| Title | : | King Alfred of England (Makers of History, #9) |
| Author | : | |
| Rating | : | |
| ISBN | : | 1406802409 |
| ISBN-10 | : | 9781406802405 |
| Language | : | English |
| Format Type | : | Paperback |
| Number of Pages | : | 100 |
| Publication | : | First published January 1, 1849 |
King Alfred of England (Makers of History, #9) Reviews
-
Jacob Abbott has a good grasp of history and he is a fine writer and storyteller. He wrote many such books in his time. Unfortunately an early chapter in this book contains some nonsense regarding the superiority of the white Anglo-Saxon race.
-
Fun quick read. Learned a lot about English history. Also, Alfred the great is quite the anomaly among kings in history. A genuinely loved and virtuous King. The man responsible for the foundations of the Magna Carta and Oxford.
-
Alfred is a remarkable figure in the history of England. He is credited with founding the English monarchy, codifying laws, founding the University of Oxford, and inventing the lantern.
I found Abbott's book a bit of a slog. And there is that section on pp 34-36 where he evaluates the Indian, African and Caucasian races in a most discomfiting and cringe-worthy way. He wrote there is no barbarism in the Caucasian race, a statement wrong in 1849, which wrongness was amplified ninety years later with the gruesome infamy of Stalin and Hitler. Ouch.
I have a mental block when it comes to all the Ethels: Ethelstan, Ethelred, Ethelwulf, Ethelbert. Ethel means noble, and the appellation seems similar in style to Pharaoh. But I tend to surrender to confusion.
Much of his life, Alfred was fighting Danes who tried encroaching on Alfred's lands. Abbot writes: The Danes, it is true, might be considered as the aggressors in this contest, and, as such, wholly in the wrong; but then, on the other hand, it was to be remembered that the ancestors of the Saxons had been guilty of precisely the same aggressions upon the Britons, who held the island before them; so that the Danes were, after all, only intruding upon intruders.
The most intriguing story was Alfred's victory over the Dane chieftain, Guthrum. When Guthrum surrendered, Alfred offered him his liberty and friendship if he would leave Alfred's kingdom, vow never to return, give hostages, convert to Christianity and be baptized in the presence of the military leaders on both sides. Alfred stood as his godfather. They feasted together and parted friends. Guthrum kept the promises he made. If that's not a discussion starter... -
Abbott is flawed by being inherently racist, believing that the Anglo Saxons and other Europeans were superior to others. He apparently skipped the history of the dark ages, to say nothing of the Roman Emperors The rest of the story is a nice, narrative style history of an earlier ages. Modern Scholars no doubt will have more objective points of view, but given the rarity of books on this early and Great King of England, one must read what one can find.
-
Apart from the blatant 19th century racist attitudes about how Anglo-Saxons are supposedly better than other races, this book was satisfactory in its account of Alfred. I'll certainly take it for a free online book until I can get a hold of the Justin Pollard book.
-
Well-written. Gives plenty of context and background. Explains why he has been named and considered so "great." Of all the "Greats" throughout history (Peter, Alexander, Cyrus, etc.), I think Alfred really deserved the title.
-
A truly moving account of one of England's greatest heroes - one that does full credit not only to the subject itself, but also to the author for splendidly recounting this history to the reader with accuracy, enthusiasm, and passion.
-
I love the subject, but this was one of the worst written books I have ever read. People seem to love this guy, but if everything he has written is as convoluted as this one, I don't see the attraction. A disappointing read, especially given his subject.
-
Well researched chronology of King Albert. However a lot of assumptions are made that are quite presumptive and outrageous. Best if historians keep their prejudices to themselves. This book was written over a hundred years ago which may account for some of the slants.
-
英格兰人也是奇怪，以公元4世纪北欧（丹麦）日尔曼入侵中盎撒人为正统。明明前面有辉煌的罗马人，盎-撒之前还有凯尔特人，打败盎-撒人的有诺曼底人。盎-撒人与维金人人、诺曼人同根同源。也不知道他们怎么分的清。
阿尔弗雷德大帝，英国七国时代统一的王，因此称帝。前9世纪下半叶，大唐已经走向了末路……没什么感觉的一本书。
作者怎么翻译的，副标题胡说八道“英格兰开国”。原文没有，说开国也未必不对，类比嬴政。但容易误导。 -
Abbott is an excellent story teller and historian. Though short, his series on history serves as an excellent primer.
-
Great book. I love this series. Easy intro into early English history.
-
I found this very interesting. The lives of King Alfred the Great and the people around him were fascinating, as well as the stories.
-
Alfred the Great. The first king of England. What a king what an incredible story. This book was accessible and very easy to read. We could all learn a lot from King Alfred!
-
This is the most under-researched and off-topic history book I’ve read to date. Would’ve rated it one star but opted for two when considering the author was a nineteenth-century American writing about English history when he doubtless lacked much info that's available on Alfred nowadays.
But why attempt writing a biography of someone if research is so restricted? Even the book’s title is erroneous, as Alfred was not King of England, he was King of Wessex. Alfred laid the foundations of a united England, but it was his grandson Æthelstan who became my country’s first monarch.
Other errors include a reference to the four kingdoms of England during the 800s. The author gets three right but names the fourth as Essex when it was in fact East Anglia.
At one point Alfred is said to have died in 900. At another he’s said to have died in 900 or 901. In truth, Alfred died in 899. Clearly the author was unsure of the date, so why state it as fact one minute, only to say it was either this year or that in the next minute? Anyway, he's got it wrong.
My biggest criticism is the huge amount of time spent detailing times and events that are off-topic. Apart from the first two paragraphs, Chapters 1-3 have nothing to do with Alfred, while Chapters 4 & 5 barely touch on the subject matter either, as this quote from the end of Chapter 5 illustrates:
>But we must end these digressions, which we have indulged thus far in order to give the
reader some distinct conception of the ideas and habits of the times, and proceed, in the next chapter, to relate the events immediately connected with Alfred's accession to the throne.<
Mr Abbott, you should never have started these extensive digressions!
Chapter 1 is all about Roman Britain, which is an interesting topic in its own right, but it has no place here whatsoever.
Chapter 2 discusses the Anglo-Saxons. Granted, this is the stock from which Alfred sprung, thus a paragraph devoted to these years would’ve been fine, but not a full chapter.
Chapter 3 is about the Danes, which again is relevant, but only in relation to how Alfred the Great saved my country from becoming Daneland. We don’t need a full chapter discussing events that have no relevance to the subject of the biography!
I gave up reading when reaching the final chapter, entitled “The Sequel”, as it discusses events after Alfred’s death. Not events concerning his family or how his grandson took what Alfred had started and became England’s first king, all of which would’ve been an acceptable way to round off the book, but rather the author skips on a few decades, focusing on people and events leading up to the time of the conquest. Totally off-topic again, Mr Abbott!
The author’s reasoning for this final chapter is that he feels the subsequent period of history wouldn’t be of interest to general readers. This is quite an assumption.
The last chapter, like the first three, does not belong in this biography. The author should’ve either ended with Alfred’s death, or finished with a summary of his son King Edward’s fate, and give a nod of appreciation to his grandson Æthelstan for what he achieved.
Incredibly, Æthelstan - the first King of England - does not receive a single mention in the entire book! It amazes me how the author can justify ignoring Æthelstan yet wastes time devoting full chapters to subjects unrelated to Alfred, while heavily digressing off-topic for most other times.
Glad I didn’t pay for this volume. It’s freely available on several websites, though I recommend it to nobody wanting to learn about Alfred.
The only thing I learned in the whole book is that Alfred is credited for inventing the lantern. -
This book was published in 1849, and meant as a history for what we now call young adults. I read it, because our modern histories of this period often mention some of the myths and stories surrounding Alfred, especially the burnt cakes, but never retell them. I figured this biography would do so, and I was not disappointed. However, two other great discoveries came my way. Chapter two sets out to tell of the "Anglo-Saxon Race." This chapter is so racist that even David Duke would be taken aback Yet, for those studying history, it clearly lays out the beliefs of the day. Secondly, assuming this book was written for the Middle School age group, there would be few of that age today who could follow this book. It clearly shows that the rigor of learning has lapsed over the years.
-
What you have to understand is that this book was written between probably 1833 and 1879 (year of death for the author, Jacob Abbott). The earliest printing I've found for it was a Harper & Brothers copy published in 1902 (at UCLA Young research library) The history is poor, in my opinion, even for the time; though I suppose there were still historians living at that time who believed King Arthur was a real, historical personage. It uses the pseudo-histories of Bede, Nennius, Geoffrey of Monmouth, as a basis, as if they were true history. It's an interesting read if you haven't yet been introduced to the subject; but understand that it is not true history. It contains a few facts that certainly are true; but they are mired within layers of folk stories and myth. The style will seem stilted and antiquary to the modern reader. It's only real value is for finding out what people believed English history to be before, say, 1850.
-
This might be the worst book I have ever read. Abbott not only makes some incredibly racist and sexist statements, but he also writes in a style that seems fake, as if he's trying desperately to sound scholarly. I found the book quite jolting to my system, especially after reading Beowulf, which is brilliant.
-
I'm usually a fan of the Jacob Abbott histories, but this one was unusually bad. The information is poor, with a few big errors, and the racist ideas inherent in the time period (early 1800s) are quite evident. As a brief review of the life of King Alfred, I wouldn't recommend this one.
-
Boring account a powerful King. Writing was flat and dry.
-
Dry dry dry. I wanted to read about Alfred and not about all the Saxons who came before him.
