Talk:Treaty of Alfred and Guthrum

A fact from Treaty of Alfred and Guthrum appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the Did you know column on 20 February 2006. The text of the entry was as follows:

Did you know... that Alfred the Great's taking of London in 886 was followed by his treaty with Guthrum, the Viking ruler of East Anglia?

A record of the entry may be seen at Wikipedia:Recent additions/2006/February.

Wikipedia

Middle Ages Low‑importance

	Middle Ages portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Middle Ages, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the Middle Ages on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Middle AgesWikipedia:WikiProject Middle AgesTemplate:WikiProject Middle AgesMiddle Ages
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Anglo-Saxon Kingdoms Mid‑importance

	Anglo-Saxon England portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Anglo-Saxon Kingdoms, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Anglo-Saxon Kingdoms on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Anglo-Saxon KingdomsWikipedia:WikiProject Anglo-Saxon KingdomsTemplate:WikiProject Anglo-Saxon KingdomsAnglo-Saxon Kingdoms
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Law Mid‑importance

	Law portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Law, an attempt at providing a comprehensive, standardised, pan-jurisdictional and up-to-date resource for the legal field and the subjects encompassed by it.LawWikipedia:WikiProject LawTemplate:WikiProject Lawlaw
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

England Mid‑importance

	England portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject England, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of England on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.EnglandWikipedia:WikiProject EnglandTemplate:WikiProject EnglandEngland-related
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Norse history and culture Mid‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Norse history and culture, a WikiProject related to all activities of the North Germanic peoples, both in Scandinavia and abroad, prior to the formation of the Kalmar Union in 1397. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.Norse history and cultureWikipedia:WikiProject Norse history and cultureTemplate:WikiProject Norse history and cultureNorse history and culture
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Comments

N.B. I think there's a problem with the dating of Alfred in London in 886. I'll do some more research into the matter. Harthacanute 14:28, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

When is a boundary not a boundary...?

Can someone explain what is meant by this:

The first point is the most famous. First concerning our boundaries: up on the Thames, and then up on the Lea, and along the Lea unto its source, then straight to Bedford, then up on the Ouse to Watling Street. This has been used by many as the boundary of the Danelaw. However, there is no mention of this, and it appears to be primarily a political boundary, perhaps created in the wake of Alfred's taking of London.

It seems peculiarly redundant to suggest (as I understand it) that the boundaries set out in the treaty might not represent the boundary of the Danelaw, and then to observe that 'it appears to be primarily a political boundary'. It begs the question, 'When is a boundary not a boundary?' Nortonius (talk) 11:30, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I must agree with you, a political border sounds weird, and it definatly isn't explained well in the article for why it is supposed and assumed as a "political border", the expllenation for this is - "perhaps created in the wake of Alfred taking London" - what does it supposed to mean? it would be much easier if the writer wouldn't save so much in word and explain a - little bit - more this thing.

In addition, the "coerl" is not explained well at all in the article and the following sentances after the cite, are completly make the reader go lost because it's not clear to what they refer to - as much I understood it refered to that - the coerl lives in his land is refered as a novel. There's no clear interpetation of the cites given and the following sentances refers to the cites as "it" when it's not clear what the word "it", refers to in the cite or in the following sentance after the cite. In other words - the article is not well-written and it makes it extremely hard for non-english native speakers to understand the text. These text should be written more simplified and, even if it requires two or three more sentances. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.69.168.95 (talk) 18:05, 30 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]