintain bridges and fortifications.”^[15] Alfred followed the Mercian kings’ pre-established law rule. As Fleming mentioned:“ By the early tenth century more than thirty burhs were in place.”^[16]King Alfred used the landowners’ resources to construct thirty burhs, some of which were built on top of pre-existing Roman fortifications and others from the ground up. The system of burhs Alfred created communicated his power and overlordship while also providing protection to his homeland and people. The protection of one’s homeland and the people they are meant to govern is another quality of a good king presented in Beowulf.

Alfred undoubtedly earned the title of “good king” as granted to many kings in the poem Beowulf. This attributed title is proven by Alfred’s survival of Chippenham and subsequent bravery at Somerset, victory at Edington, gifts of land and treasures to Asser and the King of Gwynedd, as well as the development of the burh system. Modern historians have been in a heated debate regarding the abilities of Alfred. Alfred. Since Asser’s The Life of King Alfred and the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle are the only contemporary sources for Alfred, historians have begun to doubt their veracity and the veracity of the events that surround him.

The Anglo-Saxon Chronicle downplayed Alfred’s situation after Chippenham. Simon Keynes observes that the severity of Alfred’s situation following the attack at Chippenham is downplayed by the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle. Keynes comments:“ What I find so striking about this account is not the way it allows the reader to believe that the situation was worse than it may actually have been, but the way it creates the impression that the situation was not as bad as it actually was.”^[17] In regards to the battles found in 871, the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle says:“ King Ethered and Alfred his brother led their main army to Reading, where they fought with the enemy; and there was much slaughter on either hand, Alderman Ethelwulf being among the slain; but the Danes kept possession of the field.”^[18] Although the Anglo-Saxons had lost the battle, it was considered an even fight. A slaughter’s presence on both sides implies that the Anglo-Saxons did considerable damage to the Viking army. This gives the sense that the fight was close, meaning there was no certainty that the Anglo-Saxons had lost so considerably they couldn’t fight again. The situation was clearly more dire than that and most apparent when Alfred is forced to flee to the marshes of Somerset. We know Alfred overcomes these losses based on The Life of King Alfred and the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle, which adds to the testament of his bravery and ability to win a great victory—both aforementioned criteria of a good king according to Beowulf. As Keynes puts:“ In the case of Alfred, it was the king’s own resourcefulness, courage, and determination that brought the West Saxons through the Viking invasions.”^[19]

Historians consider Alfred’s system of burhs as one of his greatest achievements. Although Alfred winning back the Kingdom of Wessex from the Viking invasions was significant, keeping those possessions safe was an entirely different challenge. Fleming noted the administrative skill of Alfred’s descendants:” Fortunately for his dynasty and for the men and women living in West-Saxon controlled territory, not only was Alfred a skilled ruler, but so, too, were his long lines of descendants.”^[20] The use of burhs is credited with much of Alfred’s ability to rule and exercise administrative powers, according to Fleming. These burhs also ended up being an area where legal disputes occurred and coins were minted. It is clear that kings were able to exercise great power from these fortified towns. The protection of one’s people is another prerequisite of being a good king, and the system of burhs greatly attributed to the people’s protection. Peter Blair mentioned that the success of the burhs was so great that “there was no major change in the general situation in England during the thirteen years of Alfred’s reign which remained after the occupation of London in 886.”^[21] Blair also stated that either of Alfred’s two accomplishments, his military victories or his literary achievements, would justify the opinion that future generations held of him. ^[[22] Both of Alfred’s great achievements undoubtedly displayed his status as a great king.

Alfred’s alleged ancestors may have legitimized his authority over his subjects. Craig Davis examines Beowulf’s dating and argues that based on a system of ethnic dating, Beowulf would have been written down around the 890s, exactly when Alfred was king. This ethnic dating system looked at the circumstances and reasons a group of people would write a poem like this down in the first place. In the beginning of The Life of King Alfred, Asser writes about Alfred’s lineage. It was not uncommon for Anglo-Saxons to write entire lists of ancestry, as seen often in Bede’s Ecclesiastical History of the English People. However, the interesting part of Alfred’s alleged ancestors is that three specific names stand out: Geat, Beaw and Sceldwa. Asser wrote:“… the son of Geat (whom the pagans worshiped for a long time as a god).”^[23] The Geats are the people of southern Sweden that Beowulf belongs to. Davis argues that Asser would naturally include Geat as an ancestor of Alfred as a way to legitimize him as ruler of both the Anglo-Saxons in England and the new incoming peoples that comprised the Viking invasion armies. The other two names that Asser listed are Beaw, who is written as the son of Sceldwa. These two names share similarities to the two names mentioned at the beginning of Beowulf, Scylding (the first good king mentioned) and his son, Beaw. By writing that Alfred was related to these good kings, it legitimizes Alfred’s rule over any territory that might host any of the peoples brought to settle in England by the Viking armies. To ensure people remembered Alfred’s ancestors and relatives, Davis argues that Beowulf may have been written down around the same time as a sort of early propaganda for Alfred.^[24] While Beowulf does not consider lineage to be a defining characteristic of a good king, it is interesting that Alfred’s lineage contains names that would almost certainly increase his approval among those he was supposed to govern.

Alfred Smyth is more critical of both Alfred and Asser. Although Asser’s work is the primary source used to understand Alfred, Smyth hammers into Asser for his work and even doubts the authenticity of Asser’s The Life of King Alfred. He claims that there are multiple instances where Asser’s biography makes no sense. Smyth doubts the authenticity of Alfred’s childhood and birth, claiming that the location of Alfred’s birth was unlikely because Wantage was not under Wessex control at the time of his birth and was certainly not a royal villa. He also claimed, “The Life of King Alfred shows us Alfred as the idealized Christian king. It is the portrait of Alfred Super-King.”^[25] Smyth writes most of his book on Asser and the validity of the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle rather than Alfred himself. However, Smyth does not try to conflict with Alfred’s most important victories, especially his victory at Edington. Despite Smyth attempting to discredit Alfred to look at him more objectively, he still states: “Not even the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle’s relentless silence and concealment of truth, which has done so much to obfuscate the record of his reign, can deprive him of the diplomatic achievement of 878 which made Alfred truly a great king.”^[26]

R.H.C. Davis examines Alfred in a similarly critical light. Davis argues that the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle is the only piece of Alfred’s reign that is recorded not by himself or someone in his direct court. Even then, there remains the argument that the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle is also a product of King Alfred’s own work. In regards to Asser’s The Life of King Alfred, Davis states:” It reads almost like the school report which every schoolboy would like to write about himself, and challenges us to re-examine where our information about Alfred really comes from.”^[27] However, Davis does admit these texts produced from propaganda are not necessarily a bad thing. He argues that this propaganda served as another way Alfred was able to maintain that protection of his people and even spread his benevolence in the splendid gifts he gave. The idea that a king has total control of his people resulted from the heavy romanticization of the medieval period. Ensuring one’s subjects followed their laws and orders required more than just telling people to do so. Alfred could not micromanage the entire kingdom and relied on his thegns, ealdormen, bishops, and reeves.^[28] Indoctrinating these members of his kingdom with loyalty to Alfred was vital to increasing the obedience of these men.^[29]

Whether a tactical employment of propaganda or an object telling of events, there is little doubt Alfred exhibited the four major qualities of a good king. Beowulf’s requirements for a good king were: displaying bravery, winning great victories, being a gift-giver, and providing protection to their subjects. Even if the events of Alfred were intentionally exaggerated or downplayed, Alfred certainly achieves this title for these aforementioned categories. Alfred demonstrated his bravery through his refusal to submit to Guthrum after most of Wessex had submitted to Guthrum. Alfred and his army won his greatest military battle at Edington. He also granted land and extravagant gifts to those who served him. Additionally, Alfred developed the system of burhs for the protection of his people. Alfred meets all of Beowulf’s criteria to be considered a good king.

The end of Beowulf reveals one major difference between King Alfred and Beowulf. After Beowulf dies in the poem, a woman grieves for him and fears that the Weders would come and conquer the Geats once they knew of Beowulf’s passing. Since Beowulf was written by an Anglo-Saxon looking at Scandinavian history, we know that the Geats do eventually cease to exist. Unlike Beowulf, who may have left an unsuitable heir that would threaten the future of his subjects, Alfred succeeded by leaving the throne to a suitable heir and his long line of descendants that historians deem skilled rulers.^[30] Alfred was not only deserving of the praise and title of good king, but as well as the epithet “The Great.”

                                                                                                                            Endnotes

^[1] Howell D. Chickering, Beowulf: A Dual-Language Edition (New York: Anchor Books, 2006), 49.

^[2] Chickering, Beowulf: A Dual-Language Edition, 53.

^[3] Chickering, Beowulf: A Dual-Language Edition, 101.

^[4] Chickering, Beowulf: A Dual-Language Edition, 147-148.

^[5] “Exhibition at Sutton Hoo,” National Trust (National Trust, June 1, 2015), https://www.nationaltrust.org.uk/sutton-hoo/features/exhibition-at-sutton-hoo.

^[6] John Asser,  Alfred the Great: Asser’s “Life of King Alfred” and the Other Contemporary Sources, trans. Simon Keynes and Michael Lapidge (London: Penguin Books, 2004), 67.

^[7] Simon Keynes, “A Tale of Two Kings: Alfred the Great and Æthelred the Unready,” Transactions of the Royal Historical Society 36 (1986): 195-217.

^[8]  The Anglo-Saxon Chronicle: Ninth-Century,  trans. James Ingram, Avalon Project, accessed April 19, 2022. https://avalon.law.yale.edu/medieval/ang09.asp.

^[9] Asser, Alfred the Great, 83.

^[10] Asser, Alfred the Great, 84.

^[11] The Anglo-Saxon Chronicle: Ninth-Century,  trans. James Ingram, Avalon Project, accessed April 19, 2022. https://avalon.law.yale.edu/medieval/ang09.asp.

^[12] Simon Keynes and Michael Lapidge, Alfred the Great, 96.

^[13] Peter Hunter Blair, An Introduction to Anglo-Saxon England (London: Cambridge University Press, 1959), 78.

^[14]Asser, Alfred the Great, 96.

^[15] Robin Fleming, Britain after Rome: The Fall and Rise, 400-1070 (London: Penguin Books, 2011), 271.

^[16] Fleming, Britain after Rome, 273.

^[17] Simon Keynes, “A Tale of Two Kings: Alfred the Great and Æthelred the Unready,” 198.

^[18]  The Anglo-Saxon Chronicle: Ninth-Century,  trans. James Ingram, Avalon Project, accessed April 19, 2022. https://avalon.law.yale.edu/medieval/ang09.asp.

^[19] Simon Keynes, “A Tale of Two Kings: Alfred the Great and Æthelred the Unready,” Transactions of the Royal Historical Society 36 (1986): 196.

^[20] Fleming, Britain after Rome, 269.

^[21] Blair, An Introduction to Anglo-Saxon England, 78.

^[22] Blair, An Introduction to Anglo-Saxon England, 80.

^[23] Asser, Alfred the Great, 67.

^[24] Craig R. Davis, “An Ethnic Dating of Beowulf,” Anglo-Saxon England 35 (2006): 111-129.

^[25] Alfred P. Smyth, King Alfred the Great (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1995), 150.

^[26] Alfred P. Smyth, King Alfred the Great, 98.

^[27] R. H. Davis, “Alfred the Great: Propaganda and Truth,” History 56, no. 187 (1971): 170.

^[28] Davis, “Alfred the Great: Propaganda and Truth,” 181.

^[29] Davis, “Alfred the Great: Propaganda and Truth,” 181.

^[30] Fleming, Britain after Rome, 269.