I can't go higher than two stars for this book, I'm afraid, and that is after I award a bonus star for piquing my interest in Alfred the Great.
Alfred the Great is a truly fascinating person. Since I read this book I have sought out two more biographies of him, which I've thoroughly enjoyed. But this is not a good book. At the most basic level, it lacks citations for many assertions, which I found tremendously frustrating. How does he know that "the songs Alfred heard in the mead hall as a boy intoxicated him"? How does he know that "the Anglo-Saxon tribes were Christian tribes, and not just in name only but faithfully worshiping the God of the Bible with a vibrant and fruitful faith"? (There is a bibliography but no endnotes or footnotes, at least not in the Kindle version.)
And then there is this:
"And then without warning, the inexorable Viking assault suddenly dissolved. In one moment, the fierce and relentless barrage of Danish warriors vanished as if it had been a mirage. All that was left was a view of the backside of a panic-stricken mob fleeing for its life. It took several moments for Alfred and his men to recover from their amazement and to realize what had happened. Suddenly, it became clear. King Æthelred had finished his prayers."
Passages like this dot the book. Again, there is no citation for any of this. I suspect it came from Asser's biography of Alfred, a hotly contested hagiography which may or may not have been written during Alfred's lifetime and which no longer exists in its original form (the last medieval copy was destroyed in a fire in the seventeenth century). Asser's Life of Alfred has been the subject of literally centuries of scholarly debate, and virtually no serious scholar would treat it as an entirely factual account, but you would never know this from the main text of this book; the author, as best I can tell, credulously uses it as a primary source.
The author seems to have constructed a fantasy about Alfred the Great in his head and is determined to wrench the facts to fit his image of the king. He does not accept, for example, that Kingstanding Hill was the site of the Battle of Ashdown; he prefers Whitehorse Hill. But he gives us no real evidence for his interpretation; he does not explain why he thinks that most historians are wrong other than to say that locating the battle at Kingstanding is "such a remarkably miserly way to interpret the evidence." And hey, maybe Merkle's right -- maybe it was at Whitehorse Hill. I don't know enough about the competing theories to judge. But he isn't giving me a reason to agree with him other than the idea that Whitehorse Hill fits his romantic notions of the kind of king Alfred was.
This constant romanticizing does Alfred no favors--indeed, it makes him less complex and less interesting. Everything Alfred does is Good, and everything his enemies do is Bad. He is all-wise, aa brilliant scholar, a skilled soldier. He invents the horn lantern! He invents a kind of clock! He invents constitutional originalism! When the Vikings win a battle--as a side note, I found the author's insistence on referring to the Vikings as "pagans" tremendously grating--it is because they are bloodthirsty and vicious; when Alfred's forces win, they are filled with godly zeal. Now, the Vikings were definitely known for their cruelty, but it is still hard not to see a double standard in the way Merkle reports on Alfred's battle prowess.
Similarly, this is the author's description of feudalism: "These simple instincts, the faithfulness to a master and the love for a people, forged a strong and compelling bond that time and again held the warriors of Wessex together in the clash of the shieldwalls." Feudalism was quite a bit more complicated than "faithfulness to a master" and "a strong and compelling bond" and it's surprising to see a modern work of history endorsing such a simplistic view of it.
There are several biographies of Alfred the Great out there. If you like history, you should read one -- he was fascinating. But don't read this one.