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.