Ethandun

David Stokes

Draft Release 1.03 January 2001

Introduction

Prelude to war

Christmas at Chippenham

King Egbert’s Stone

Iley Oak

Battlesbury Hill

Ancient ditch on Salisbury Plain

Forces

Morale

Equipment

Tactics

Resources

Leaders

Battle

Evidence

Bratton Castle

The Treaty of Wedmore

Appendix

Bibliography

Introduction

On one fateful day in the month of May 878, the future of England and the Christian world as we know it was decided. On the wind swept Salisbury Plain an English militia could have easily succumbed to the onslaught of the Viking army. However they stood firm and advanced on their pagan foes, forcing them to surrender and give up their religious beliefs, in return for their lives and freedom. The result of the battle was achieved mainly through the talents of one great man, Alfred, King of Wessex.

Ethandun was the turning point in the fortunes of not just Wessex, but England and beyond. Wessex was the last remaining bastion of the Anglo-Saxon kingdoms not under Viking control. It had been ravished by constant Viking incursions, and it was only a matter of time before the Danes (the collective name for the Vikings even though they did not all come from Denmark), decided upon conquest of what was considered the premier kingdom of England. The invasion had begun at Christmas with a lightening strike on Alfred’s Royal court at Chippenham, as he celebrated the Christian festival. Caught completely off guard he was forced to flee with his loyal bodyguard, the Housecarls to the marshes of Somerset where he began his gorilla activity. From there he raised a Militia army and marched on the Dane’s position. Guthrum’s spies were waiting, and the entire Danish army marched to meet Alfred’s force in the hope they could destroy it before it could organize itself. The Viking king was too late and decided to take up a defensive position along an old ancient ditch on Salisbury plain. There Alfred advanced upon the Pagan horde. The bloody clash ended in the routing of the Vikings. The defeated invaders regrouped at an ancient earthwork castle in Bratton, and held out for two weeks before surrendering through thirst and fatigue, with no water supply being available to them. Guthrum and his senior men accepted conversion to Christianity, a first in the Viking world, and eventually withdrew his men for good from Wessex, following the treaty of Wedmore. Although it took a hundred years to get a united “kingdom” of England, the treaty of Wedmore laid the main foundation stone for the country’s unification.

Think for a moment, what if the Vikings had won that day resulting in the death of Alfred. Besides the loss of all the social aspects such as law, literacy, and military advances such as a navy, and the Burh defensive system. More importantly England would have been a pagan nation. The battle of 1066 would not have happened, and think of World War I and II without the English, not to mention countries seeded from England such as America and Australia. The world would be a very different place.

So how do we know all this information? Well the truth is we don’t, but as with so much of history we can draw on circumstantial evidence and formulate a best guess. The first major evidence is the written accounts of what happened at Ethandun (modern day Edington) from Bishop Asser and the Anglo-Saxon Chronicles. The accuracy of the two accounts has to be questioned, but as they are the only written accounts, we have to place some faith in them. If we don’t believe the Bayeux tapestry, where does that leave us in regard to the battle of Hastings? What we have to bear in mind is that the victors, who in their own right often attempt to glorify their exploits such as the Bayeux tapestry, wrote the records. Next the written word a thousand years ago was not as progressed as today, and the accounts tend to be written in a story-like fashion rather than from a historical and factual perspective. The records we now have available to us are possibly copies of the originals, which could contain errors during the copying process. Finally it was almost certainly the case that the scribes writing the accounts were not at Ethandun. If that’s not bad enough translating the documents from Latin has a tendency to get the experts arguing on the interpretation of the text. The main account goes something like:

“878. In this year, at Midwinter, after Twelfth night, the army stole itself away to Chippenham, and harried the West Saxons' land, and settled there, and drove many of the people over sea, and of the remainder the greater portion they harried, and the people submitted to them, save the king, Alfred, and he, with a little band, withdrew to the woods and moor-fastnesses. And in the same winter the brother of Inwar and Halfdene was in Wessex, in Devonshire, with twenty-three ships, and he was there slain, and with him eight hundred and forty men of his force. And there was the standard taken which they call the Raven. And the Easter after, Alfred, with a little band, wrought a fortress at Athelney, and from that work warred on the army, with that portion of the men of Somerset that was nearest. Then in the seventh week after Easter he rode to Egbert's stone, on the east of Selwood, and there came to meet him all the Somersetshire men, and the Wiltshire men, and that part of Hampshire which remained of it on this side of the sea; and they rejoiced to see him; after, he went from the camp to Aeglea (Illey Oak), and one night after that to Ethandun (Edington), and there fought against all the army, and put it to flight, and rode after it, as far as the works, and there at fourteen nights. And then the army gave him hostages with great oaths that they would depart from his kingdom; and also promised him that their king would receive baptism; and that they so fulfilled; and three weeks after, King Guthrum came to him, with thirty of the men who were most honorable in the army, at Aller, which is opposite to Athelney; and the king received him there at baptism; and his chrism-loosing was at Wedmore; and he was twelve nights with the king; and he largely gifted him and his companions with money.”

I grew up as a child at Bratton under the hills of Salisbury plan. We would play near the legendary “Blood Stone”. Tales had it that it was stained red, from the Danish blood as it was used to behead all of Alfred’s Viking prisoners. Anyone who walked backwards around it a dozen times at midnight would summon the devil, or die. Of course nowadays I know you’d fall over and break your neck doing that in the dark! It was not until I moved away from Wiltshire that I began to look into my family tree. The trial led me to the famous Mrs Jean Morrison of Bratton. In casual conversation about my ancestors it became apparent there was more evidence (even if only circumstantial) about the battle of Ethandun not in the public domain. I was determined to do everything I could to correlate all the information I could and hopefully aid in uncovering some more of the truth. King Alfred, one of our greatest ever rulers deserves a little bit more respect than a 2.7 metre statue next to a bunch of cars in Winchester city centre.

Now twenty years on, I, like most adults enjoy being a child at heart. Any quest involving hacking you’re way through dense undergrowth of stinging nettles, and hap hazardly jumping across streams and ditches certainly appeals to me. It’s a strange feeling though sitting in some desolate wood or open plain miles away from any human activity only to snap away with the camera. I can only guess at the hours spent pouring over Ordnance survey maps, or trolling through library archives, not to mention the number of immediate in-laws I have involved under false pretences. Above all these wonderful experiences the aura of standing in the same location as Alfred the Great, feels me with humbleness. With hindsight he would have known his zenith was upon him, but even for a man of such courage, training, and nobleness, I can emphasize with feelings of foreboding that he must have felt without the safety net of the Geneva Convention.

There have been many books written on King Alfred, which is not surprising for someone who did so much to point us in the direction of today’s civilization. The aim of this book is to concentrate on the Battle of Ethandun and the events immediately surrounding it, both in terms of time and geography. Where possible I’ve tried to combine my research with a view of consensus based on the known details and published literature to date, but there are bound to be some inaccuracies and controversial statements, so I apologise in advance. If after reading the book you are stimulated enough to want the truth to come out, then this book will have been a success. Although very little physically remains from the time of Alfred, there is still enough information for us to conclusively prove the facts of what did and did not take place in Wessex over a thousand years ago. The book attempts to attach tangible physical locations with Alfred, to bring Alfred out of the theoretical, and make people aware that Alfred’s travels are littered all over 21st century Wiltshire. For all the facts to come out a great deal of money and time would need to be invested into the project, but let us hope that when that day does come there is enough left of the possible sites to enable conclusive evidence to be found. This is certainly true when look at the continuing changes being made on Salisbury plain.

One final passing shot for the critics. The book is written by someone with no academic archaeological or historical talents. The writing is based on the experiences of hunting out this great event in our history. Where clinical analysis is lacking, passion should suffice, where artifacts are missing, imagination should reign, but if you are looking for the enthusiasm and energy of a Time Team dig, rather than a university lecture, then read on. The story of Ethandun is like a jigsaw. We know where the corner pieces go, and the edges aren’t too difficult to fit, however the insides can fit a number of ways, and it’s not until we see the “bigger picture”, that we will know if the pieces truly fit.

Although there is a full listing of the reference material in the appendices, I would especially like to give thanks to several people who greatly aided my research.

Jamie Stokes and Kevin Button, brother and cousin aided with research in Wiltshire, and backed me up when hiking it across the fields of Wessex with a camera, and map, looking like a complete twit. David Stokes of Yeovil for getting me started of the Family Tree at the age of seven. John Peddie, now sadly deceased, wrote probably the most informative books on the subject to date. Mrs Jean Morrison, for her time and highlighting the facts surrounding Ethandun that were not readily in the Public Domain. Mentions also for R Brown of Fairwood, the Longleat Estate, and all the staff at Trowbridge Reference Library and Archaeological Department for their patience. The biggest thanks must go to my wife Debbie who has wholly facilitated the writing of their book, and also my parents Mary and John Stokes whom I’m very proud off.

Prelude to war

The year was around 876. East Anglia belonged to the Vikings, while Mercia had also toppled over the edge into Danish hands. Cumbria and the mighty Mercia had belonged to the invaders since 874. London had been within the Danish empire since 871, and it was destined to stay that way for at least a dozen years more. Meanwhile Wessex, the jewel in the crown of the kingdoms of England was the last remaining Anglo-Saxon kingdom not wobbling by the marauding infidel. Although Wessex was a strong kingdom, it had spent a lot time expending energy in squabbles with its fellow Anglo-Saxon neighbors. By geographical luck, Wessex was the hardest kingdom to reach for the Vikings. Had it had been located in the north of England; it would have been one of the first kingdoms to fall into Viking hands. Wessex had been at war with the Vikings before, but somehow had managed to either defeat them or pay them off with money known as Danegold. This tactic had worked and the marauders had left Wessex pretty much in tact, all be it a great deal poorer. Eventually the time would come when the next Viking onslaught would arrive with the main aim being conquest rather than raiding. The Danes had sworn time and time again never to enter the Kingdom of Wessex, but they did. Each time brought warring incidents as at the battle of Wilton, or Danegold buy offs for the marauders to leave. The prize of the richest kingdom in England was eventually to prove too much for the young and tempestuous Guthrum.

This did not all happen immediately. A fair body of the Vikings were fed up of fighting and raiding and argued that they should settle down, taking advantage of the fertile English lands. Guthrum did not carry this view, and challenged for further conquest. The decision was split, which meant the break up of the so-called “Great Army”, which had marauded the whole of Western Europe for so long. With the remains of the “Great Army” Guthrum marched on Poole, Dorset to meet up with his Ships. Alfred met with Guthrum who sued for peace. Accepting a good quantity of Danegold, Guthrum swore peace and agreed to leave Wessex altogether with his ships. Alfred happy with these assurances headed back north, with his army disbanded to continue their daily jobs of feeding their families.

The peace and promises were short lived as Guthrum’s army headed stealthily for the fortress of Exeter. Although fortified it was destined to fall to the raiders, who then fortified it in prelude to a counter-attack from Alfred. Guthrum was relying upon was his reinforcements from the sea. The plan was that his fleet would sail around the coast and join up at Exeter, in time for them to take on Alfred when he arrived. Alfred had taken the bait and rushed to the aid of his people. One can only imagine the rage he felt at being swindled once more by the Danes. Although it may have been naive to let the Vikings go at all (rules of engagement were much different then, and allowing enemy prisoners off the battlefield was certainly optional), Alfred’s God was smiling upon him and revenge would soon be his.

As Guthrum’s fleet steadily made their way down to the rendezvous point, it was caught in a severe gale off Swanage. It is understood that 120 ships were lost, with the death toll ranging from hundreds into thousands. Assuming the ships were fully laden with troops perhaps 5000 souls perished in the storm. This was a major blow to Guthrum who had been relying upon them for his occupation of Exeter. Upon the arrival of Alfred, Guthrum realising his weak position agreed terms favorable with the King. Guthrum took an oath to leave Wessex, probably for Essex before the harvest. At this point the Vikings were allowed to leave and headed in the direction of Gloucestshire, with a shadowing Wessex army in tow.

Viking movements leading up to the full invasion

Christmas at Chippenham

Christmas was a religious time for the Christian Anglo-Saxons. On approximately the twelfth day of Christmas, or the 6^th of January, the Vikings launched a massive and decisive surprise attack on Alfred, who was celebrating the festivities at Chippenham. With nothing but his royal retainers, resistance was futile, and he, with he close band of followers, was lucky to survive the attack. With only the Huscarls or royal bodyguard, the civilized withdrawal must have been viewed as much more like a rout from a desperate king.

It was a naïve move to chase Guthrum all the way to Gloucestershire only to gamble on having limited resources at a known Christian festival time. Rather than a desperate move the attack from Guthrum was probably more a calculated risk to take control of Wessex. Knowing that the Fyrd would be disbanded for the festival, the move was a cunning action, all be it not in the true etiquette rules of warfare. The attack achieved more than Guthrum could have possibly hoped for. Wessex was left in Chaos. Alfred was routed, and to most of his subjects assumed to be dead. The kingdom belonged to the Danes. The lords that did not run overseas or with Alfred submitted to the will of the Invading overlords. For the Danes this was a perfect tool to control the Kingdom. Control the Barons and they controlled Wessex. In isolation none of them had the power to challenge the new hierarchy and without news if whether their king lived there was general confusion as to what their next step forward should be. It would appear that the lords were not immediately stripped of the power and lands, so it may be they wanted to employ a wait and see policy as to how generous or cruel their new masters would be.

Alfred was believed to have headed across the vale of Pewsey via Melksham to his royal estate of Bratton. Whether the Danes were in tow looking for him is not clear. They would almost certainly want to see the removal of such a threat for good, but chasing a King through his own land does have certain risks. Over the next hill a waiting Fyrd could be ready to ambush the chasing foes. From Bratton, a lonely trip across Salisbury Plain would have delivered Alfred into the Deverill valley, and safety at another Royal Estate in Kingston Deverill. A hot meal and fresh water, with a safe roof to hide under would have given the King all he needed to escape the clutches of the Pagan scouts. The effect of the previous few days would certainly be having their toll on his physical and mental condition. He would have been cold, wet, and hungry from the trip across the rough Salisbury Plain. He and his troops must have been demorilised and in deep shock. Alfred may well have felt guilty for what was left behind. Almost certainly he would have felt he should have stayed fought to the death. That would have seemed the honorable thing to do, for the protection of his subjects was down to him. A tactic such as this would have been folly in the circumstances. Numerically the Vikings had such an overwhelming force (over a thousand, but probably about four thousand) there was zero chance of the Saxons prevailing on that day unless a lucky blow downed the enemy leader. From the trackway south the Monarch and his small band of followers would have hit the Hardway or Harroway, and then traveled west into the safety of Selwood. It is believed from here he ended up in the Somerset marches, and the base for his Gorilla attacks on the island of Athelney. The enemy may have followed him through the Deverills but they would have stopped at the mighty forest of Selwood. Just as its was a dangerous trip for the Sheriff of Nottingham to venture into Sherwood, so it would have been equally so for Guthrum during the 9^th century.

The view from Bratton Castle & the White Horse across the Vale of Pewsey to Chippenham

For the twenty-nine year old king things must have come as quite a shock. It was not a surprise to him that the Vikings were in control of Wessex, but more of the manner in which they had managed it. Up until now the Anglo-Saxons had managed in as peaceful a way as possible to contain the infidel, either via Danegold or via assertive action to rid themselves of the Viking hoard. Following the loss of Guthrum's fleet, perhaps Alfred had been drawn into thinking the Viking “Great Army” was no longer a threat to his Kingdom. If this was the case, then he has wrong, and wrong in a big way. Alfred was the fourth and last son of King Ethelwulf, and without him Wessex was effectively without leadership from the ruling bloodline. With the King MIA, morale was sapped, and the Saxons succumbed readily to the Viking will.

While most of the Fyrd forces remained loyal to Alfred, all be it dormantly, the Hampshire contingent was registered as fleeing to France in large numbers. With Winchester in Hampshire being the capital of Wessex, it was logical to believe that the Vikings would come to pillage the City. The leader routed also, and was replaced by Wulfred, for he showed all the qualities that were required at this time to repel the Viking overlords. Even though Alfred was missing, hope remained, although in the short term survival remained paramount, both in terms of living with their Vikings hosts and planting the new crops, coupled with lambing the sheep. The people knew that their parasitic hosts would take away a fair proportion of the hard grown food, but if they were to stay then that fact had to be accepted. The Vikings were certainly not going to be planting their own crops!

Much has been written about the experiences of Alfred while in the marches at Athelney. From his safe watery hideout he began gorilla expeditions against the Danish invaders with great success. Even though he had great self-belief, a number of authors have suggested that he experienced a supernatural event during this time in order to turn the tide against the Vikings. For me religious belief would almost certainly be enough to convince him to turn and face the enemy, as we see so often even in today’s world. Alfred could have broken out within weeks but for the fact that his levy army was not available until the crops were planted and the lambing season had commenced successfully. Conversely, the war would need to be over so the men of the Army could return and help harvest their crops. Victory would mean nothing without the food to feed the people of Wessex. No matter how motivated an army, they would not rally to his call until the troops own family’s welfare was taken care off. The date for the fortification of the Isle of Athelney was about the 23^rd March 878.

One important factor that occurred during the exodus of Alfred was the successful defence by his Devonshire contingents against an infiltration of Viking marauders. Both the brothers of Ivar and Halfdan were killed in the attack, together with about 840 men according to the chronicles. The Raven Banner was captured during the combat that took place between the sides. Odin’s Bird Of Battle emblem was used to swear sacred oaths over. Nothing physical would have been more sacred to a Viking commander that his Raven banner or War Eagle. Maybe this was the catalyst for Alfred to come out of hiding and face his demons! Alfred must have been delighted when he heard the news. The fact that fellow Anglo-Saxons, with or without a king were prepared to fight meant that his subjects much closer to home would be willing to bear arms against their common foe.

It was also at about this time that the infamous burning the cakes incident took place. It is understood that while hiding at a house, Alfred was asked to look over several cakes that were being prepared over the fire. With a pre-occupied mind, he forgot all about the cakes, which ended up being very badly burnt. The lady of the house scolded the disguised king for his negligence. The problem with these type stories is that they lack true factual basis, even though the fact that the tales have survived for so long must indicate some foundation of the true events. The original story dates back to the chronicles of St Neot from the 10^th or 12^th Centuries. The only reason this tale is so popular is a publishing mistake from the first edition of Asser’s life of Alfred published in the 16^th century.

Once the lambing had commenced and the crops had been planted, Alfred co-ordinated his return. He sent messages to a number of his shires to meet with their Fyrd at Egbert’s stone in the seventh week after Easter. At this point there must have been some trepidation from the shires. Was the King alive? Was it a trap from the Vikings to expose the gorillas? The facts is that something existing between Alfred and his troops, which enabled them to have enough trust in him to raise their troops and meet him at Egbert’s stone.

This must have taken a great deal of courage in an age where communications were very basic. Alfred in his own right must have been at least nervous. A twenty-nine year old had lost his sacred kingdom to a mighty infidel that had already conquered his allies’ kingdoms in England. His life right now was not great, but going back and gaining anything else but victory would result in his death. Sacrifice at the hands of the Vikings in battle would have seemed a luxury compared to what would happen if he was double crossed and captured alive. The Viking tortures were apparently notorious (how vicious they were compared to their adversaries is now being questioned), and a slow and painful death would have been his fate. As with the legendary Arthur, Alfred seemed to have some form of common kin with his kingdom, i.e. He and the land was one. His courage at that junction in the future of Wessex and England was commendable and a forerunner of the Churchill Bulldog spirit demonstrated in World War II.

A number of people have suggested that something supernatural happened to Alfred during his stay at Athelney, which enabled him to turn the apparently hopeless situation around. Looking at Alfred’s military and strategic record up until that point it’s difficult to understand the apparent faith that everyone had in him, and everyone’s willingness to follow him to a seeminglesly suicidal battle with the Danes. I personally think that no such incident took place. Perhaps he had time to “find himself” and have a good long think about the situation and come up with the best way forward, but I would think a story book description on the events in the chronicles would have at least given reference to a supernatural incident, especially as it would have almost certainly been a religious one. Again we have to look at the situation the general populous were faced with. Domination and control by a foreign power that had different ethics, religion, and attitudes to the Anglo-Saxons. The people were willing to risk life and limb to rid them of the infidel; they just needed a central figure to coordinate the resistance, as the number of able bodied men out-numbered the Vikings by a least a factor of ten. Alfred was the perfect figurehead. I’m sure the earldoms already knew his character, and warmed to his charisma. He was brave, cool, and logical by all records known of him before and after the battle with the Vikings. There is a question mark of his arrogance and tempestuousness, but I’m sure most would relise the affect of his humiliating defeat at Christmas would have a positive affect on some of his character flaws. There appears to be no obvious alternatives to Alfred in terms of resistance. There were no more brothers of Alfred who could take over, as all his elder brothers were dead, and probably only the earldoms offered an alternative. For someone as wise as Alfred, he should have ensured that these leaders were loyal to him, which they appeared all to be with the exception of the Hampshire earldom, who fled to France following the invasion for what would be deemed today as political asylum. He was soon replaced by Wulfred, who seemed a much more trustworthy choice.

There is one other major explanation of the events. As the written accounts come from Alfred closest friend Asser, perhaps some of his bad points have been avoided. Perhaps from the very beginning Alfred was an arrogant, immature and an incapable fellow. Perhaps he just wanted to be a priest and wanted nothing to do with fighting and warring. If this was the case, by the time he died, he was a truly great king, so maybe it was the humbling experience of the Athelney marshes that changed his personality. This would certainly explain a number of things, such as the lateness for learning to read, and so many concerns when the army met up at Egbert’s stone. Even if Alfred had acted naively and got himself into a dangerous position, it is difficult to believe that he was greatly disliked. The chronicle specifically states that everyone was overjoyed to see him, realising that the invaders had not killed him. Again perhaps having an arrogant king was much better than relying on the whim of the Viking foreigners. There is more than one possible chain of events, but Alfred in my view was a much better and respected King when he left the marshes than when he arrived. He was the one person who was going to make a difference, and his fellow Anglo-Saxons knew that fact all too well.

King Egbert’s Stone

“Then in the seventh week after Easter he rode to Egbert's (ecgbrihtes stan) stone, on the east of Selwood, and there came to meet him all the Somersetshire men, and the Wiltshire men, and that part of Hampshire which remained of it on this side of the sea; and they rejoiced to see him”

St Augustine’s Cross in Kent, marking the site of landing by St. Augustine in AD 597.

During the days of the 4^th to the 7^th of May 878, which was the seventh week after Easter according to the chronicles, the Fyrds from the different shires met at the moot point of Egbert’s stone. The day could well have marked a celebration day such as May Day. When trying to organise the amalgamation of three large groups of troops, the instructions would have been simple and easy to understand. Any misinterpretation of the plans could have been catastrophic for the end result of the battle. The chronicles state that the men were overjoyed to see him. This is not difficult to understand. His fate after the lighting strike from the Vikings was unknown, and until they saw his face they could not be sure of the rumours, bearing in mind the communication or lack of it during those days. From the history we know of Alfred, the men would have been happy to see their charismatic leader again. With him their belief in a final victory would have been high. His ability to not only survive with minimal forces, but to mount gorilla action would have demonstrated to the troops his commitment to evicted out their Viking invaders.

It is not known when the Vikings found out about the army being formed. Perhaps they knew the meeting was going to take place at Egbert’s stone. Even if they did, there is no guarantee that they knew where the stone was located. The organisers of the meeting should have been very careful with the information, and although the Vikings would probably have guessed something was happening, the exact details probably remained a mystery until their spies sited a large forming army just east of the legendary wood of Selwood. Even in the 9^th century both sides would still have employed spies. Because the Anglo-Saxons were “playing at home”, their job would have been much easier, although with every occupation there would always be local collaborators who would have passed information to their Pagan overlords.

Even in Alfred’s day King Egbert was famous for his victories against the Vikings, and more particularly against the fellow Anglo-Saxon states, such as Mercia. To celebrate his victories over the Cornish in 815/825 he had a stone erected (named after him) to celebrate his great wins over the enemy. This location was well known generally. It should have been as Asser in his book on Alfred, together with the Chronicles fall to give any details about it’s location, as if it’s so well known an explanation its not required. In the same way we always refer to London as the “City”, similar assumptions probably also occurred in the dark ages.

From Athelney the route to the meeting point at Egbert’s stone would look straight forward enough. Speed was probably more important that stealth, as even if the enemy scouts located his moving army, their communication line was certainly no faster than a horse so Alfred would have days still to prepare rather than today, where a simple cable call could result in a ariel attack in minutes. Once he left Athelney, he would have probably gone via Langport, then onto Castle Cary, which still stands today. Continuing along through Kingsettle hill, then Long Lane and finally onto Willoughby hedge, which today the A303 is located.

The route described above is what was known as the “Harroway” or “Hardway”, which was an ancient road built by the Romans. The Hardway, which Alfred would probably have traveled on, comes out of Selwood at the location where Alfred’s Tower is located today. The Hardway is one of the classical routes that has been retained in history, like the Fossway for example. The road stretches from Avon to Kent, and was certainly in use during the time when the Romans attacked Cadbury Castle in the 2^nd Century. The route has in fact one of the villages named after the trackway.

The road along the Harroway through Penselwood ©Crown Copyright

The true size of Selwood in the 9^th century is not actually known. One method is to look at the ordnance survey map of the dark ages and see what they believe to be the boundary. In Alfred’s day Selwood would have probably taken up the whole of the Frome valley, ranging from North Avon south to the Dorset border and the marches of Cranborne chase. Even in those days fifty or sixty miles of wood was a lot of trees. When the Anglo-Saxons first came to England their infiltration into the country was hampered by “sallow wood”, which is what it is also known as. In the late 500s they were already at the border of the woods following their victory in 577 at Deorham, north of Bath. However, until the battle of Penselwood in 685 AD they were unable to penetrate the wood and conquer Somerset and Devon. By this time it could be argued that the Anglo-Saxons were all but totally integrated into the society and culture of the land their had come to. The key for the Anglo-Saxons was that they didn’t see the woods as some mythical place wrought with dangers and giant creatures waiting to gobble them up (excluding the giant bears that roamed the land). The local Britons thought otherwise about the woods, and even the Romans didn’t venture into them, preferring to cultivate the more fertile lowlands to great affect. Selwood today is fragmented into numerous small segments such as the Longleat estate, and although not totally eradicated by modern expansion, it is a former shadow of itself both in size and content.

Penselwood (Sealwudu) according to FM Stenton’s Algo Saxon England

One of the many questions to be answered was why waste the effort and meet up so far away from the enemy. This one can be answered easily, organisation. Great leaders such as Napoleon always insisted on organising his troops away from the battlefield, rather than get caught in disarray as they went into battle. Working out the battle tactics would have taken some considerable time, and even once this had been decided, the individual Fyrd leaders would have to go back and explain the plan to his subordinates and troops. Without the organisational phase the army would have been a rabble. Any army caught in this state could easily be routed. Physically maneuvering several thousand people can be a logistical nightmare even today. From a disorganized state, it could take several hours to position everyone on the battlefield. Everyone would have needed to know their place. That’s not to say each soldier knew his exact location, but all the men from his village (or whatever unit structure they fought in) knew where it sat in relation to the other units. In it’s simplest form the army of each shire knew which flank they would take and what would be the main aim of the battle. Not knowing the exact geography of the land didn’t always help, but on this particular day of Ethandun Alfred would have been familiar with approximate geography of the plains. The position on the organizing so far away from the Danes indicated intelligence on the part of Alfred and the other leaders. They were safe from the Vikings for several days, as even if the enemy scouts spotting them, it would take time to cover the 30 odd miles and bring back an army suitable for attacking Alfred’s force. With the events of the previous few months, there was no doubt politics had to be covered also. What had happened to Alfred during and after the initial Viking attack? What tactical information was there? How did his sabotage escapades turn out? Were their questions of competence and a vote of no confidence (which surely would have been drawn up in today’s society, even if just my the minority)? Was everyone’s heart in it, and above all what were Alfred’s plans both short and long term.

Alfred was 29; there were several thousand immediate lives in his hands, and the future of Anglo-Saxon England also. Was he nervous? You bet! The physical repercussions of failure in the up and coming battle with the infidel were all too obvious. A quick death if he was lucky, and based on a lot of un-substantiated claims his life would have been ended via torture and mutilation. Whether he thought more about his own death, than that of his subjects is probably irelevant as loss of the King or the battle was catastrophic. Based of the evidence from the Battle of Ashdown where his courage is typified by describing him as a “Wild Boar”, this gives us no indication of how he felt before hand. With the adrenalin running fear can be often overcome but in the cold light of day the realisation of death must have been all too real. He could have downed his sword, and walked away preferring to live safely for the rest of his days, all be it as a lowly peasant. Here his regal properties must have stopped him from doing that, preferring not to shirk the responsibilities he took on from the oaths he made during his coronation.

What is all too clear from the description in the chronicles the statement, “and they rejoiced to see him” summed up the morale of the men. Alfred’s charisma must have been substantial to retain so much confidence from his men, even after such the crushing blow of Chippenham. Maybe it was because there was no one else for the men to believe in, and they all knew they were fighting for their lives and own way of life. My opinion is that was not the case. Alfred was the best and rightful man for the job. The fact that the men were so pleased to see him, must have been a major plus for the leader, who must have had a few negative thoughts on his journey back to the heart of his kingdom. Would they still want him as leader? Was it a trap to betray him to the Vikings? If they had lost confidence in him, how many would actually turn up to help? The truth be told there was complete confidence in him, and secondly Wessex was maybe not in as much disarray as the chronicles had indicated. Perhaps the Vikings didn’t have free reign to do as they pleased after all, or not unless they went around in big numbers. The exaggeration in the chronicles and biography by Asser could well over-play the plight Alfred and Wessex at this stage in order in proceedings, to make the battle and end result even more impressive that it already was. I believe the true situation was that Wessex had a large marauding and hostile army in its boundaries, and with no effective government or organized resistance chaos reigned. People had not lost faith in Alfred, for they knew that things took time and could not be rushed. There was no point in January of marching on the Vikings before lambing and planting the crops, as they would starve even if they won the battle.

So have we got any closer to establishing where Egbert’s stone was, or still is? The chronicle tells us that the stone was east of Selwood. We are fairly happy that Selwood extended at least as far east as Penselwood and Zeals on the Wiltshire and Somerset border. In fact on John Speede’s 1610 Maps of Wiltshire and Somerset, Penselwood is actually called Pen. The “SelWood” is not added until later. It seems hardly possible that woods would be expanding in those days of massive Ship Building programs that required hundreds of Oak trees for each Vessel. Therefore we must assume Pen is renamed to Selwood on the basis that Pen is part of the woods. It would seem highly illogical to go any further east of a position due south of Chippenham, Ethandun, and the main ridgeway tracks leading north. Bearing in mind also that the three contingents that made up the army came from north, southeast, and west of Egbert’s stone, why go any further east that you have to, as it’s just making the journey longer for everyone else. One argument may come from the Hampshire brigade arriving from a very northern part of their county. Assuming that most of the Hampshire contingent had already fled, it would be that small contingent going the extra mile to meet up with the rest of the army. The next question to answer is how far south would Egbert’s stone have been. According to chronicles from Egbert’s stone where they stayed the night, they moved onto Iley Oak for the next evening and then met at Ethandun the following day. Armies can walk 15 or 20 miles in a day, but without the need for haste 15 on the first day would have been fine, and on the morning of a battle no more than 5 miles would be expected, if his men were still to be in first class shape. Therefore the location would not be more than about 25 miles to the south of Ethandun (Edington) by track, even less as the crow flies. For me the furthest south they would have gone is limited by two factors. Firstly they would have strayed very far away from the Hardway, and secondly I seriously doubt they would have entered into Dorset, as the Dorsetshire men were not aiding him directly in the battle. This effectively means not further south than Zeals or Mere. It would be hard to imagine thousands of men in an army marching cross-country when a road was available.

With all the counties that made up Wessex, why of all people would the Dorset people not be involved? Could that have bottled it and lost faith in Alfred? Had there been a monumental falling out between the Earldom of Dorset and the King? Probably not. As seen the year before One of Guthrum’s main arteries of attack came from Poole harbour, and Alfred probably kept the Dorsetshire men at “home” in order to guard against reinforcements arriving and causing Alfred and his men to get caught in a pincer movement. From the escapades of the Brave Devon folk several months before it was obvious that Guthrum was planning some form of concerted invasion attempt, rather than just somewhere to shack up for the winter months. Again the Devonshire people were left at home to guard against invasion. Having the luxury of leaving a fair proportion of the troops behind could have implied that he thought he was going to win easy. Perhaps the enemies weren’t as numerous or as much in control as the chronicles lead us to believe, or even that the threat of invasion was so great that Alfred was keen on protecting his flanks at all costs. Even after Guthrum was defeated another Viking army arrived at Fulham ready to pillage the land, so leaving Dorset behind looks to have been a prudent move. Perhaps the knowledge of this additional army was already known, and that Alfred needed men in reserve to rebuke the reinforcements when they decided to push out from their beachhead.

As far as we know Egbert’s stone receives no other mention in history. Either the stone is insignificant and trivial, or the location and reason of it was so well known that no explanation or description of it was every needed. I am more inclined to believe the latter. Egbert was a great King, certainly the most successful between his reign and Alfred’s, and as we have mentioned above the stone was a celebration of history over the Cornish. When building monuments, they are always placed in locations where people can easily find and see them. This usually involves placing them next to a track or road. There would be no point in building a celebratory erection, if no one could find it. The stone would make an obvious calling point for his army, as it would remind them of the courage their ancestors, and especially as Alfred would have looked up and admired such closely related royal blood that had achieved so much in battle. The stone was even probably a moot or meeting place for the common folk around doing their business, or even as a meeting place for the hundreds, which was the ancient equivalent for the county council town hall meetings. One bad omen would have been that Vikings had defeated Egbert himself, although not to the extent of losing his Kingdom or fighting on the scale that Alfred was encountering.

Assuming an army of several thousand men lets think for a moment about the logistics of supporting that amount of men, even for several days. An average human being needs several thousand calories a day to survive. Active men would require even more energy to keep up their strength. Based on John Peddie’s numbers in “Alfred the good soldier”, and Bernard S Bachrach’s “Some observations on the Military administration of the Norman conquest”, the requirements for each man per day was:

- 4 Pounds of unmilled wheat grain

- 1 Gallon of fresh water

This assumes that each man eat something cold and simple each day, which is hardly the stuff to inspire troops. When tallied up this equates to half a cartload a day per 1000 men, so assuming a typical army of 4000 men, two cartloads of food would need to be found daily. These were not the days of charity where food was easy to come by! At least thought Alfred’s forces were deemed to be the friendly foe, but they would not be given food by the locals if it meant them starving. In those days it was often the case of stealing from your own people to stay alive. Who is going to argue with an army of young, strong, and heavily equipment men! The Vikings could only probably find food only by marauding and robbery. Horses, if in the army would eat up to 8 times the quantity of a human, and pose an equally greater hygiene risk to the troops. With average ages in the 30s, Ill health and Disease could and would affect everyone in the army including Alfred, who suffered badly from ailments throughout his life. It is said that one of his worst bouts of Illness came on his wedding night. Was Alfred susceptible to stress? And if so on the nights leading up the battle would be also be suffering physically from the worry? Although the actual form of his problem is never actually identified it was believed to be haemeroids. Not critical by today’s standards, but a serious affliction 1100 years ago.

Assuming there was not a McDonalds at hand to supply the troops daily, would it be possible to forage the supplies from the land and surrounding area. There are certainly areas where food would have been pretty plentiful, or where the local population could and would have helped out. In terms of shelter, there is obviously plenty of protection from Selwood, but assuming Alfred had Horses (all be it baggage animals), would heavily wooded areas be ideal? I doubt whether the weather would be that bad in English spring to drive the troops for cover. Water on the other hand is a necessity for us all, and going without it leads to death in only three days, compared to food, which is nearer 30 days. Valleys with little streams, such as Six Wells Bottom near Alfred’s Tower at Stourhead would have been ideal. Probably above all else the location would need to offer a fair degree of security from surprise or massed attack. Dense woodland, or in the valley bottoms could offer to high a risk compared to the luxuries they could offer.

Alfred’s Tower

King Alfred’s Tower at Stourhead

Alfred’s tower as a location is certainly one of the front-runners for the site of the rallying of Alfred’s troops. From the photographs it is all too clear the view commanded of the surrounding territories. Nearby water and Shelter at Six Wells Bottom would be available, where on the modern Ordnance survey map a fort is marked. The site is on the Hardway, so a logical location to meet and place the infamous stone. Henry Hoare of Stourhead was certainly convinced enough in the 1760s to have the tower built. The view from the tower on a clear day extends over tens of miles. The brick tower in itself is no trivial construction being over 60 metres tall and being of a solid and robust nature. There are also minor tracks from here that lead straight to the speculated site of Illey Oak at Crockerton, which was Alfred’s camp the following night after stopping at Egbert’s Stone. Hoare maintained personally that the actual location where Alfred raised his standard was where the tower was positioned, although Egbert’s stone itself was in the Deverills at Brixton?

Geographical location of Alfred’s Tower near Stourhead Gardens ©Crown Copyright

View from Alfred’s tower looking back at the Harroway
By the précis account in the chronicles I’m inclined to agree with Hoare that the main meeting place of the army could well have been a slightly different location from where Egbert’s stone was located. I would imagine the leaders went on ahead and met him at Egbert’s stone initially, before they all moved on and joined up with the other shire brigades. One of the few question marks over this location is that even today the area is heavily wooded, and in Alfred’s day would have been at least on the edge of Selwood. Therefore it does not match one of the primary criteria that Egbert’s stone was east of the Selwood. Having said that the explanation several sentences ago could exonerate that questioning clause, by agreeing that although the location where the present tower is located is on the edge of Selwood, Brixton was clear of the woods and hence east of it. One other point to note from Hoare’s findings is that an ancient track goes directly from here tot he alleged camping site for Alfred’s army the following night at Illey Oak near Warminster.

In C Cochrane’s “The Lost Roads of Wessex”, the author argues that the Hardway goes through the location of Alfred’s tower, only to head off Northeast at Kilmington Common straight to Southeigh woods, the location of Iley Oak, where Alfred’s army rested the following night. This being the case, the argument for Willoughby hedge recedes, as it would mean a detour from the main road to meet the other armies. In defence of Willoughby hedge, a track does still lead off in along the trackway most people believe to be the true trackway, which means either way the infrastructure was there to make both scenarios feasible. The case for Willoughby Hedge will be argued further on in the chapter.

Impressive views are afforded from Alfred’s Tower on a clear day

The Border Stone at Penselwood

The boundary border stone of Wiltshire, Dorset, and Somerset

Even today on the boundary of Wiltshire, Dorset, and Somerset stands an impressive granite border stone. Could this be Egbert’s stone? Firstly it’s not very large at under 3ft. Having said that the stone itself looks to have a piece missing. Secondly stones on parish or county boundaries are not uncommon. Markers have been in place for literally thousands of years, and although a number of the stones were removed during the reign of Queen Elizabeth I, many still remain today. Size isn’t everything. Comparing a 3-foot stone to one of the Stonehenge Saracen stone monoliths makes it look puny. The achievement of Stonehenge though is recognised throughout the world as impressive. A 3-foot stone would weigh in access of a ton, and would require great effort and skill to move it. The area is not dead flat remember. Still it would be better to place the stone in a valley such as this one, than up 700 foot above sea level where Willoughby hedge is.

On the Ordnance survey marked at position 773312, what most locals call Combe Street; you can see the position of the stone. The stone is on private land, belonging to the Bull Pit golf club. Behind the stone is a very strange looking mound, which I could only describe as puzzling. It looks man made, and its origins could be innocent enough. However the romantic side of me would like to think that Egbert’s stone, a 12foot Saracen granite stone was planted right on the top of that hill in the past. The realist in me knows this is not true.

The mysterious mound. Note the boundary stone behind the branches on the left

This location does have several arguments going for it. It does have a water supply; it does give good accessibility, and conversely good concealment from prying eyes. Obviously this place would have been known, as the Pen Pits relate back to pre-roman times. On the downside, I question whether the angle of the valley devoid of more trees than is here now could adequately support an army of 4000 men. If they were caught strung out in the bottom of the valley, the results could have been very bad for Alfred’s army. However even now the views around are simply stunning, so I can only dream that it would have been a majestic place for Alfred and the leaders of the Fyrd armies to meet.

Many books state that the original stone is long gone and only a simple boundary stone remains. This implies that somehow someone knows when and where the original actually stood. This concept is based mostly on hypothesis, although it almost certainly correct. Another argument is that the stone was moved from here to further up in the Deverills?

In Smith’s 1804 county atlas a bound stone is marked on, although on P269 of the book it states that it’s in the middle of a factory pond. There is a factory, and a pond at this location within a hundred yards of the border. I don’t know the age of the factory, or the extent of the factory pond in 1804. It’s possible that the location of the current stone, being only perhaps 7 or 8 feet above the current stream, which feeds the pond, could have been submerged by a higher water level. Perhaps even now the real stone is located at the bottom of the present pond. Analysis could be done to ascertain this, but the owners of the Golf course don’t see very interested in helping out, which is obviously a sorry state of affairs, when trying to get to the bottom of the problem. Understanding their thoughts on the matter though is important. They run a golf course. Do they really want hordes of Archaeologists clambering over their prestigious greens!

Could Egbert’s stone lay hidden beneath the surface of this pond?

In the “Highways and Byways of Wiltshire”, it describes Penselwood as being the southern terminal of the great wood of Selwood, and that almost within living memory stood a shire stone called Egbert’s stone. Could this have been before the factory, hence the reason the stone disappeared under the water. Or could it all be just another old wife’s tale. I’d like to believe that all tales are based on some element of truth.

One thing we do know is that Penselwood gets its name from Pen, plus “Selwood”. The Pen pits sit nearby, while the actual village has had Selwood appended to the end of its name. This implies that when the village was name at least it was part of the forest. In the same way that the Roman Harroway or Hardway has a village called Hardway on it’s route, some place names go back a very long way. Depending on when the naming of Penselwood took place, it does seem to indicate that Penselwood is in fact part of the forest, and not in any way to the east of it. Does this again exclude this location from Egbert’s meeting place? Could the chronicle text have been mis-interpreted? Could it have actually meant to say, “Then in the seventh week after Easter he rode to Egbert's (ecgbrihtes stan) stone, then east of Selwood, there came to meet him all the Somersetshire men …”? Could he first have traveled to the stone, perhaps just for luck or to meet the leaders, and then gone on to meet up east of Selwood at perhaps Willoughby hedge?

The green chalk rock geology at Penselwood ©Crown Copyright

Pen pits are located right next to Penselwood and the boundary itself. They are described in the ordnance survey map as an Ancient quern quarry of unknown age. Quern stones were used to grind corn. Just the type to build monolithic stones out of, such as granite? But just as we raise our hopes and rush for the Geology survey of the rocks we find that it’s made up of Chalk that makes up most of Salisbury’s escarpments. The thought of Egbert’s stone being a white piece of Chalk does not sound too fashionable to be. Would a lump of exposed chalk last as much as 600 years? Would it still look as good as new? Certainly not. Granite on the other hand would survive wonderfully. Just look at Stonehenge after thousands of years. Later investigation from the Wiltshire Archaeological Magazine carried out by the famous Richard Hoare indicates that the pits are Romano-British in origin, and would have almost certainly been out of fashion by the times the Anglo-Saxons arrived.

The Boundary Stone of Wiltshire, Dorset, and Somerset ©Crown Copyright
Willoughby Hedge

Dr Grundy in his archaeological journal of 1918 thought that Willoughby Hedge was the ideal location of Egbert’s stone. This position at 717ft certainly commands an excellent view of the surrounding countryside. Water and cover are pretty hard to come by at this location, due to the high but flat nature of the surrounding geography of the area. One of the main positive points, which back up its claim, is the position of Willoughby hedge on the ancient trackways. The two great trackways in the area are the Great Ridgeway and the Hardway or Harroway. The Great Ridgeway is another one of the great monolithic roman roads across England that flows up through Willoughby Hedge into the Deverill valley, past the scene of the Ethandun battle and on to Streathly in Berkshire. The Hardway heads East to Northeast across the whole area, mostly in line with today’s A303. The Great Ridgeway on the other hand heads north From Shaftsbury to Warminster. Both roads make excellent conduits for funneling the troops onto Salisbury plain, and this the convergent point would be an ideal location not only to plant a victory memorial, but also to converge a large army, unhindered by terrain or hidden enemy forces. Militarily the position is an excellent one, which is a view backed up by both Dr Grundy, and Burne in his Battles of England book. One of the big logistical problems is the lack of a good water supply at this location, but I’m sure it’s possible to carry a couple of days water supply, and knowing the supply of water near Illey Oak, it may not have been that much of an issue to the Saxon leader with the local knowledge.

Willoughby hedge was known as a Moot point or meeting place because of his geographical location of the Hardway meeting with the road up through the Deverill valley. After speaking with Mrs Jean Morrison of Bratton, she also speculated that one of Alfred’s Royal Households was local in the Deverill valley, hence his reason for coming here. The long connection of Kingston Deverill with the crown would probably indicate it to be the most favorable location. Even before the Doomsday book it was owned by King Edward the Confessor’s spouse Edith. It would seem a natural stopping on place, although that’s not to say that his royal household was located at exactly the same spot as Egbert’s stone. A warm and comfortable bed on such an important night would have been a great welcome no doubt. When Chippenham was attacked months before, it would have been an obvious journey away from the enemy to go through the Deverill valley and along the Hardway. Firstly in was in the opposite direction to the enemy who where coming from Gloucesthire, and secondly he would have been able to stop at his household in the Deverill knowing that he was going to get loyal help and support there. Once the kingdom had the new Viking rulers, there is nothing to say that all but the most loyal of subject refused the King help and support, in fear of their lives.

Alfred’s Tower to Willoughby’s Hedge

In terms on the marching distances the differences between Willoughby Hedge and the other two contenders of Alfred’s tower and Penselwood are quite large. If the army camped at Willoughby hedge before moving onto Illey Oak the next day, the distance is about 5 miles. The other two are at least twice that. Its an obvious statement by saying the 5-mile march is better for the army, and that distance would be covered without any problems. Although another 5 miles on top would be more stamina sapping, this should still not have been an issue to the army. However, the closer the army got to the enemy and the slower they moved, there was more likelihood of being ambushed or set upon by a counter-attack before Alfred’s army was totally organized. Certainly there is an argument that in 1000AD armies were quite happily March 25 miles plus a day. We are talking about lean but very athletic peasants. In modern day England, I feel fit and healthy adults would struggle to make that distance consistently, let alone fight at the end of it.

View of the rolling plains at Willoughby Hedge

If you drive to Willoughby Hedge today down the A303, you’ll probably drive straight past it not realising you’re there. The place on the map called Old Willoughby Hedge is nothing more than a layby, where you can often pick up a bacon butty from the portable café. At the junction of Willoughby Hedge today, stands a Little Chef. Sitting in the restaurant drinking a cafertarie of Coffee it’s easy to see why the place was a moot point. It has excellent views across sweeping plains. Even today it’s possible to understand that this location was the tributary for the tracks that were the main arteries of not just roman, but also Anglo Saxon England.

Willoughby Hedge ©Crown Copyright

The Deverills

As noted in the section relating to Willoughby Hedge there has long been an association between the Kingship of England and The villages in the Deverill valley. Nowhere is they’re a more physical symbol of Egbert’s stone that at Kingston Deverill. In a field adjacent to St Mary the Virgin’s Church in the village stands two large Saracen stones lent against each other for mutual support. Mr Carpenter of the Post Office was quoted in 1928 as saying that as a child the stones were majestically placed on King’s Court hill, and it was potentially a meeting place for Kings. As recently as 2000, English Heritage was thinking of moving the stones to Bratton Castle as a marker to celebrate the Battle. Thankfully this was stopped due to strong public opinion, and a replica Saracen stone used instead. The stones at Kingston was believed not to be of local origin, so that being the case, there was be something significant about their placing in the valley. As I’ve said before, a thousand years ago it was not a trivial matter moving stones weighing many tons.

An excellent account that lends to it’s case comes from Wiltshire Archeological Magazine of 1877 which says, “certain large stones were examined: they are called Egbert’s stone or Kings stone and are spoken of by the Saxon Chronicles; they were brought by a farmer from King’s Court Hill, where Egbert is traditionally said to have held court, and for some time did duty as stepping stones to a barn; subsequently they were condemned to be broken up as material for mending roads but their substance was so hard as to defy the effort of their would-be-destroyers”. How much of this is based on speculation and outdated theories, and how much comes from good hard fact is difficult to judge. We have the stones, so their origins were sound to a degree. The speculation of their use as Egbert’s stone is questionable, although as a meeting or worship place perhaps for Kings is possible, as the effort of putting the mighty stones up a hill and not using them would be folly. One other positive factor for the Deverills is that it’s on the Roman road line from Uphill on the Severn to Old Sarum, where the road leading south to north from Shaftsbury crossed it.

It’s been speculated that the two stones originally stood on what we now call Courts hill, and not Kings hill, which is immediately adjacent to the church. Some think there was also a third stood that was used as a lintel in true Stonehenge style. Their present position is actually on private property, worth knowing before you trample off down there. It theory its possible to see the stones from the back corner of the Church’s back yard, but I would recommend passing with the Church on the left, and take the next left road. About thirty yards down you will see on your left hand side an entranceway to a farm. Look into the field near the hut and you will see the two sorry looking stones. Beware not to get the attention of the lovely little Shire horse that lives in the field. Remember to bring your binoculars and zoom lenses!

The physical location has excellent logistical properties in terms of water, shelter, and physical conditions. The location is too close to Illey Oak in my view for it to be true location of Egbert’s stone, but that fact in itself is not enough to discount the possibility altogether. The view from the top of King’s or Court hill affords a view to Battlesbury Hill and also to woods where Iley Oak is located.

Kingston Deverill is ignored at the possible site for Egbert’s stone at your peril. What are the chances of a village being called Kingston or Kings-Stone Deverill! However surely this position is within the boundaries on Selwood itself, so it would contradict the documented accounts. In the Domesday Book, Brixton is called “Brictic’s Town”. The definition of the word town would mean that either the lands were enclosed or some greater owner had the entire lands. Egbert’s stone indicates a different meaning, i.e. A monumental value to the description. Finally there the assumption is made that Eccgbryght is indeed King Egbert’s. Could it have been a hero called Eccgbryght? Another theory is that the Brixton did not get added to the name until two centuries after Alfred’s events with the reign of Edward the Confessor.

Kingston Deverill with Court and King’s Hill ©Crown Copyright

St Mary’s Church at Kingston Deverill. The stones are 100 yards off to the left.

The sorry site on the two standing stones at Kingston Deverill

Westbury

There is a stone in Westbury called “Egrcgrights”, “Ecbrights” or Egbert’s stone. However as near back in history as Dury’s Ordnance Survey map of 1773 it is listed as Redbridge stone. There are certainly arguments that Redbridge could originate from the word Ecbright, especially when speaking in a true Wiltshire ascent with piece of straw in your mouth! For me the stone is far too close to the Viking camp at Chippenham. The fact that the battle took place at Edington only 4 miles away it means that Alfred’s army only traveled that distance in 2 days.

Quoting from the Wiltshire Archaeological Journal XIII article by J E Jackson, “Now it does so happen that few miles NW of Warminster there is still to be seen an ancient stone called "Redbridge stone" (mis-translated from Egbert’s stone), marked on Andrews and Dury county map of wilts 1773. It is not very large, projecting at least above ground only two or three feet. It stands on the Fairwood estate, in a small plantation on the left of, and touching the railway cutting, about one mile from Westbury station going towards Frome."

Dury’s 1773 Map showing Redbridge Stone north of Dilton Marsh

Stage one of my little quest was coorilate the ancient 1773 map with a modern map to work out in what area to look. Confident of finding a stone (even if it was not Egbert’s stone), we headed down to the railway line, north of Dilton Marsh near Westbury, Wiltshire. At the exact location where we had estimated it to be, we found a small dark enclose about 10 feet square, with a mound about 4 feet high in the middle. Nothing except for trees and undergrowth was found on the mound. However next to the enclosure there was a field, which was strewn with pieces of red stone pieces (the indigenous stone in the area). The epicentre of the stones was the mound, with pieces spread in each direction for about 50 yards. If this was the place where the stone should have been located, then it’s my opinion that the stone had been smashed up and dropped into the field, where modern sloughing had gradually been spreading the stone across the field. The largest piece of stone was about 6 inches across, with no special markings or on any of the fragments we looked at. Nowhere else on any of the fields was this volume of stone, even though there are red stone fragments to be found in most of the fields in the area. What are the chances of heading to this exact location and finding this debris! Downhearted, and tired of wandering around for several hours in very hot August weather we abandoned our search at is now a small pond close to the high speed Paddington to South-West rail link.

I tried contacting the farmer to either confirm the suspicions or find out whether I was wide of the mark. Fortunately Mr R Brown was very helpful in identifying the true state of events as wandering the footpaths can be quite dangerous when young Peasant birds are bred nearby for shooting! Also I headed off to try to be 100% sure that I had been searching the right location by comparing various maps of the centuries and matching up the features. With most of the woods gone, and the addition of the railway this task was not as easy as I imagined, tailored with the fact that the Dury map of 1773 is not geographically accurate by probably 10%. What Mr Brown had to say tied the events in with the evidence we were about to find, although not until after we had received the letter.

Armed with the 1890 Ordnance Survey map I studied the expected location with little anticipation and found what I expected, nothing. However later on armed with a large glass of wine, I re-visited the map, and extended the search out as a wild shot. Still no luck, then the badly italic words of Ecbrights Stone came into focus. This was it. What appears to have happened was that in response to the discussions, the Ordnance Survey had changed their map to reflect the suggestions, and even changed the name from Redbridge to Ecbrights? According to Stevenon’s “Asser’s life of King Alfred”, it was changed because of J E Jackson’s suggestion. I suddenly had an issue though as the stone marked on Dury’s map was about ½ away from where this Ecbrights stone stood. Logically though it stands on Wiltshire and Somerset border but the margin of error is great, even for that era. Although it does match Dury’s map, it does match Jackson’s description, where as the location of the rubble does not at it is not touching the railway cutting. My main question was whether Jackson had pointed the location out to the OS people, or whether they had guessed?

The stone that sits at the location is still there today, marked on as a boundary stone in the modern OS map. It is a red stone and stands barely 2 feet tall and approximately one foot around his side. The best way to visualise it is to think of a milestone marker. It’s not very impressive, but who is to say we are looking for something majestic? It might be only be the physical “tip of the iceberg”, with much more stone concealing a much larger stone below? From our very rough estimation there is up to 3 feet of stone beneath the surface. The material the stone is made of looks like Granite, or a red version of it. It is very hard, and although there are lots of marks on the stone, none are immediately recognizable as human markings.

The answer to all these questions came in a straightforward answer from Mr R Brown of Fairwood farm. “Redbridge Stone now stands on the Wilts / Somerset Border. Please come and have a look”. The Stone had obviously at some point been moved to act as a boundary stone. This was Redbridge / Ecbright’s Stone that we had been looking for. The only question remained was, was this Egbert’s stone?

By 1890 OS had it marked down on the map as Ecbrights Stone ©Crown Copyright

It’s location from a modern OS Map ©Crown Copyright where it’s actually a Boundary Stone

Redbridge Stone or Ecbright’s Stone. Is this just the tip of Iceberg?
The Other Counties

There are arguments for other locations in Wessex that are in entirely different geographical locations to the ones mentioned above. This relies on the fact that Edington is not the site for the Battle Ethandun, and the Iley Oak is not just south of Warminster. If we believe that any of their cases are valid, then all the other locations by implication become invalid. With each location we can raise question marks, but again the legal words “beyond reasonable doubt” come to mind. This is nowhere else in Wessex that can boast a case for Egbert’s Stone, Illey Oak, Ethandun, and Chippenham with the correspondingly correct time scales or geography. Therefore all locations outside of the realistic geographical epicentre of Edington and been discounted. If you look in the older books mentioned in the Bibliography, there is some quite in depth studies carried out on other locations that you should read to draw your own conclusions on the subject.

Conclusion

It’s ironic sometimes that as time advances away from these hostile events, technology also advances that lets up open up the past more and more. However in the mean time society continues to destroy the evidence that remains. As yet there is still no definitive evidence that exists that can conclusively prove where Egbert’s stone lies or lied. However as with murder cases there is plenty of circumstantial evidence, and at some point we must agree that there is sufficient evidence to convict the culprit. In this incident however there is not enough evidence, and the party goes free. Based on what we do seem to know, we can be pretty sure from the suspects that the one we are looking for is mentioned in this chapter, but we just need further help for a conviction.

My theory would be that Alfred’s and his band of Somerset men rode up the Hardway through Selwood, and passed through the place where Alfred’s tower is location today. Some people may have rode or traveled to see the King return from exile, but I don’t think the armies converged here. My view it was only a contingent and the leaders did so here. Perhaps they traveled down the valley to the Border stone to celebrate the gathering and bring luck to their side. The border is the most likely place in my view for the stone, although I feel the original stone is no longer on view. The main converging point of the allied armies was further down the road at Willoughby hedge, when the ancient tracks meet. From here the whole army traveled north to the resting place the next night at Illey Oak.

Iley Oak

“He went from the camp to Iglea (Iley Oak)”

Around May 6^th to the 10^th the Army of King Alfred the Great camped at Iglea, the night before the great confrontation with the Viking invaders. There is some confusion over the exact name, as the multiple copies of the Chronicles contradict each other at this point. One says Aecglea (Aeglea), another Iglea, and a different name, Eglea is also used. Forgive my crude analogies of Latin, a language that I leave to the experts to decipher.

Where as we could write an entire book on the location of Egbert’s stone, there are much fewer cases for the location of Iley Oak. The two prime candidates are both in the wood historically known as Southleigh woods, east of the village of Crockerton, which itself lies south of Warminster. Today almost all of the wood is managed coniferous woodland. Gone are the days of deciduous trees of any volume in the wood. It could well be that there was not a wood of any significance at Iley in Alfred’s day, and the Oak tree(s) that stood there were individual lonely specimens, all be it large and magnificent ones.

The name Iley Oak or Hundred Oak was preserved as late as the 17^th Century according to Stevenson’s “Asser’s Life of King Alfred”, until Southleigh wood replaced it. To understand the term “Hundreds” perhaps we need to step back a little and look at the hierarchy of Wessex during those times. An Earldmon governed each of the counties of Wessex in the King’s name. Each county was then dissected into districts known as Hundreds. Each of these had it’s own court under the authority of someone called a Reeve, who were appointed again by the King. Wiltshire for example had 29 Hundreds, such as Bradford, Calne, Chippenham, Melksham, Westbury, etc. Looking at a Hundred, it is called so, as it contained 100 Hides. A Hide being a unit of land large enough to support a family. This varied between 40 and 120 acres. Having said that, the size of the family itself varied greatly. As we will see when calculating the size of the armies, it was easily possible for lots of able men to come from the same Hide. By looking at the above breakdown, it’s not a million miles away from the infrastructure of today; all the local courts and the most direct and potentially fairest form of judiciary are all gone. A modern court is probably more consistent though in its judgment, but capable of taking in people’s personal circumstances. Going back to the Hundreds and their courts, they would have to meet and convene court, usually at what we call a Moot or meeting place. The courts of the two Hundreds of Warminster and Heytesbury are documented as meeting at Iley during 1439, so the two names of Iley and Hundred Oak match up nicely. A Crockerton group of non-conformists also used the Oak in the mid 17th Century, where they had secret religious meetings. Richard Colt Hoare states in 1651 the “The Sheriff’s Turns Court’ are Kept at Iley Oak”.

The route from Willoughby Hedge to Sutton Veny and Iley Oak © Crown Copyright

The evidence for this site in general continues to improve with further research. When actually translating the Iglea, the word Ig means “island” or “watery land”. The Ordnance survey map of the wood dated 1900 clearly shows it’s indication to “liable to flood”, and if that’s not enough just have a look at the photograph taken in summer. It’s very surprising for such a wood on top of a hill to flood, but it does. Conversely “Lea”, or the other spelling Leah has the older meaning for wood.

Demonstration that the Robin Hood’s Boyer is liable to flood even in summer

From a tactical and logistical standpoint the location is an excellent one. The bend of the river Wylye to the East and North provides excellent protection, with crossing points probably only via special Fords in the 900s. Hills and ancient earthworks defend the south. Good water and shelter could be obtained at the location, with good trackways for access, and speed of movement. The position is relatively high up, and the surrounding views good enough to prevent an army from being ambushed by the alien foes. At about 5 miles distance from Willoughby Hedge to Southleigh, the distances seem reasonable for an army preparing for battle the following day. The distances from Alfred’s Tower, although further are still within human parameters at about twice the distance.

In 1872 an account by Canon Jackson for the Wiltshire Archaeological Magazine writes, “Iley Oak was contiguous to the camp called the Buries. A very old man told me the exact site of the oak (now gone) was close to Lord Heytesbury Lodge at Sowley Wood (of which, Iley forms the eastern part)”. Sowley wood no longer exists but the location of the Ordnance survey map is replaced with Eastleigh wood. The Wiltshire Archaeological Magazines states that “near Bishopstrow Church, there is a ground marked in old maps as an island formed by the river Wyle and another small contributory stream; also, about 400 yards from this are, still existing, the remains of a camp, called “The Buries.”

Another reason to back the location is the major road or track that appear to run from Alfred’s Tower in the southwest to Battlesbury Hill, and Bowls Barrow on Salisbury plain, North East of Warminster. The road according to C Cochrane’s “The Lost Roads of Wessex”, argues that the Hardway goes through the location of Alfred’s tower, only to head of north-east at Kilmington Common straight to Southeigh woods via Kilmington, maiden Bradley Crockerton, Warminster Battlesbury, and then onto Bowls Barrow and Imber. For the army of Alfred they would have almost certainly came from the south and Sutton Veney which would be a slight detour to visit the woods. Five trackways meet convieniently in the middle of Southleigh wood, which in itself would make an excellent place for Iley Oak. I’m assuming in my deductions that Iley Oak did in fact have a set place in it where people met, mostly certainly in my view where a large oak tree stood, or once stood. The site of the Oak next to the crossing point of the tracks is geographical a good one. Mrs Morrison argues strongly in her book “The Battle of Ethandun”, that this is the location.

John Peddie argues for the location of modern day Robin Hood’s Bower as the location of Iley Oak. As you will see and read below there is much to back this argument up, and based of physical evidence, I would concur with this view. Robin Hood’s Bower is approximately 100 yards across and surrounded by a 1-yard deep ditch. Whether this is modern or ancient, is still to be worked out. What is known is that the enclosure contains only living Monkey Puzzle trees. Peddie ridiculed the decision by the Longleat estate to plant those trees there, but I happen to love Monkey Puzzle trees, so I think it looks mighty impressive. Next is the watery nature of the land. Even though I visited the area in summer, the water being so much higher than the rest of the land around should have been bone dry, but as per the Latin description of the land it was a bit wet and “squishy”, as seen in the photograph. Romantically when I visit it I strangely hoped for evidence of the mighty Oak tree that once supposedly stood there. To my shock I found a rotting Oak tree stump approximately 7 feet across. From my research this could have been around many hundreds of years ago. I immediately drew to the conclusion that this was the famous Iley Oak, or at least the one used for meeting places in the 17^th century. Happy with my conclusion I had one more quick skirt around, upon which I stumbled across an even bigger stump, about 8 feet across! At least this proves that large Oak trees once stood in this area. It’s a classic example of a romantic fitting up the facts to match the evidence. I’ve not got enough information to work out the size of the tree X hundreds years ago, and how long once they had died would they remain before rotting into nothing. This information would be a major benefit in drawing conclusions as to the validity of the site. My personal view is that a 7 foot Oak tree would be about 500 years ago, and that by the state of the tree it would have been dead for perhaps several hundred more. As with the mighty Oak tree in Sherwood Forest, it would at best had only been an accord during the reign of Alfred. I contacted the Longleat Estate and received most gracious help from T R W Moore, the General Manager. The stumps in the enclosure are a mixture of Oak, Wellingtonia, and Silver Fir. The estate purchased the land in 1946, and planted the Monkey Puzzle enclosure in 1965 and 1967. The combination of the wetland, the ditch (which could be construed as an island), and the tree stumps is pretty strong evidence to suggest this was the site of Alfred’s final camp before the battle. Surely under the soil there is enough evidence to proof it either way! As a final point surely there must be some irony that the location is associated with Robin Hood (being referred to as Robin Hood’s Bower on the Ordnance Survey map), and that the topic we are talking about is Oak trees!

So what about the rest of the wood? Firstly, the modern face of the woods is massively different from what would have stood there hundreds of years ago. The modern wood is exclusively coniferous tree, with only sidelined deciduous trees on the edges. The meeting place of the five trackways does have a realistic feel about it, but the rest of the wood looks artificial with the “sterile” atmosphere of the conifers. There is no strong modern evidence for Eastleigh wood, but its geographical features do have some positive and negative points. It’s location 60 feet lower than the majority of Southleigh wood, but it does lie on the north-facing escarpment, which would give them a good view over the oncoming Pagans. My feeling is that the location existed before Alfred chose it as a camp, so the later may be insignificant. It’s nearly impossible to judge what the land would look like a thousand years ago, and which part of the woods would make a good location for a moot or meeting place. Logically I would have placed it on the epicentre of the tracks, or on the very top of the hill where modern day Robin Hood’s Bower is located.

Location in Southleigh woods where the five tracks meet

A 7foot Oak stump found at the believed location of Iley Oak

An 8-foot tree stump found at the possible location of Iley Oak

Location of Iley Oak at Southleigh / Eastleigh Wood ©Crown Copyright

Battlesbury Hill

From Iley Oak to Battlesbury Hill © Crown Copyright

Both Guthrum and Alfred knew that the battle was imminent. Spies and scouts would have evaluated the enemy position, and their relative strengths and weaknesses. Obviously in this position Guthrum would have felt more confident. Even though the locals would have added reconnaissance, Guthrum would have had an organized and understood order of battle. We will discuss this more later, but it is thought that Guthrum’s army, mindless of having to mount the plain to face Alfred, took the initiative and headed out across the plain to meet Alfred. It’s easy to suggest that Guthrum was arrogant, but to a large extent he was justified in feeling that way bearing in mind his circumstances compared to his enemy’s.

While heading to the plain, it is believed the army camped in Luccombe Bottom in Bratton, near to where the famous Blood Stone resides. We will discuss later the Blood Stone and the bodies recovered here in the last few years. What allegedly took place here is one of the most contentious issues of the entire conflict, excluding the burning of the cakes, which is supposed to have taken place while he was taking refuge in Athelney. Legend has it that Alfred dressed up as a traveling Minstrel, gained access to the Viking camp and both sang and played his harp in front of Guthrum and his warriors. While here he heard and saw enough tactical information for him to defeat the foe several days later. This tale is well known and been passed down for generations but with zero real evidence, and even circumstantial does not exist to back it up. Most tales do originate from some fact, although exaggeration virtually always takes place. Perhaps one of his spies gained access to find the required information before the battle. Such an action would obviously be a great risk with potentially great reward. Alfred’s face was know to the Vikings, so personally I would think such an action would be both dangerous and potentially irresponsible. However if he did take the risk, then the action was successful at least to the extent of not getting himself captured or killed. At least he would have known how to get around in the area, with Edington being a Royal estate according to Smyth’s book “King Alfred the Great”.

Longcombe Bottom. The nearest water feed for Bratton Castle

When the Vikings did move onto the plain, they came across the near perfect conditions for them to fight. This was a gradual down slope, behind a reasonably sized ditch. The ditch itself was the remains on an ancient ditch, already hundreds of years old in 878AD, and perhaps even prehistoric. The Viking army probably spent some time digging out the ditch until they were happy they had a defendable and strategically good position. As such the Pagans had “set out their stall”, and waited for their infidel to meet them. The ditch is sat on the crossroads on the ancient pathways across Salisbury Plain, so the chances of being outflanked were slim. The position lies at the head of valley, which looks out towards the ancient earthwork fort of Battlesbury. Again it’s a bit of a coincidence that it’s name should be battle related, although its conceivable that the name came from a pervious battle as again the fortified hill was so, long before Alfred was born.

For someone advancing up the valley they must be sure that ambush did not await them. The Anglo-Saxon king would have sent scouts up the steep escarpment to view the enemy and first hand and report back. Alfred would have almost certainly followed behind them to have a look for himself. Once the all clear was given the army would have used one of the three ancient tracks to get around the hill. One is to the left of the hill, one to the right of the hill, and one to the right of Scratchbury hill, which sits immediately to the right of Battlesbury. Once the decision to move was made, there was no turning back. It was time test their metal in the theatre of war.

Battlesbury Hill from the suggested Ethandun battle site

Scratchbury Hill

Ancient ditch on Salisbury Plain

“And one night after that to Ethandun (Edington), and there fought against all the army, and put it to flight”

The Forces

In order to work out what forces were on each side we can look at all the evidence available in terms on documentary evidence of army sizes, and also the size and type of the population. First of all we can set up clear limits to the numbers involved in the battle. By the nature and reporting of the battle the two sides could not have been massively different, and I would estimate that no side would have been twice as big as the other. Based on the style, quality, and tactics of the two sides if one side was factors bigger than the other then the battle would have been short and decisive. There have always been suggestions that the army that met Alfred was only a foraging army. This I disagree with. Being the case the Vikings would almost certainly either withdrew or not get involved in a furious battle. As we will see later it was not a Viking tactic to get involved in pitched or debatable battles so far away from home and without serious back up. Besides the Vikings in my view had plenty of time to prepare for the battle.

Firstly we can establish an upper limit for the size. The Viking “Great Army” operated in England between 865-879 where it established “Danelaw”. The army was never reported to be larger than 20,000 men. This would represent a massive army for that timescale. Because the “Great Army” was broken up in 875 probably only about half of the remainder came south in 876 and beyond.

For Alfred the numbers should be similar. The problem with Alfred’s earlier reign is that he was as isorganised as his brother kings before him. The year 878 came at just the right time as he had the intelligence to relise that he needed to provide a professional defence for his kingdom. This came in the shape of Burhs. These were defence ditches, which effectively linked the kingdom together in the former of defendable forts. Numbers are available as to how many people were required to defend these Burhs. In a worse case scenario 27,000 would be required to defend them. Therefore this is a logical maximum to make up the largest possible size for his army.

History itself has a legacy of exaggeration. So what could be the smallest numbers we are dealing with? Based on the evidence of the mass graves found so far (read further on), there currently does not seem to be hundreds or thousands of dead people resulting from the battle, even though Bishop Asser account seems to indicate that it was a most ferocious battle. For this to be the case there would only be 100 or 200 on each side. This seems miniscule by today’s standards, but we must remember that 1000 years ago things were very much different. For a start the land was fresh and clean and people from that era were actually as tall as they are now a days! Based on the potential available population being only a fraction of today then perhaps this value is possible. Mrs Morrison of Bratton thinks this to be the case. The chronicles talk of a “great force” indicating large numbers and not a few hundred. On the other side the Viking operations in mainland Europe between 865 and 879 were reduced which does indicate that a sizeable amount of the Viking raiders were stationed in England during that time. Personally these values of hundreds are the same as the maximum number, in that they are outside of the range I believe took place in the battle. If it was then it’s a sobering thought to think that so few people decided the future of Christendom!

Now that we have established operating values on between 200-27,000 we must argue the case for each army. Strangely enough there is probably just as much evidence about Viking numbers as there is concerning the home troops. You will have read earlier that Guthrum had his army split into two as he attacked Exeter. While his army advanced on Exeter his other forces on the boats were decimated by a ferocious storm in the channel. The chronicles report 120 boats were wrecked in the melee. An excellent book by Paddy Griffith called “The Viking Art of War” covers in some detail the possible numbers of warriors in each boat. This heavily depended on how far the soldiers were from their homeland. The further they went, the fewer went in each boat, as supplies occupied the extra space. A typical Viking warship typical had 32 Oars on a boat and 35 men in each. However not all 120 boats lost would have been warships. On long trips only 20 men were carried in each boat, but on short Island hopping” raids; 100 men could be carried in each boat. Based on the 35 men per boat value, over 4000 men drowned at sea during the storm. This represents a major blow for any army of the time. This would make the difference between success and failure.

Any sensible army that lost the majority of its forces would have turned around and headed for safe ground for the winter. However this is not what Guthrum did, indicating either reckless bravery or that the mass of his army had survived. At a guess somewhere between 150 and 200 boats survived the storm. This would equate to somewhere around 6000 men. This makes the total army strength to have been about 10,000 at one point. This is not as big as the 20,000 the “Great Army” once was, but the army had declined over the previous few years as the leaders of the units had gone their own ways. In Smyth’s “Alfred the Great” it indicates that the Danish Great Army split into two in the year 874/5. Guthrum was only one of the major warlords operating in Western Europe. Taking an army of 6000, the war of attrition would have had a major impact on the numbers. Disease, old age, desertions, accidents, and warring would have reduced the numbers dramatically. This would leave an effective fighting force of only around 4000. This would be a professional fighting force, as opposed to Alfred’s army known as the Fyrd, which would have been made up nearly exclusively of levy troops, who by trade were only farmers.

Guthrum’s Forces

The Great Army (remains of) 4000 Soldiers

Under the control of King Guthrum

Total strength 4000 Troops

Alfred’s Forces

Wiltshire 1800 Fyrd

Under the control of Earldom Ordlaf Governor

Wilton 700

Chisbury 350

Cricklade 750

Somerset 1250 Fyrd

Under the control of King Alfred

Bath 500

Axbridge 200

Watchet 200

Lyny 50

Langport 300

King Alfred’s bodyguard 200 Soldiers

Under the control of King Alfred.

Hampshire 750 Fyrd

Under the control of Wulfred Governor*

Winchester 200

Christchurch 230

Southampton 70

Portchester 250

Total strength 4000 Troops

* Wulfred was elected as he rallied all who remained “this side of the water” in Hampshire.

The values are based on 1 man for every two hides, hence a 50% callout from wilts 1800 of 3600 hides, assuming also 50% callout from Somerset 1250 of 2613 hides. Hampshire produced 750 from 1520 hides – this assumes Malmesbury is ignored as it was under Viking control and Winchester's 2000 had fled overseas.

As mentioned previously the hierarchy structure started at the top with the King. There would then be an Earldom for each shire that reported into him. Each shire was broken up in hundreds, each of which represented a 100 hides. A Hide being a unit of land large enough to support a family. This varied between 40 and 120 acres, a pretty large piece of land when you think that an acre is about the size of a football pitch. Each hide could contain up to an average of 4 able bodied men, as families were much bigger in those days. Therefore we can estimate that although 1 man for every two hides was called out, it was in fact about 15% or 20% of the population. This enables enough men to stay behind to guard their own lands and keep the subsistence farming going in the short term.

To understand the call out mechanism we must first relise that it was the responsibility of the nobility to provide his King with men from his lands in time of need. It would be a humiliation for a nobleman not to supply men for the King’s war and battles. Men would be paid for the call up, but the Nobleman was responsible for kitting out his men. When called up the men would fight with the people they had come with. They would not be split up and spread-out across the army, which obviously is a sensible move in providing continuity for the troops. If you are going to fight, you need to know what the people are like around you, and now who you can and can’t trust.

Morale

Viking raiders were professional soldiers of high quality. They were also pretty intelligent and above all cunning. Its been proven in battles that when away from home that unless they could win without sustaining large casualties they would back off and sue for terms. It was pointless winning a battle only to have lost half the force unless there was no other way. This is not suggesting that the Vikings were cowards, simply that they had enough intelligence to relise than lost troops could not be replaced except from the homeland, which lay thousands of miles away. In a battle with the resident population they would never win. The way to control them was fear, terror, stealth, cunning, and tactics.

As to experience all the Pagan army knew was conflict. A lot is written about the level of terror and law braking incurred by them, but there is not as much evidence as you would think to back this up. Two things with the Vikings are over-rated. Firstly their atrocities were probably no greater than anyone else’s, especially when the norm was to take no prisoners. Secondly quoted from Paddy Griffith’s “The Viking Art of War”, they were no more successful than anyone else in battle with a 50-50% record in war with other peoples and races. History has dictated wrongly that they were both ruthless and invincible. On the other side the Viking army had done nothing but wage war for the last twenty years. Perhaps only a few remained of the original raiding army, but they definitely had undoubted depths to the ranks in terms of experience. The army was certainly battle-hardened but did it have the stomach for all out war? Skirmishes yes, but playing so far “away from home” would have certainly affected their morale. All but the most robust of men must have become homesick after a time. Although this lush green land offered much, it was not home. The umbilical cord of the sea was long and slow, and there must have been frequent doubts as to whether they would see home again with the costly deaths from attrition.

The Saxons on the other hand didn’t have the battle experience or nerve in the face of blood and death, but they had something probably more important. They were fighting for their loved ones, their beliefs, their families, and their land. Should they loose, there was no going back, the land would belong to their Pagan foes. Alfred possessed all the attributes required for victory. He had the respect of his men and people. He had plenty of battle experience from all the previous Viking encounters which he had been through at the sides of his brothers. Finally he had the divine trait of courage. At the battle of Ashdown years before he had been prepared to take the initiative and charge the enemy even though his position was extremely dangerous. A man can gain experience, and respect, but courage is much would something that comes from the blood. Fear and courage are often inseparable, but the perception of those around you to do your duty is all-important.

The classic Saxon. -Viking scenario was the bully verses the little kid in the street. The Bully would hold the upper hand until the persecuted would turn. At which point the bully would still try his luck, but on understanding the opposition meant business he would turn and back off. Alfred and the Saxons were being bullied but they showed the courage to turn on their adversaries to such an extent that the Vikings would be driven from the Wessex lands.

So what would the moods be, going into battle? The Vikings would have an aura of confidence or even arrogance. The Saxons nervous and frightened at the prospect of impending doom. The Vikings however would have no longing or allegiance to holding a chunk or land they didn’t care much for, or even withdrawing when things got a bit hot. Alfred’s men had nothing to go back to if they lost, so it had to count. The Vikings in the battle would have made the early running in terms of verbal intimidation, but it is highly likely that it was up to the Anglo-Saxons to have to advance on Guthrum’s troops stood behind the ancient ditch.

All armies carried lucky or spiritual emblems and the Vikings in particular would really be divinely set on their mascot. It is critical to point out that their very highly prized silk Raven banner had been lost only weeks before in a battle off Devon with the locals. Similar to the French Eagle in the Napoleonic war, the banner represented the symbol form which oaths were sworn on. The loss of the battle symbol equated to a serious loss of face. This humiliation could have gone two ways though. Determinations to get it back, or fear of an enemy capable of capturing such a war trophy. Personally I feel the Viking was less intimidated by the encounter, but the locals were up to win the battle at all costs. St Neots, and his Annals write much of the banner about. The mythical banner is understood to have been made by the daughters of the Danish legend Lothbroc, or possibly Ragnar. The emblem on the Raven banner was that of Odin. The image was used again on the coins of Anlaf, the Danish King of Northumberland. This does to some extent cohobate the use of the symbol, and the banner itself in that physical evidence exists for it. The importance and might of this banner can’t be underestimated. From legend if on the day of battle it lay limp in the wind then a loss prevailed. If it stood proud and true, victory was assured. Perhaps that day on Salisbury Plain the wind remained calm and benign?

In summary the Vikings would have been more confident, but I feel the Anglo-Saxons would have been more determined. In a straight fight on neutral land the Vikings would probably have the edge, however they were fighting away from home, and Alfred’s troops would have been better motivated to win the battle.

Equipment

Although Alfred at times would have had a mounted brigade I don’t feel his army would have contained by mounted detachment such as cavalry. It would be common for a Viking warrior to have a shield, spear, and bow. All were common and cheap. Swords and helmets were less common, especiially mail shirts, which were much rarer, unless you have a worthwhile sponsor. One ironic issue is that we know considerably more about weapons before 700AD, than we do of 878AD. The reason for this is that before the Saxons were converted to Christianity the ritual was that warriors were buried with their weapons and Armour. This meant that a good deal of them remained intact and were found by modern archeologists looking into ancient graveyards and barrows. With Christianity it was no longer required that weapons were buried with a dead soldier so much fewer details were found. There therefore is a large black hole of weapons development between 700AD, and the advent of the Bayeaux tapestry at the end of the 11^th century.

An army would not contain the same specialised units that you see today. There would be only rarely a specialised SAS style unit, although the Royal household would have offered a similar quality of troops. The Anglo-Saxons were one of the last countries to adopt separate units, such as Cavalry and Artillery. This was believed to be one of the contributing factors to Harold being beat by the Normans in 1066. Courage and skill of the Housecarls were unquestioned. Battle experienced and loyal beyond duty, each and every man would gladly lay down his life for that of his monarch.

Most soldiers would start the battle with an ariel weapon. Most men would have the capacity to us either a bow or spear. In the book the Olaf Sagas there were specialised Ariel units designed to destroy the opposition. Units that were less well equipped would look for stones to throw, but would often also have a simple thrusting fear for close combat. In an army not all men were fighting troops. The baggage train was often long and cumbersome to transport. Also actual technical people such as carpenters would also be required in a typical Marauding Viking army.

Should a soldier be able to afford the price of Armour, his protection was much improved although every man still had vulnerable areas. The groin, eyes, and ankles were prime targets, although the chances of such directed attacks were rare, highly skilled archers could often hit their marks. For a time the use of Ariel weapons was considered unmanly by the raiders, but their attitude changed when they relised how effective it could be. This is very much like the tactics of the British army in the 1800s when they refused to wear camouflaged clothes and skirmish, rather than walk in long lines of troops. Once their unfashionable period had ended, the enemy began to highly improve on this type of weapon. For long range work the bow was ideal. Even when ineffective due to shield walls, the level of fear generated from this weapon was great. A lot of bows were composite bows made from yew, which made them incredibly destructive. Short bows were often required from the levies as part of their call-out into the Fyrd. A typical longbow would be about 6 feet in length. An arrow could travel about 200 yards, but they were most effective at about 50 yards were they still carried 75% of the punch that could be delivered at 10 yards.

Closer in Spears were used to achieve the desired results etc, and were more effective that arrows at that range. There were two different types of spears, throwing and close combat. Throwing weapons were diamond shaped. Hands to hand were long “zulu” type spears. Both could be used for the other method, although key to them here was the weight. Generally throwing spears were lighter, with fighter spears being more robust and heavier. There were specialist spears, designed similar to fit hooks, that stuck in shields and bodies alike. By their design they were extremely difficult to remove. In a shield, they made it more cumbersome, but in the body it could inflict more damage having it removed that when it went in.

A typical Saxon spear end

For the Vikings, Spears and Javelins were common for throwing over the tops of men onto the enemy, although their effective range were only about 40 or 50 feet. As much as effect, they were spiritual weapons to signify a line to claim for Odin. Shields would more often than not deflect them, although their effect would be very unsettling for the defending troops. It was though up to 85% of the rank and file troops carried a spear into battle, even if they also often had a sword.

Shields of the time would have been about 1 yard in diameter, made with a metal boss in the middle, with a handle on the other side. It was common for soldiers to carry more than one shield, as it was usual for them to break under the weight of blows from the enemy. Often shields had laminated strips and a metal frame with struts to improve construction and its defensive capabilities.

An embossed Viking shield

Helmets on the hand were rare and a mark of high status in an army. Amongst the Vikings they would have been ostentatious. Within the Anglo-Saxon ranks they would have been even rarer, and perhaps non-existent. There is little evidence of Helmets amongst the Saxons until a hundred years after Ethandun. When we talk of helmets, the metal shinny impressive versions spring to mind. There would have been many of the pagans who would have sufficed with leather versions of the metal helmets. The most common design at the time was the “spangenjelm” design, similar to that recovered from Sutton Hoo. This was deemed a very elaborate and fashionable design of the time.

A Saxon Helmet similar to that found at Sutton Ho

Metal mail shirts were rarer still than helmets, mostly due to the difficulty in manufacturing them. By the year 1000 about 50% of troops had them, but in 878 the numbers carrying such types of Armour would have been few and far between. Again when metal was unobtainable or too expensive, leather jerkins of a similar design would have been used for the job. Again the concept of plate mail was not at the forefront, with ring chain mail being paramount. These mail shirts went “to the middle of the leg”. They were very difficult to pierce, and offered excellent protection. On the downside they were heavy and cumbersome. No Armour of the time was invincible, and if unlucky any member (however well protected) could be downed with ariel or melee weapons.

A full mail shirt

Swords were commonplace, particularly amongst the gentry, where it was considered a more fashionable weapon that the spear. Even in the first millennia advanced processes such as Carbon Steel were available to the weapon makers. Generally they were much better quality than the likes of spearheads. Special swords of premium quality, particularly that of the leaders had names. Certainly compared to shields swords had a good shelf life, which is certainly surprising compared to what they had to go through.

A bastard sword from either the Saxon or Viking armies

It is generally recognised that England were manufacturing better swords during the era. The Vikings in response could have imported their weapons from the Franks or indeed just pilfered them during their conquests. A basic sword of the time was 90cm long. It would have been used in a chipping action, as the point was generally blunt, like that of a Roman short sword. There were true Bastard sword styles in use, but they were less common that the the shorter Roman alternatives. Some units would have been a mix of swords and bows. The blade men would handle the front with the bowmen picking up the back of the unit. To do this it was required to fire weaponry over the heads of one’s allies. This process, although often effective, had its causalities even on allied troops!

Battleaxes were as common as swords during the time. The Vikings more than any other race of the time appeared to use axes. They were still widespread in England, as their popularity continued to grow. For example at Hastings, the Battleaxe was the weapon of choice. The Battleaxe would be ideal as a bludgeon weapon to break or split up the target. The most widely used was a single headed version, very much like a normal wood cutting axe. This style of weapon would not have been easy to throw. It is not known if the two-headed weapon was available in 878. One of the main disadvantageous would have been the inability to carry a shield with this type of weapon. Although it could inflict huge blow, the wielder was vulnerable. Another variety of such a weapon would have been the Halberd.

The Saxon work-horse, the hand axe

In a desperate situation a soldier could always call upon his trusty knife, which he carried with him at all times. Although not much bigger than a penknife, as a last resort it was a trusted weapon. In an age of little or no medicine, any small wound could cause a serious infection or tetanus. Although your chances of being killed outright on the battlefield of 878 was lower compared to today, or chances of dying as a result of injuries were massively higher.

In later England during the turn of the Millennium, thrusting or throwing spears became very fashionable. A weapon often used by Peasants, the stab variety proved very effective, particularly against an army all wielding swords. On a trusting spear the shaft would be 8-11.5 feet in length, made of Ash wood. A leaf shaped spearhead would be used for throwing. The extent of use for these types of weapons is unknown. It would not be uncommon to have a unit made up of a mixture of troops. For example the sword and axe men could head up a unit, while the spearmen, and bowmen could rain ariel weapons upon the enemy from the relative safety at the back of the unit. This method had its risks, and many of ones own troops would have died from wounds inflicting by mis-thrown weapons coming from behind them. Friendly fire indeed.

One of the most important questions concerning the troop type and style of the battle relates to whether there was widespread use of mounted troops. Horses were used during that time in England. It is understood that when Alfred advanced on Exeter to free his subjects from the Vikings, that at least part of his army rode down there on horse. It is thought that classically the Saxons used horses to get to and away from (either routing or chasing) the battlefield, but they were never used in combat. Although possible I believe the use of horsepower in the core of the army was unlikely. They were certainly used for baggage and skirmishing by the scout troops on both sides. Horses dating back that time were considered much smaller than today, so their use would have been limited. Their origin was probably not England, but more likely from the continent. Skirmishing troops who used mounts could well have used a variety of weapons. The notional used of lances, spears, or swords on horseback would not have been strictly true. Strangely enough, the Vikings would have been more likely to use mounted troops. There is evidence this was the case from their campaigns in France dating from 868AD. Another romantic notion would have been the belief that the availability of a mount was a status symbol. This was not actually the case. His men while on a horse would better see a leader, but he was also very vulnerable to a lucky shot from the enemy. As command and ordering infrastructure during that era was poor, it was often the case that men would just look for their flag or leader and follow them, even if it meant running away from the battlefield. The most common position for a King was at the front of his army in the middle, fighting side by side with his men. This was considered the manly thing to do. The household troops or bodyguards would be much happier with this situation as they could provide excellent protection for their King. During the entire period no Anglo-Saxon King fell and died in battle, as their close protection from the Huscarls did such a both brave and efficient job at keeping their leader out of danger. In general English horses were not suited for Cavalry styled units. The British horses were believed to have been brought in from Rome hundreds of years before, and was considered too lightweight for that sort of job.

In general Vikings were better equipped that the Saxons. This was not due to being able to manufacture better quality goods, but to the nature of their warring and raiding, which enabled them to collect much more usable equipment, that the other more peaceful armies, such as that of England. In terms of troop quality John Peddie in his book “Alfred the Good Soldier” rates the Viking troops a 5, compared to the Saxon’s 4. In terms of troop quality in general, including equipment this is a fair guess.

Tactics

For all their attacking skills one of the key advantages of the Vikings was defensive positions. They had a knack at using tactics and terrain to their advantage. This was true in their battles of 867 and 871, which took place in Southern England. One unusual point is that generally armies did there best to avoid each other. Colour amongst the ranks was not common, and so when to sides were in the thick of combat it was extremely difficult to know who was on whose side. In the melee, the concept of friendly fire was far more a problem that it is today. One-way to avoid this was to know everyone in your units, or at least to the nearest thousand. By fighting in the same unit, you would hope that the problem could be avoided, but it was a big hope. Vikings didn’t walk around with long pointed horns on their heads, that’s only in Hollywood!

Another skill, which they capitalised on, was their power of surprise. Even the Normans in 1066 were capable of huge surprises, but in 878, even less spies, intelligence, and reconnaissance was in operation. The attack on Chippenham and Exeter were prime examples that the use of surprise could wielded to great effect upon the enemy.

One thing that the casual reader should remember is that Battle was rarely a suicide mission, and that war throughout history has demonstrated that. In wars and battles such as the Battle of Britain and Waterloo, the death rate was only 20%, hardly an automatic death sentence (although I personally would not fancy those type of odds). This type of ratio was still pretty much the same in Alfred’s day even taking into account that prisoners were only taken for ransom purposes, and that humility was rarely shown. It was generally recognised that tactics at the turn of the 1^st millennium would involve a test of strength and resolve. The loser would retire at haste to fight another day. Having said that even minor wounds were a serious matter in 878, with the lack of hygiene and medical resources.

One thing above all else was that leaders led from the front, regardless of the risks. He would be required to fight in hand-to-hand as much as the next person. The one advantage he had was that about 20 of the greatest, loyal, and most resolute warriors would be at his side willing to lay down their lives for his safety. A leader’s courage in battle would gain even more respect from those around him. This led to literally a mutual heightening respect, which led to even more sacrifice and demonstration of loyalty. A tactic common employed by the Vikings was a shieldburg. This involved the troops around the king using their shields (including extra ones) to create an armadillo style protection around their leader. It was important that a stray arrow did not fell their leader, as in the case of Harold in 1066. It was not a leader’s role to remain quiet in front of his own men. He was expected to be verbally abusive of the enemy, and also to spur on his own men.

For the era the Vikings were understood to have an advanced command and control procedure to pass on information down the lines. This was in the form of runners who would be exactly that. Finding the leader would not be difficult, as he would always have his own standard. Good for demonstrating to the troops where he was but bad as the enemy would always target that opposing leaders, as they would obviously be considered great trophies. The army would generally follow that standard regardless of whether it was going forward into the enemy, to backwards in retreat. The Pagans often carried very special banners. The Raven banner of the Vikings was spiritually held in high regard. The capture of the Blood Eagle in Devon during 878 could have been an important point, whereby the emblem meant everything. Unable to swear upon one’s own banner was to a high degree a humiliation.

In terms of the consistency of units, the youngest, strongest, not to mention the most expendable were placed at the front of the shieldwall. The 2^nd row was be made up off lightly armed troops to plug any gaps that would appear in the shieldwall. The Housecarls would sit around the leader who would normally take up a central position in the centre of the army. Housecarls were the only permanent troops at Alfred’s disposal in 878AD. When not on warring duties they would be at court or out in the shires helping to uphold the King’s law.

In today’s wars Information is the key to winning or losing. The Vikings, particularly the Norwegians would have spies in England warning them of strengths and weaknesses. There was little point in conquering a nation if they were not vulnerable and easy pickings. Before even leaving Scandinavia, the Vikings must have known the political, military, and social position and standing in Wessex. Some of the intelligence would have come via Skirmish troops or scouts. However the majority would have come via genuine spies of the Pagan crown.

When planning battles, it’s worth remembering that Maps during those days were not great and navigation was certainly more of an art than a science. Position was all-important, as with Napoleon a thousand years later it was important to organize troops off the battlefield and bring them on only where the organisation was virtually complete.

It was commonplace for armies during the 800s to look for high ground to fight. Due to the lack of water at these locations, it’s difficult to think that all out war continued for a large amount of time. High ground gave an obvious physical advantage, with most of Wessex battles of the period taking place on hills or chalk escarpments.

In terms of the volume of Vikings meeting Alfred, when protecting a defensive position required a boat was loaded up with supplies ready to make a clean exit. The Vikings with their defensive position at Chippenham would look upon Westbury and Bratton with great trepidation in facing the enemy horde. During the occupational months Guthrum must have been nervous releasing the troops upon Alfred’s skirmishing positions. If his research was wrong then his stronghold was up for grabs. Unfortunately he seemed to have hit the nail on the head and found out the jist of what was going on. Unless Guthrum was sure where Alfred was, with his full army no counter-attack was required unless the whole of the enemy infidel was located. A pincer movement upon Alfred would have been fateful during this time.

When they did know was where he was and how decent a force he had – the sensible choice would be to meet them and avoid the gorilla war that was taking place at the time. Also lands can only support so many people for so low a resource, therefore with that many Vikings occupying the same areas resources could well be running low. Knowing the Vikings though with the fear they would instill, if supplies were there to be had, they would obtain them, regardless of what it meant to the host population. It may sound callus, but Alfred if desperate would almost certainly have used similar tactics with the local populous.

Mrs Morrison views of the battle tactics would be clear. The Saxons would stand their ground and using their shields absorb the brunt of the attack. Meanwhile the spears from behind would rain down on the enemy. The fighting would have been long and fierce, but the slow attrition of the Vikings warriors would have had its toll, with them still unable to break the Shield wall of the Anglo Saxons. It is my view however that the Saxons were the ones making the running. The Pagans had creating a perfect defensive position in their own right, and it would possibly be a mistake to throw it away. The locals had more to loose if the invasion dragged on. Home armies generally didn’t fight in the winter, and then came the lambing season, and the planting of crops. This only a small window for fighting before the harvest would be required.

In Paddy Griffith’s “Viking Art of War”, he describes the typical Viking defensive position. Although they were a very offensive and out-going race, they knew that using defensives to gain victories was a more productive way to wage war than attack defensive positions. Physical resource of men was often the delimiting factor with the Vikings ability to achieve conquest. The first thing that they raiders would look for is the narrowest space, especially so they could not be outflanked. Also ideal would be moderately open ground, so that no surprises would be possible. In addition to the open ground, gradually sloping land, preferably with a small ditch or hurdle would have completed the terrain on which they would have preferred to fight. As we shall see later only one spot on Salisbury Plain fits those characteristics.

During the period, when warring armies met, there would not be an immediate engagement. Sometimes it was a bit of a ritual when warring sides met, such as the shieldwall positioned in a geographically friendly position where the army could not be outflanked. Next would be arrows and spears with constant abuse and shouting from both sides, followed by the combat. Several hours could pass before combat took place. First of all diplomacy would happen. Any mediation that could take place to avoid war was commendable, but the effort would nearly always be in vain, as too much effort had already been expended in getting to this position in the first place and compromise was a difficult commodity to find with so much adrenalin flowing through the veins. Once it was clear that war was certain, boasts and challenges would begin. Any show of courage, provocation, or enticement of the enemy could be useful later on. The main attempts would be to instill fear in the enemy. Captured enemy soldiers might be put to sword at this point, but often this method would have to be carefully orchestrated as it could easily make the enemy angered and more determined for a serious fight. If trying to rouse the enemy to advance onto your position this approach was a good one. A leader would have organized a number of things before the battle lines were drawn. The baggage train that all armies carried (even in turn of the 1^st millennium) would be safely secured at the back of the army. The leader would also have made clear his tactics and order of play to his immediate subordinates. The men themselves would have sharpened their weapons well in advance, and by the time combat took place the weapons were optimised killing machines. Skirmishing troops would wiz backwards and forwards along the line trying to gain valuable information and probe the enemy front and flanks for weaknesses. Once within range the long range shooting phase would take place. Probably about 20 or 30 arrows per bowman might be unleashed upon the enemy. At long range, the effectiveness of this weaponry was potluck, but closer in, an opponent without decent shield cover could be seriously demorilised with the loss of the men around him. Once all the talking and pleasantry was exchanged the real bloodshed would be split. The charge and melee was ready to commence! After so much waiting and delays (as with modern day sportsmen), the men just wanted it over with, and they knew they just had to plough ahead to their destiny.

One of the most common tactics employed was the shieldwall; the nature of this would change depending on whether the defence was against ariel attack, or just a plain frontal charge. The complete article would be called a Shieldburg in Viking terms where by the unit was fully protected. During a frontal assault the wall might join up all the way along the battle line. However during arrow showers the shield walls might huddle into small units. The unit would usually consist of a boat’s crew, or in the case of the Saxons, a village or hamlet’s men. A more advanced form of the shield wall would form a Wedge so that a unit could advance into the enemy in order to break their lines.

As to the general shape of the army, at Stanford Bridge a hundred years later, the Vikings loved to employ a flat oval shape for their army, with the leader in the middle. The army frontage would look long to ensure they appeared more than they were. However the middle of the line was fatter to ensure the line was not broken, while the flanks could collapse if need be, or wrap-around, to outflank an enemy in the classic military pincer movement. A worst-case scenario would be to have your centre broken through, cutting your army in half. Classic battles always talk about the horns or crescent approach. This is where you make your centre appear weak, so the enemy gets dragged into a compressed area. Meanwhile your extreme flanks wrap around the enemy outflanking them. Hundreds of battles had been fought this way, and the outcome was nearly exclusively the same. It a soldier does not have enough room to swing his weapon because he is penned in, he is much less effective. Having said all that, the Danes of the time were also renowned for deploying in two or three “battles” or units. In 871 during the battles of Ashdown both the Saxons and the Danes deployed in two battles each. Unlike modern warfare the units were very much more unstructured and could only be loosely described as units. Certainly once the combat started chaos reigned and everything formed the shape of one large lump. Units would always spread out when under arrow fire, but would close ranks when going into combat to provide one concerted frontage and now allow the troops to get isolated. To give an idea approximately 3 feet would separate men leading up to close fighting, but with an overlapping shield wall the distance would have halved to about 18 inches.

When the two shield walls met together, there would be much jostling. People were risking their lives, and the first order of battle for an individual was to avoid death (or injury with often meant the same thing), rather than to kill, hence the reason everyone didn’t just charge in with only a sword. Physical strength played a key part in the encounter. Fatigue would soon set in, and fresh blood would be brought in from the back to shore the defences up. With all the shouting, screaming, and cries going on, it would be difficult for a commander to receive verbally the state of individual areas. Also the dust of thousands of men would make visibility difficult. Once a breach in the enemy defences were made, it could quickly be capitalised upon. If not taken care of quickly the battle would soon be a lost cause and rout would ensue.

Death rates during the battles are difficult to judge. The battle of Ashdown in 871 and the 910 Mercia encounter talk of thousands slain. However the armies was probably made up of only several thousand men. Death rates in battles have been fairly consistent from the birth of Christ to modern times, whereby if an army lost more than about 30% of its troops it would be deemed a slaughter. There is nothing to suggest the casualties at Ethandun were that high. Modern folklore talks of the tracks leading from Bratton having streams of blood running down them. At the end of 877AD the Vikings lost 840 men in Devon along with their leader. This would seem a reasonable figure to work on, although exaggeration was such that it could have been factors smaller. To the Viking burials were all important and there was a requirement for a mound or Cairn, perhaps what is located at the Blood Stone in Bratton. There is a common mis-conception that the Vikings were massively successful in large battles. They lost as many major battles as they won. It is true they were very successful at swindling, intrigue, surprise, deception, and creating general fear.

The tactics employed by the Danes would have almost been successful should they have had their full complement of men. This included the loss of his fleet sunk off the south coast, and the re-enforcements stopped at Devon. Plans were almost certainly at foot as another Viking army arrived in Fulham in 879. This army did nothing but withdraw, which indicates they didn’t have the numbers to go forward (a long way to come to relise this, and a long way to go for no action), or their ultimate leader was Guthrum, and as peace had ensued, he called him men off.

Resources

Both armies would have wanted to get on with the fight. Alfred had pulled his men from planting crops and lambing. Generally one of the other “unwritten” rules is that battles were not fought in summer or winter. The Danes on the other hand were steadily using up the supplies they had plundered from the locals. A large amount of food was required to maintain an army for even a small amount of time. The fact the Vikings wintered somewhere else each year either indicates they wanted to get around and see the world, or that the impacted the local area so badly (including starving the locals), that they never bothered returning in a hurry as the resources would not be available to sustain them.

There is no evidence that the Vikings were not in any way farmers. Very little of the land around the Fjords were fertile. The English lands must have been a luxury. The one thing that is clear is that the Vikings would have to depend upon the locals for their food. Through fear and theft obtaining food initially would not be a problem. A common practice though must have been for families to get up and move out of the war zone, talking all their supplies with, and preventing the Pagans from getting their much-needed food. It’s possible that there was a mass exodus once the invasion had taken place. In Winston Churchill’s book the Scepted Isle, he outlines a rout of the Hampshire troops on news of the invasion, including the leader. At the time Hampshire contained Winchester, the capital of Wessex, so most relised that without Alfred or an army to protect them that the long sharp claws of the raiders would soon be closing in on them. It was understood that most of the men asked for the equivalent of political Asylum from the French!

John Peddie’s book “Alfred, the Good Soldier”, outlines some basic supplies required to sustain an army. Each man would require 4lbs of ungrained wheat grain with a gallon. This means the army would require about 8 tons of wheat per day. At a maximum this would equate to 60 cartloads! These values would represent the absolute minimum. Asking a soldier to live indefinitely on cold wheat gruel and water is a tall asks. Ale would be one important commodity of the time. Not only was it good for morale, but if was much safer than water, having already been boiled as part of the brewing process, which in turn killed off all the germs. Most armies had a standard ration unit. Should horses have been in the armies, at least 4 times the supplies were needed for a horse compared with a man. A horse creates large amounts of excrement in a single day so soon large areas would be laid to waste by encamped animals.

Leaders

Guthrum & Alfred

Alfred was a young man when he became king. He was the last of his line, which presented a bizarre contradiction. The youngest son of a family is often the most radical, but his position presented itself in the opposite light. Born in Wantage in 849, he was the fifth son to his parents Athelwulf and Queen Osburh. So unlikely was it that he would become king that he was sent as a young child to Rome for a full year to further a planned religious career. It was probably imagined that he would go into the priesthood. At his confirmation, the Roman pope Leo IV was his sponsor. His brothers all met early deaths. Athelstan failed to outlive his farther, while Ethelbald (855-850) and Ethelbert (860-866) had very short reigns. Alfred’s only surviving brother Ethelred was crowned in 865AD. Alfred and Ethelred fought side by side for at least nine recorded battles, including the famous and most notable victory at Ashdown, which was engineered by a brave but young Alfred. Alfred had learned much during this time, and was king by Easter of 871AD, as Ethelred succumbed to injuries sustained during the Battle of Ashdown. The country needed a mature and wise king, Alfred’s only sister Aethelswith was never going to provide that. Wessex got exactly what it required, although it was not initially apparent. The Annals of St Neots seem to indicate that he was an slightly arrogant king initially. To start with he chose to attend his brother’s funeral while his troops suffered defeat just outside of Reading. Alfred ultimately though was strong, powerful, charismatic, thoughtful, and brave. On the downside he was initially headstrong such as Ashdown in 871 when he grabbed the reigns and charged “like a wild boar” at the enemy, and also his naivety in letting the enemy get away with things for so long. On the other hand he showed maturity in not allowing the Viking tricks to work anymore after the incidents at Exeter. He demonstrated massive courage to gain back his kingdom, but the also the courage to run away at Chippenham when an idiot would have died there in response to making the mistake of letting the enemy be so close! In the treaty of Wedmore he somehow managed to get the Danes to agree to terms that were kept too. This was the cornerstone in the building of the English nation. One thing Alfred is often underestimated at is his organisational skills. Later on the creation of the Royal navy, and the Burh defence system was excellent, but also the development of the English faith and language had lasting affects on the nation. His ability to weld together a force capable of destroying the Danish invaders was a brilliant effort under the circumstances. It must also be said that Alfred was a Golden or lucky figure. Everything he did seem to eventually run his way, and he had his fair share of luck along the way. Whether it was a case of him making his own luck, or by divine guidance is open to discussion. Alfred was afflicted with physically problems for a great degree of his life, including his wedding day. He looked past these physically problems and always had more of an eye of the “bigger picture” and the state of his nation more than on himself. This is truly a monarch like attribute reserved for the royal blood lineage and the gifted few.

Guthrum too was wise and brave. His cunning was without question, and his dogged professionalism at conquering and raiding was plain to all to see. He utilised resources well and at the same time ensured the morale of his troops was kept high. Great effort was made to avoid bloodshed of his troops at nearly any cost. Troops were hard to replace, and at times where spirited resistance was apparent he was happy to withdraw until conditions were more in his favour. Guthrum certainly had an eye for the bigger picture. The movements of 877 to 879 were to me a concerted attempt at invasion. There were certainly enough troops for one reason, and secondly Wessex was the biggest prize in England worth having. Except for extremely bad luck and perhaps the leadership of Alfred the kingdom would have belonged to the pagans without much of a shadow of a doubt.

In terms of physical appearance there is little to go on. Alfred is always portrayed as a mature, bearded figure of large statue and muscular build. Guthrum also strong and powerful, but more often than not clear-shaven, which is rare for a Viking. In practice there is little evidence to pull upon. Even the coinage descriptions could be grossly inaccurate. Should the appearance of the people be important? Napoleon, one of the world’s greatest general was a small plump man. However the key ingredient of a leader, which Napoleon oozed, was charisma. Sometimes this characteristic can be learned but more often it is a natural phenomenon that you are either born with or not. Guthrum either had charisma or demonstrated such levels of fear that others were too frighten to question. This was not un-typical in the Viking way of life for the time. Murder and revenge was rife, with the world at large having very few rules to govern their conduct. England was a much different matter. It’s hard to imagine Alfred reigned by fear. Regardless of his appearance Alfred exuded charismas of a god-like nature. How would a bunch of peasants with no real skills and not a great numerical advantage follow him into battle? The answer to that is belief. Belief that Alfred, their King, and defender of their faith would bring them ultimately peace.

Tactically Alfred had proved that after his naive starts he had learned his lessons in warfare, and had become an accomplished warrior in open battle, and also at gorilla tactics. Guthrum on the other hand was very orthodox in the way he fought his battles. Perhaps he was easier to read than Alfred, although that kind of comment is pure speculation. It is obvious Alfred had the respect of his men, but Guthrum had his men’s backing also. The very nature of his surrender implied that all his subordinates backed up his decisions and non-to our knowledge revolted from quite un-favorable terms. Guthrum’s ability to negotiate himself out of tricky positions was legendary, although over time he did not vary his game-plan, and eventually his tactics were all too clear to Alfred, who could ready this feigning tactic without too much effort.

So ultimately who was the most successful? Well it depends on how you look at it. As a king Alfred was one of the greatest English kings, of a great nation in its own right. The civilisation that he introduced had a profound effect on the whole of society. As a straight warrior, the comparison is much closer. In defeat Guthrum still controlled the other half of England, which he never relinquished until his death many years later. Probably a more real-world survivalist Guthrum gained a massive empire, after suffering so many hopeless circumstances, which he managed each time to walk away ready to fight another day. In summary Guthrum was a worthy advisory, but Alfred had that extra something, be it divine intervention, luck, breeding or just greatness to ensure he prevailed in the end.

Battle

Scene of the battle? © Crown Copyright

The date was between May 7^th and the 11^th, 878AD, the time probably just after noon. The moment of deliverance was about to begin. Much prevaricating would have continued as Alfred approached up the valley bottom towards his adversaries. The aim of Guthrum and his troops was to drop Alfred’s army onto the point of their sword. They had prepared a perfect Viking defence. There was little chance of them leaving their position unless there was the possibility that they were going to be outflanked. Alfred on the other hand was full of resolve. At the moment when he needed the most courage, it did not desert him. Alfred’s self-belief was born of his men’s confidence that he could do the job, tailored also with the notion that this was their only chance to rid themselves of their infernal enemy.

The common consensus is that Alfred’s men were defending the “ditch” against the Viking onslaught. It is my opinion that it was Alfred who did the charging. By his very nature (such as at Ashdown in 871), he was not afraid to take risks to expose the enemy. The Vikings held all the cards, why should they take the risks? They had the supplies, and the fresh and fit battle hardened troops, why should they take the more dangerous option? Alfred on the other hand needed to grab the opportunity. It had taken four months to get his army together. He was never going to have the same chance again, and harvest was not too far away, he was forced to take the more dangerous option. From his previous experiences he had the faith of his men, so all that mattered was his judgment and trying to make the right decision for the situation. Figure 1 show the starting positions for the battle.

The majority of Alfred’s army were simple farmers. They may have been fit, possessed plenty of courage, but had very little battle experience. The melee caused by 8,000 men clashing weapons creates massive amounts of dust, blood, and gut wrenching noise. All but the most battle-hardened warriors would be adversely affected by the conditions. The biggest single question for me in the entire battle is how a bunch of peasant farmers withstood the conflict with battle hardened and disciplined trained killers. Once Alfred’s men cleared the ditch they should already have been panting. Today the ditch is only 3 feet deep but during ancient times it could have been two or three times as deep with a chalk face as opposed to wind swept turf. The Vikings holding the higher position should have engaged shields and then quickly crushed the Wessex men. The troops from Wessex were undoubtedly fit, but probably under–nourished to a certain extent. The Vikings would have been strong and well prepared, although there may have been a question mark over the fitness from four months of sitting around consuming great excesses. The single factor in the initial melee must have been the conviction on the side of the Saxons, and arrogant confidence on the side of the Vikings. It is almost certain that the Danes underestimated the determination of the Saxons. A quick victory was not to be had, and soon the Vikings although holding the upper ground found themselves struggling to hold their lines.

On a day such as this, the conditions would be all important. Weather on the Salisbury Plain in general is extremely changeable. May could bring 20 degree Celsius or snow in southern England. There is little mention of the weather in the chronicle so we must expect the conditions that day were not extreme. Salisbury plain is a very desolate and wind-swept place. Although it rains regularly the land on the hills is not particularly boggy. The base of the valleys floods badly after rain, and tend to retain water for some time. However on the hills dewponds were historically required to supply water. Alfred’s men would have walked up the valley to meet the Danes. If it had rained recently they would have avoided the very base of the valley. Rained or shine once the battle commenced, it had very little on the outcome. Both races were used to the temperate climate conditions in England. The only other bearing would be the state of the ancient ditch. Was it flooded, or liable to give poor footing? The answer is that we will never know, or have any hope of finding out!

The determination of the Anglo-Saxons in the action was noticeable and although the Vikings continued to push and push for a breaking of the Saxon lines it did not come. This melee went on for perhaps an hour. The Vikings were thinking it would only be a matter of time before the spirit of the enemy was broken. The breaking of the Saxons did not happen, and then as the stamina of the Vikings began to wane, a sudden panic began to takeover as they relised there was no fall back plan to adopt. From what appears to have happened next, the Vikings were so confident of success that the possibility of falling back or routing was never discussed. Once the Viking lines began to break (see figure 2), panic ensued. By the very nature of the Pagan army the majority of men headed off to the safety of Bratton Castle several miles to the Northwest. The others headed to the previous night’s camp at Luccombe bottom as we can see in figure 3. Both stances were flawed as Bratton Castle was little known to them and contained no water source. Luccombe bottom contained water but was positioned in a vulnerable valley and with only a minority force, they were soon to be easy pickings for the frenzied Saxons. This was not a time for mercy and as the small Viking force headed towards Edington village, their numbers were cut to shreds without pity. Too many times the Saxons had played too fair with their enemy only to suffer the consequences days later. This would not be allowed to happen again.

By the nature of the timings the battle did not commence until mid-afternoon. Alfred’s troops still had some way to travel to the battlefield. By the time the Viking lines started to withdraw off into the distance the sun was already on its way down, which almost certainly added to the Danish confusion. The ground was familiar to Alfred and his men, while the Danes would have struggled with the geography as the setting sun approached. It was probably about 7pm when the main Pagan force reached the relative safety of Bratton camp, an ancient hill fort hundreds of years before. There were still stragglers who were picked off by the Saxons, and it looks as though the majority of the baggage train was left behind. This was systematically pillaged and destroyed by Alfred’s troops. The supplies to the Vikings would have been down to what each man carried. Even at that moment Guthrum must have thought he would escape with his army intact. It had always been a constant failing of the Saxons not to press home advantages. Too many times in the past the Vikings had been allowed to supply hostages and leave, only to be back battling several weeks later and turn defeat into victory. Not this time. In figure 4 we can see the end of the encounter with the major force nearing Bratton castle or refuge.

Looking across the ancient ditch on Salisbury Plain, site of the Battle of Ethandun? The tank tracks that go from the middle of the picture to the top right up hill are following the line of Alfred’s troops.

1. First Contact

2. The Shield wall begins to buckle

3. The Successful Wedge

4. The Rout.

Direction(s) of the route, and the Siege at Bratton Castle © Crown Copyright

Evidence

Having had a good stab at identifying the locations of Egbert’s stone, and Illey Oak, we can now be pretty sure in the area we need to search for the location of the Battleground. Can we be sure that Edington is indeed the Ethandun that is referred too in the Chronicles? One important point is that Alfred knew the place well. He had visited Edington even before the fateful battle. In addition to that it was a Royal Estate. On his death he bequeathed Ethandun to his respected Mercian wife Ealhswith. In 957 King Eadwig executed a charter there, which is still in existence today. Come 968 it was granted to Romsey. In the Doomsday book it is referred to as Edendone, which is the Norman spelling for Edandune or the Saxon Ethandun. The situation does get very confusing when the village has seen it’s name changed three times alone due to the language spoken by the King of the times. Come 1280 Edward I writes a document calling it Ethendun. The important thing to remember is that the “experts” are happy that the name tallies up, and tailored with the circumstantial evidence associating the area with Alfred I have convinced Edington, Wiltshire is the location of Ethandun.

Now that we have established Edington Wiltshire as the site of the battle, where within the vicinity did the event take place? There are two distinctive areas surrounding Edington, the flat plains that head out towards Chippenham, and the Hills immediately behind it that make up Salisbury Plain. There is no terrain benefit from fighting on the lowlands, and if they were to fight there, I’m sure the Vikings would have stayed in their defended Chippenham stronghold and waited for the Saxons. The Danish spies would have already known of the impending fight. They would have noticed men disappearing from the surrounding villages to join Alfred’s army. This being the case, they would want to get the territorial advantage as soon as possible. This would mean the army getting up onto Salisbury plain ready to meet Alfred. Literally all the Viking / Saxon battles took place on the hills such as Ashdown in 871, and not on the plains. Viking tactics dictated that sloping land could be used well to their advantage, and where possible, pitch their line on a downwardly angled plain. Outflanking was very difficult. Alfred on the other hand knew the local area far better than the enemy, and so he knew he could use this to his advantage. If the Vikings were going to choose a location anywhere on the plain near to Edington it would have to be the ancient ditch. The main alternative to this would be Bratton Castle on the edge of the plain. If this was chosen then Bishop Asser would have mentioned that in the Chronicles. This ditch as mentioned in the previous sections is an ideal location for Vikings according to the book “The Viking Art of War” by Paddy Griffith. It’s ironic also that at the Battle of Ashdown there was also an ancient ditch involved. Independently a number of people have come to similar conclusions about the location of the battle. These include Jean Morrison, John Peddie, and the Military strategist Alfred H Burne. The position of the trench of the main north/south ridgeway across Salisbury Plain also ensured an enemy army could not just skirt around them.

If this was the location of the battle why has not a single piece of evidence ever been found at the site? There are several reasons for that. Firstly not a great deal of anything survives in these conditions for 1100 years. Secondly the army for a minimum of 60 years has owned the ranges. In that time no research has been possible. Techniques have moved on massively in the past half-century, but we are not allowed to look for two reasons. Firstly the land is private, and the army will not permit trespass. The roads through Imber are only open for a dozen days a year. Secondly with so much un-exploded munitions the army does need to cover itself morally and keep people to the roadway. The fact that it allows its own troops to meander all over the plain without people being blown up typifies the actual lack of real danger posed. The army quite rightly does need to be careful about putting the general public at risk. The one seriously worrying thought though is that how long any preserved remains are left untouched is being reduced all the time. Firstly 60 Tonne main battle tanks regularly drive all over the ancient ditches, and even tumuli (accidental of course). Secondly a large metalled road is currently being completed on the crest of the hill that has barely missed the battle location by several hundred yards. How long will it actually be before the evidence is destroyed entirely? This is not a criticism of the army, who has done a pretty fine job over the years of trying to maintain the balance between practicalities and maintaining both the land and the ecosystem. I agree that the army’s needs must come first.

So it was on the plains where the battle took place. The same argument used in the previous paragraph can be applied again when choosing terrain. One side would try and use the natural contours and features of the land to their advantage. The person was keen to get into battle would probably not have the luxury of dictated the exact location of the battlefield. In this case it looks as though Alfred had too settle for what the Invaders had decided upon, as Guthrum’s forces would have stood on the left hand side of the ditch while Alfred’s men advanced up the hill. Remains of a secondary ditch can be seem going off at right angles to the main ditch. Note the criss-cross of tank tracks that mostly run in parallel with the ditch.

If the battle took place at the ancient ditch we must look at other locations in terms of if the armies routed, or indeed if possibly there were other places for the encounter. By the shear geography of the plain going northwards there are only two serious positions, which offer any real tactical advantage. The first is Bratton castle, which in my view is an obvious place for the Viking army to withdraw too. On the other hand there is a possibility that if the army came off the other way they would end up at “long hollow”, just north of Edington. My father lived there as a child, and it was here in 1978 as an 8 year we celebrated 1100 years since the battle of Ethandun. The deeply gullied lane that bends sharply downhill would have been an ideal location to either hold ground or to ambush. By the very nature of the plains makeup going north (Alfred’s troop would have blocked a southern escape), the tracks and the gulleys lead northeast to Bratton and Northwest to Edington.

On the way to Edington lies the village of Imber. A bustling town until the American army needed to take it over during World War II for training purposes. The village was never returned to the occupants, and it is now derelict, although not forgotten. An ancient folk memory always alluded to bodies of many lying within the parish of Imber from the slaughter of Vikings during the battle of Ethandun. This fairy tale came true in the early 1900s when the Dewpond makers Charles White and Joel Cruse discovered a mass grave of bodies while digging a new location for a dewpond at the Windmill in Imber. It was still a time when unexplained dead bodies were a nervous situation, and the bodies were quickly laid to rest and the pit filled in. From that day the location was called carrion pit, and indeed the road leading up to the windmill was referred to as carrion pit road. The slang version for the few who are still alive to remember the location will know it as the carpet. The exact details of the pit etc were never discovered, although it was understand that the bodies were clear of all clothes and other baggage, indicated that that this was a mass grave stripped people. This in itself would indicate that this was a group of dead Vikings as opposed to a Saxon horde, who would have been buried separately with full Christian style honours. The location through slang was renamed the carpet, which it still holds to this day, although for how much longer I do not know. The other critical piece of evidence is that the location has no known record connection to this discovery including a battle of any description within tens of miles of the location. Tens of people do not die suddenly without reason, and without proper burials except under exceptional circumstances, such as plague!

The next location of interest is the chalk pits of the White Horse, which is on the location of Bratton camp. Dr E F Seagram of Bratton house, and his relation J E Halliday spent the summer of 1814 excavating the Long Bratton at the castle. While there they spoke to local workmen who were digging on the south side of the earthworks. They were told that they have found many bones just near the surface as they dug. At the time Halliday didn’t know anything of the Bronze Age and ignored the finds. The bones were taken away by carts and spread across local fields. The quantity of bodies, and indeed whether they were Danish or Saxon is not known. Personally I would assume they were Danish. Firstly there should have been finds on them if they Saxon, and also they should not have all been dumped in the same grave. The victors would have had the time and inclination to have separate burials, and also given them the respect of having goods buried with them. Although in Christian 878, it was not longer the policy to bury the dead with all their weapons and Armour, trinkets would have been there. The dead Danes on the other hand would have all been thrown in a mass grave, after being stripped of anything worthwhile on the bodies. Assuming their number dead found was in the tens, excluding plague the only explanation is battle. If it was plague it would be a strange place for the bodies to be buried. For a start there is no real population for a mile. Secondly why drag dead bodies 300 feet up hill to bury them on top of the hill. The local villages are situated on the flat plain that makes up the Vale of Pewsey, rather than the highs of Salisbury Plain. There is a possibility that the battle could have something other than Ethandun, but there is no known other battles nearby. We can’t guarantee that the bodies are the result of Ethandun, but it is another piece of circumstantial evidence for the case.

The location of Luccombe Bottom was well known the Danes. It is believed it is where they camped the evening before the battle. The reason for that was almost certainly their spring of water, accompanied by a pool, which was used to feed and water livestock. Bodies have been found here which seem to be connected to the battle. Quoting from the 1955 Wiltshire Archaeological Journal article by Mr R H Pearson of Coultson, who reported finding human bones while digging clay at his watercress beds in Bratton: “The writer visited the site on October 28^th and excavated the remains of a single unhamunation of which unfortunately only the upper half remained, the rest having been inadvertently destroyed by workmen who did not immediately recognise its significance. The skeleton was in an extended position an orientated NW/SE with skill to the NW. It lay just on top of the greensand subsoil at a depth of 3ft 8ins below the surface soil. Noticeable features associated with the burial were, first that the skill laid face downwards in the soil, and second, the position of the upper arm bones clearly indicated that at death both arms were positioned behind the back. Both features suggest that death was violent, though no visible trace of wounds to skill or bones was evident. The skeleton was that of a male of mature age, and the condition of the molars, which were well worn down, suggests that the person had existed on a largely farinaceous diet. A single thick shard of hard, buff fabric was the only associated find. This was situated at the distal end of the left humerus. It was not yet however, been possible the date the fragment and that a date for the burial cannot be published. Since the excavation took place, a further two skeletons have turned up with in a foot or so of the original discovery. These still remain in the ground though not in immediate danger of destruction. As additional point of interest, not to be commented on further, lies in the comparative closeness of their burials to one of the disputed sites of the Battle of Ethandun”. Modern methods could date the fabric and investigate the two further bodies to find some cause and effect. My understanding is that digging that caused the finds were that of workers putting up new Electricity poles.

The final piece of evidence we have is the small burial mound nearby, which has the famous Blood Stone at one end of it. Almost certainly body(ies) lie beneath the mound. The legend has always been that heads of the defeated Vikings were severed on this stone, hence the reddish hue of the boulder. The stone is actually a red granite stone, which has a similar composition to that of Redbridge stone in Westbury, even though the area is all chalk based. In the last few hundred years the stone has only served for two things, an Elizabethan boundary stone, and a source of fairy tales! The proximity of the Bloodstone to Luccombe does actually link the two together quite strongly. The location of the stone in the base of the valley on the down slope into the watercress beds that make up Luccombe bottom bears testament to that. It would have taken a great deal of effort to get the stone where it presently resides. As noted already, there is no such stone source of that type anywhere nearby.

Westbury Cement Quarry. Location of another mass grave?

Location of the mass grave found at Imber

The Water Cress beds in Luccombe Bottom

The Bloodstone in Luccombe Bottom. It’s worth noting that the stone’s (Red Granite) is the same as Redbridge Stone in Westbury, even though the surrounding hills are Chalk

Burial mound next to the Bloodstone?
Bratton Castle

“And rode after it, as far as the works, and there at fourteen nights”

Late evening on May 7^th to the 11^th saw the demorilised forces of the Vikings making it to Bratton Camp. The fatigue from physically exertion and general stress can never be under estimated. Once the adrenalin stops pumping sheer exhaustion both mentally and physically could take over very quickly. Judging by the skills and experience of the Vikings this location was definitely a regrouping position where they could take on Saxons again, or alternatively negotiate their way out, taking some Danegold with them. At the point when the Vikings retreated there were three obvious choice locations to regroup.

First of all would have been Luccombe bottom where they probably camped the night before the battle. Everyone would have known the location of it, having just traveling the path during the advance onto Salisbury plain. It had a good supply of water, and shelter from the elements. However defensively the location was suspect. The tightness of the enclosure would enable an enemy to entrap an army and potentially bow it into submission.

Chippenham would be the most obvious place for the Danish army to withdraw to. They would have obviously spent a good deal of time fortifying their headquarters. However Chippenham was a good days travel from Ethandun. No withdrawing army would risk traveling through the night in unknown territory when there were easier choices closer at hand. Navigating that far in the dark in unknown lands might prove difficult even for experienced scouts. If their army had become split, it would have been prudent to hang around and wait for the other part of the army to join up. This would not have been all that impossible with the number of scouts and spies in operation at the time. In attempting to travel the 15 odd miles there would be a good risk of the tired and wounded men being left behind, to be picked off as stragglers. When withdrawing from a battle I would expect the army to try and regroup as soon as possible once they were out of immediate danger. The army would be well safe by the time they reached Bratton, as in the immediate short term looting and stripping of the bodies would have taken place. In the Chronicle text I would believe that it would mention that the Pagans withdrew to their original base camp, but it does not clearly say that. For me the biggest piece of evidence is that pointed out by Mrs Morrison. The invaders had been in Chippenham for 3 months. They would have pillaged all the surrounding area during that time, and built up a worthwhile base that not only was defendable, but also had adequate supplies to survive for a good period, or at least long enough for the Saxons to get bored, or need to get back to their farms and families. Asser’s account of the siege states that only after 14 days the Vikings unconditionally surrendered because of cold, hunger and thirst. No mention of bombardment of physical intervention by the Kings forces. I can’t see starvation being the case if they had made it back to Chippenham. The Danes were battle hardened not enough to give in so quickly. The location of the low plains would not have made it particularly cold and wet.

Bratton Castle would have been well known to both sides. Not only was it the largest hillside fort in the area, and very old, albeit probably disused, but the famous White Horse sat on the hillside of the fort. It is commonly thought that the White Horse of Bratton (not Westbury as it is wrongly referred to) was created on the orders of Alfred to celebrate the victory, which ironically would have backed the castle up as the siege location. I strongly disagree with that thinking as to the creation date of the white horse. Scientifically it will be very difficult to prove it either way now as Westbury parish had the original surface of the horse removed before replacing it recently, against the protests of Mrs Morrison and the Bratton parish, who’s borders it lies between. It should have been possible to analyse the surface and calculate the age of the original surface. The process would also have been hindered by the 1800s reconstruction of original horse to the new more cosmetic version. The horse that we see nowadays is nothing like it originally looked. A local landowner thought the original was so ugly that a new much larger version was built over the top. It is my belief that the horse had already been there a thousand years at the time of Alfred. There are pre-Roman coins in existence that contain Celtic images of horses. One of them is the Uffington horse, while one of the others is that of the Bratton White Horse. Both horses were the local tribes pagan symbol that represented them. In the same way people still have coats of arms, this was their way to show off their identity. The symbol for the Bratton White horse is believed to be related to the Celtic Moon God, hence the reason why the original horse had a crescent tail.

There is plenty of circumstantial evidence to point towards Bratton. Firstly the chronicle talks going “as far as the works”. Could this possible imply the Ironworks, which is the correct name of the ancient fort? It would have been an obvious place to regroup, and a good staging post on the way to Chippenham. Almost certainly they expected to make their way to there the next morning after resting. Historically the Saxons did not follow up on victories, and the Vikings naively thought this was going to be the case again. By the comments that the Pagans surrendered in less than 2 weeks because of cold, thirst, and hunger, must indicate a pretty desolate place without any supplies. With Bratton castle there would be no residual food or water. There would be nothing growing in the castle except for windswept grass, with the nearest water supply being about a mile away in Stradbrook. There was no well in the Castle. Because the Castle was not regularly used, it was probably not a commonly known fact that the place had no water supply of any means. The camp also sits on the very edge of the windswept Salisbury plain. Weather wise it is highly exposed with no real protection from either the wind or the rain. If the Vikings made it to the camp with little or no supplies, the number of days the army could hold out was limited. The Chronicle states that the baggage train destroyed by Alfred’s men, which also backs this fact up. Legends in Bratton have been passed down to say that the tracks ran with rivers of Danish blood. Again there must be some element of truth in the tale, for it to have lasted so long.

Guthrum had been in this situation before. He had lost battles, only to win the war so to speak. Saxon tactics in victory was to let the enemy run away and get out of the Wessex countryside as soon as possible. Time and time gain these naive tactics had backfired on the Saxons. Even with one of the greatest Saxon victories at Ashdown, only days later the victory was over tuned as the Vikings had been allowed to escape with almost all their forces in tact. Often, such as at Exeter, giving only a handful of hostages the main marauding force escaped to fight again soon after. To his credit Alfred eventually picked up on this compassionate failing. Too often the “English” sportsmanlike disease has ended up in English defeat. This still occurred throughout history, even still today, such as the charge of the light brigade etc. Probably during his darkest hour Alfred swore an oath never to let the Vikings get away with the lies and subterfuge again. The whole Ethandun event was caused first up by an under-the-table move by raiding Chippenham at Christmas.

The siege ended around the 21-25^th May. Alfred had issued orders that any stragglers of the Vikings army were to be given no mercy. All the baggage that remained outside the camp was to be destroyed. This effectively cut off the lifeline of the Viking army and brought them to their knees very quickly. The clearing up of the main battle scene must have been swift, as the Viking forces were soon encircled. Perhaps Guthrum though he would stay at Bratton for several days before moving back to Chippenham. With no water supply this tactic would have been suicidal. Move probably, even if Alfred had not immediately encircled them, Guthrum might have thought a trap lay in waiting if they tried to make they way back there. It is also probably that once the news of Alfred’s first phase victory became known more of the subdued local forces came to his aid, which enabled the siege to go so well. If not the Saxon forces would have struggled to siege an army only slightly smaller than itself, even without supplies. The lines of the Alfred’s men would have been spread very thinly around a perimeter of a mile. As soon as Guthrum knew he could not make a quick dash he and his leaders probably though they would wait for a few days for the locals to get bored and then they could make a run for it. This time, it was not going to happen and Alfred was going to press home his advantage. By the time the Danes relised this after 14 arduous days, they were too weakened by the attrition of the cold, wet, disease, injuries, food, and thirst to think about going for it. Loses would have been too great to take real risks at this stage. Guthrum still knew, or at least hoped that in Alfred’s heart there was a great capacity for compassion and mercy, hence the reason for the unconditional surrender, offering as many hostage as Alfred wanted. Alfred had suffered 3 months of pain and anguish to think about what mistakes he had made and what he could learn from them. He knew that if he won again he would have to captialise on it. I don’t think he had it in him to kill all the prisoners down to the last man, so he had to think of another more original method to prevent the Vikings invading his kingdom think again, or at least in the short term give him some breathing space to develop a concerted defensive system for his kingdom.

The main entrance to Bratton Castle from the south.

Aerial impression of Bratton Castle. The entrance is from the top right.

The Treaty of Wedmore

“And then the army gave him hostages with great oaths that they would depart from his kingdom; and also promised him that their king would receive baptism; and that they so fulfilled; and three weeks after, King Guthrum came to him, with thirty of the men who were most honorable in the army, at Aller, which is opposite to Athelney; and the king received him there at baptism; and his chrism-loosing was at Wedmore; and he was twelve nights with the king; and he largely gifted him and his companions with money.”

It was the last few days in May when Alfred’s comeback was complete. Although the victory was great, the king wanted to find a route to everlasting peace, if that was at all possible. The Vikings had given their word a number of times before, but time and again they had broken it. Whether during his time at Athelney he thought his options through if he was to succeed, or whether it was just a spur of the moment thing, its not clear, but his solution was a masterstroke, which paved the way for a future England.

At the point the Danes surrendered, they appear to have offered unconditional terms. The events of the last two weeks had finally turned Alfred into a hardened warrior, and the Vikings must had relised that. In turn they didn’t want to upset the Wessex leader any more than they had to. They were solely dependant upon the mercy of Alfred. Under the terms of the Viking defeat, they lost all their possessions, agreed to leave the kingdom, give any hostages chosen to ensure they kept they word, and finally agree to any other additional terms.

The additional condition was the conversion of Guthrum and his top 30 men to Christendom. Not only were they made to turn away from their Pagan tendencies of worshipping the various Norse gods, but also Alfred ensured that all the Viking senior men were converted, so that if Guthrum was deposed it could not all happen again. The baptism of Guthrum and his men took place at Aller, with Alfred acting as sponsor. During his christening Guthrum was given the Christian name of Athelstan. Rather than humiliate the Danes, Alfred made every effort possible to accommodate Guthrum. Gifts were given to him and his men, and they partied together with the Saxons.

No leader would ever agree into changing the religion of so many of these men without their prior consent. A king without a close loyal band of royal followers is nothing for it is always the inner circle that provides the arteries to a kingdom. A king never governs on his own, for it needs a solid infrastructure. Guthrum’s close nit henchmen must have agreed for one of three reasons. Firstly they were lying and it was all part of a cunning plan to escape. Secondly their faith meant very little to them, so that it was no great sacrifice to give all that up. Thirdly and most obvious is that they were so frightened for their lives following the events of the last few days that they were willing to sacrifice nearly anything in order to go free.

The fact that Guthrum from that day until his death at Hadleigh in 890 (according to the Annals of St Neots), appears to be known as Athelstan and not Guthrum indicates that he took the oath seriously. Even on his coinage his bears the Christian name. Why do this once safely planted back in Danelaw land unless he took his new allegiances with conviction. It is not to say that Guthrum did not bend his promises, for he would fight with Alfred again for London, losing once more. Obviously Guthrum cared not for the hostages he gave following his initial peace with Alfred. Having said that there is nothing to say that Alfred kept hold of them for any period of time.

Potentially another reason why the oath was kept was that it was sworn over one of the holy relics the Vikings possessed. This could have been the army standard, the raven banner, or even a sacred holy ring of Thor. It must have been strange to swear allegiance to a single god over a pagan style idol!

The treaty between them though was not a complete surrender. Instead of ruling the entire country Guthrum would have to be content with just half, being that north of Watling street and the road from London to Chester. Basically the whole of Mercia and the north belonged to him, while the south and Wessex remained in Saxon hands. The indication seemed to be that Alfred was the overlord of England and that Guthrum would sit below him on the hierarchy structure. However there is nothing written down to clarify that fully, so it could be just the propaganda of the Chronicles bending the true facts.

The treaty stored in the nation’s archives is believed to be dated 886/980, perhaps a revised edition of the original document. It states that the treaty is between Guthrum and Alfred. “This is the peace with King Alfred and King Guthrum and the councilors of all the English Race and all the people which in the East Anglia have agreed on and confirmed with oaths for themselves for their subjects both the living and these yet unborn, who care to have God’s grace and honour… “First concerning out boundaries, up the Thames and then up the lea to its source then in a straight line to Bedford and then up the Oouse to the Watling Street.”

The most important thing that Ethandun gave Alfred was Time. The kingdom was a rich and prosperous one, but it was a peaceful state, not geared to war. If it didn’t react to the problems facing it then it would be doomed sooner or later. The peace treaty with Guthrum gave Alfred and his advisors just enough time to have a military infrastructure in place for when the Vikings returned. And return they did again (as early as 884 when Guthrum broke the treaty) and again for the next hundred years. Never in Alfred’s reign though would the kingdom be so threatened. This was not because weaker enemies invaded, but because Wessex would have a strong and structured army to defend itself with, without affecting the economy and wellbeing of the land and its subjects. An example of this infrastructure was the Burh system, a series of large ditches, which greatly added to the defence of the Wessex kingdom.

Some strange things did or did not occur after the battle. Guthrum didn’t leave Wessex immediately. As king of Wessex I would not like a foreign power to have several thousand troops stationed in my own kingdom. Secondly there is a question of how that many troops could be supported via hospitality. After killing, raping, and pillaging so many, they could hardly expect premium hospitality. It was not until October 879 that Guthrum and his troops moved up to the town of Cirencester in Gloucestshire. Before they left the peace could only have been described as fragile. This uneasy peace was hampered as another Viking army had ploughed up the Thames to encamp at Fulham. It is though that Guthrum had been on contact with them. Perhaps initially that were re-enforcements for his original invasion army. Perhaps they were just another pillaging Viking army looking for easy pickings. Whatever it was Guthrum who must have pondered whether with this new army in tow could achieve his initial objective of taking Wessex. Either he considered this unlikely, too dangerous, or perhaps his fighting and un-gentlemanly conducting days were over. My thoughts would be the former rather than the latter was the real case.

The initial treaty is understood to have been produced and signed at Wedmore. The known treaty from there is considered nowadays to have mistakes in it. This would indicate it was revised after the two armies fought over London many years later. It states that London belonged to Alfred, when in 878 it clearly did not. Part of the original text still survives to this day. The time gained by Alfred in 877 enabled him to firstly first a suitable defence in Wessex and subsequently go on the offensive so that by 866 he was attacking the Danish held London in his attempt to rid the lands rules by the foe. He succeeded at London, and the Anglo Saxon peoples seeing that a king had arrived to unite them, flocked to his banner and began the unification of England for the first time

Wedmore itself was originally an Island. Before the Saxons arrived and gave it its present name, it was just a nameless hump of dry fertile land sticking up out of the surrounding marshes, hence its name “wet”, “moor”. From the times of Alfred Wedmore was a royal estate, and it was perhaps the events of 877 that made it such. It seems like the days and few weeks after the end of hostilities revolved around numerous parties. It probably continued even when they came to Wedmore, where a hunting lodge would be the minimum to support a feasting and partying contingent of the army. The initial treaty between them was thought to have been a verbal one with nothing written down. As stated above this did not take place for eight years after the breaking of the truce at London and the subsequent battle. Witnesses of all the senior people on both sides must have been considered enough to make the agreement binding.

Because the war between Alfred and the Vikings towards the end of the 9^th Century had been so conclusive, the victors were given pretty much free reign in how the facts were recording. Perhaps Alfred was a much more evil and cunning man that is portrayed. Perhaps the victories were not as conclusive as represented, and that the Vikings were actually brought off in the end. Perhaps even the episode of Alfred fleeing to the marshes, and regaining his kingdom through the help of the common people is complete poppycock. One thing that does seem quite clear though was that his battle was a watershed. Alfred had paved the way for the unification of England, and it is he who could quite rightly call himself the first King of England. He could not call himself great. That would not come until a thousand years later when his achievements would be recognised. It is an irony that his greatest achievements are not his victories in battle but his steps towards building a true civilization.

Alfred would battle many more times, but he died in peace on October 26^th 899, aged a respectable 50, while planning the rebuilding of London in Chelsea. His body would reside at the Old Minster Winchester, Wessex’s capital and burial place of the West Saxon royal family. Eventually thought his physical effigy would be lost forever. It is one of the sad ironies that so little physically is left of such a great king and his kingdom. Ideologically modern society throughout the western world is based on his concepts and principles, but without a justified epitaph his impact on the British and world society will never be fully understood or appreciated.

Bratton White Horse. The modern version.

The original Horse. Celtic tribal symbol or an Ethandun victory celebration?

Alfred’s statue in Wantage “Alfred found learning dead, and he restored it.

Education neglected, and he revived it. The laws powerless, and he gave them force. The Church debased, and he raised it. The land ravaged by a fearful enemy, from which he delivered it. Alfred's name will live as long as mankind shall respect the past.”

Appendix

The Royal Navy

Alfred laid down the English navy. It was him who decided that an Island nation should expand its horizon in order to pre-empt and deal with enemies much further from home. The boats arrived in the form of large and more advanced floating weapons than the Vikings had at the disposal. Often they were far bigger than their Viking counterparts, with some boats having 60 oars. Skirmishes at sea were common between the two races. Neither had the upper hand by a huge margin, but perhaps the Danish seamanship counteracted the superior design qualities of the Saxons. The Vikings had reached Newfoundland in 1000AD, well before Columbus, which demonstrates skills and determination of the highest order. Solid and manageable Oak trees grew in abundance in the fertile English countryside, which provided an adequate resource for building these waterborne monoliths of war.

Wales

Home of the true Britons. As the Saxons advanced in the 500s the true occupants of England withdrew to the extremities of Wales. The Angles, Saxons, and Jutes conquered all that remained. The Britons like the Celts in Scotland were very much a barbarian civilization. Above all races such as these were fiercely independent and remaining so for a number of hundred of years, even after the arrival of the Saxons. The biggest single factor to affect things was the arrival of the Vikings. Soon the Britons relised that on their own they would eventually succumb to the Vikings without further assistance. Although their hatred of the Saxons would have been difficult to hide I’m sure they relised that Alfred was flexible enough to accommodate them on board without need to decimate their kingdom in response.

The decision to put Wales under English protection was a logical one. For the Welsh they had protection but remained to a good extent independent. For England it had one less enemy to worry about, and an increased buffer zone for its own protection. Should the Vikings attack from Wales it would be on someone else’s territory and in someone else’s backyard.

Language

The English language bears its origins from the Germanic race in the central continent. More people today speak the language than any other, and it is the second choice language of most industrialized nations by default. Although other civilizations such as the Normans have changed the language greatly, the core dialect remains the same.

Christianity

Religion is the making and breaking of today’s world. If it religion that gives us so much in our daily lives to keep going. However it is religion that generally causes most of the world’s conflicts. Take the Middle East, Ireland, and Bosnia for example. There is nothing say that without Christianity the world would be a better or safer place. However without it, the cornerstone of English society for over a thousand years, those influences would not have been demonstrated to the likes of America, Australia, Canada, and South Africa. The world without the United States would be a lot different from what we see today.

Is this all that remains of Alfred?

The Solar System

It was Alfred in his reign that described the world and solar system with Earth being the yolk in the middle of the Universes Egg’s white.

Burhs

Although defensive systems were nothing knew in the 900s Alfred’s approach to the defence of the kingdom was wholly new. For a start it was not a case of calling all the army out on a whim based on an enemy army ready to attack. There was a standing army that left able-bodied men from each village behind to both defend and ensure the subsistence level of farming continued. No longer would it be a case that wars had to wait for the lambing to continue before commencing. It suddenly became a 365-day a year occupation. This system was admired throughout Europe, and was copied, especially by Henry the Saxon king of Germany 919-36, and its use continued in England even up to Harold II days against the Normandy conquest of 1066. The regular army in England would commonly be known as the Thegns, while the peasant militia would be referred to as the Fyrd.

In addition to the standing army came the Burh system in 879. In its simplest form this was a large ditch defending the most important towns and cities of Alfred’s empire. The word Burh still remains today in the form of Borough. Alfred’s ability as a brilliant military strategist must rank up there with the very best. It was this skill as much as his courage that brought the ultimate victory.

Listed below is the Burhs with their hide rating:

1 Eorpeburnam 324

2 Hastings 500

3 Lewes 1300

4 Burpham 720

5 Chichester 1500

6 Portchester 500

7 Southampton 150

8. Winchester 2400

9 Wilton 1400

10 Chisbury 700

11 Shaftsbury 700

12 Twynam 470

13 Wareham 1600

14 Bridport 760

15 Exeter 760

16 Halwell 300

17 Lydford 140

18 Pilton 360

19 Watchet 513

20 Axbridge 400

21 Lyng 100

22 Langport 600

23 Bath 1000

24 Malesbury 1200

25 Cricklade 1500

26 Oxford 1400

27 Wallingford 2400

28 Buckingham 1600

29 Sahes 1000

30 Eashing 600

31 Southwark 1800

32 Worcester 1200

33 Warwick 2400

Map A showing the location of the Hidage burhs

The Burhs of Saxon England

Learning

Education had deteriorated somewhat during the early reign of the King. There was no formal education system, and what else remained in the form of monasteries was slowly being eroded away by the Viking raids. At the middle of his reign in 887 Alfred, aged 38 was still completely illiterate. Although the likes of Asser has a great deal of thanks in changing him so that he could read and write English and Latin fluently, it was the King himself who decided to push knowledge and education upon his people. For someone who went to Rome so early in his life, and was reputed also to have such a good memory, literacy would have been a hard skill to avoid. Alfred enjoyed his education and believed that others would too. Ignorance of this he said was one of the worst traits of all.

Ealhswith

Alfred was married in 868 to Ealhswith, a Mercian noblewoman, daughter of Ethelred, who was chief of the Gaines (Gainsborough). The wedding took place in Mercia. It is noted that during the wedding feast Alfred suffered his first serious bout of what is believed to be haemroids, which was to plague him for the rest of his life. Who say women can’t damage your health.

Laws

Under Alfred’s uniform code of laws, they were based on the teachings of the Bible. The idea of this was for the English-speaking people to feel a sense of shared identity and common cause. Tailored with this he ordered the creation of the Anglo-Saxon chronicles, probably the most important book of the 1^st Millennium. The laws themselves tried to give everyone fairness and was particularly accommodating for once on protected the weaker and more vulnerable people in the kingdom. By modern standard they were still pretty unfavorable if you were poor or at the bottom of the social ladder, but it did make even the rich people more accountable for their crimes.

Once of the main steps forward was the limiting the ancient custom of the blood feud, where direct vengeance could be sought for the murder or crime against someone in the family. It decreed that justice should come from the law and not a vendetta. Conduct was always to the next person up in the social ladder. A man was always accountable to his lord, and the lord to his king. Some strange laws also appeared and carried serve penalties, for example breaking ones word could result in serious consequences. On the other hand a rich lord could rape and murder and generally get away with it by paying off the victims family!

Evidence of the laws exists still in the Nation’s archives. The papers are dates between 885-890, which was late in his reign.

Anglo Saxons

When the Saxons first came from their Germanic homeland on the continent, the disposed British Celts called them Saxons from the Scottish word for abuse, Sassenach. The Saxons themselves were still quite happy to call themselves Angles. The venerable Bede took the word as gens anglorrum with their language being known as Englise, or pronounced as Angle-ish.

Much is written about the Anglo Saxons and what they have brought the world. With the English language people always point the blame for the most offensive of words. This is not fair as most of these words actually come from 14^th century Holland. The English language is mainly made up of Anglo Saxon. Quoting from “The Year 1000” by Robert Lacey there are some typical example of the use of Anglo Saxon words. In Churchill’s “We shall fight them on the beaches” is completely Anglo Saxon words, except for the word surrender. Neil Armstrong’s “one small step for man” is the same.

By looking at the use of the language in place names we get a good idea of the population spread throughout England, especially if you consider that most of the villages already had their names by the time the doomsday book was written. Place names ending in ham for example are Saxon, as are ing, stowe, stead, and ton. Viking names end with by, Thorpe, toft, and scale. By looking at an atlas we can see how close and far apart the Pagans and Christian peoples lived. One more piece to the puzzle, following the inception of Alfred’s Burhs, this term was translated into modern day borough.

Counties of Wessex

The boundaries of the Wessex counties came about when the West Saxons gained the day at Charford in early 500s. The name of Wiltshire came from Wilton. Somerset’s name came from Somerton. Hampshire in return from Southampton bizarrely enough, while Dorchester lends its name to Dorset.

Scene of the 871 Battle of Ashdown under leaden skies. Lowbury hill off to the right is currently believed to be the location of the battle. The “Ridgeway” lies out in front with the ancient Devil’s Ditch off in the distance.

Author’s drawing of Alfred based on his image found on one of the many Silver coins from the period. There are records of at least 215 Alfred minted coins, but only 6 for Guthrum. The problem with images is that they were rarely accurate, being based on the main from Roman emperor coins from hundreds of years before.

Bibliography

The Battle of Ethandun by Jean Morrison

Alfred’s Defeat of the Vikings by John Peddie & Patrick Dillion

More Battlefields of England by Alfred H. Burne

The Viking Art of War by Paddy Griffith

Alfred the Good Soldier by John Peddie

Wiltshire Archaeological Society Journal

Ordnance Survey Maps

Around Westbury in Old Photographs by Michael Randall

Domesday Book:Wiltshire by John Morris

The Lost Roads of Wessex by C. Cochrane

Alfred the Great by Richard Abels

Alfred the Great by David Sturdy

Asser’s Life of Alfred by Stevenson

Ordnance Survey Maps by Crown Copyright

Round about Wiltshire by A.G. Bradley

Highways & Byways in Wiltshire by Edward Hutton

Wiltshire by R.W.Finn

Guide to Wiltshire by Walters

Wiltshire R.L.P. Jowitt

Alfred the Great by Douglas Stuckey

Early Road Maps of the Upper Thames Valley

Ancient England by Nigel Blundell and Kate Farrington

The Vikings in Wiltshire

The Plain by Chris Corden

Discovering Hill Figures by Kate Bergamar

Late Saxon and Viking Art by T D Kendrick

Beginnings of English Society by Dorithy Whitelock

The Year 1000 by Robert Lacey and Danny Danziger

Anglo-Saxon Weapons & Warfare by Richard Underwood

Wedmore 1100 Official Magazine

Alfred and the Danes by Majorie Reeves

Alfred the Great by Douglas Stuckey

Archaeology by Colin Renfrew and Paul Bahn

Ethandun

David Stokes

Contents

Introduction

Prelude to war

Christmas at Chippenham

King Egbert’s Stone

Iley Oak

Battlesbury Hill

Ancient ditch on Salisbury Plain

The Forces

Morale

Equipment

Tactics

Resources

Leaders

Battle

Evidence

The Water Cress beds in Luccombe Bottom

The Treaty of Wedmore

Appendix

Bibliography