Dating and intent of ‘Alfred and Guthrum’s Treaty’

Wedmore/ Cirencester/ London

Alfred and Guthrum’s Treaty (‘Treaty’) is the text that survives as later mediaeval copies of an

agreement made in the late ninth century. It is the only formal written agreement of its kind from the

period that we have, although historians have tended to describe other arrangements between the

enemies as signalled in the ASC as also being ‘treaties’ (see fig 2 below as a guide). It is sometimes

referred to as ‘the Treaty of /at Wedmore’ but that is to confound its purpose with another earlier

event. Both Pollard (op cit pp194-196 and 229-230) and Abels (op cit pp 165-166) conflate the events

at Wedmore and the Treaty into one arrangement, or at least, as with Haslam (op cit passim) the first

entailing the second. That an agreement was made at Wedmore is inferred by Guthrum’s party’s

departure from Chippenham to Cirencester as related by the ASC in ‘879’ (recte 878) where they

settled for a year or at least overwintered there.

The ‘agreement’ at Wedmore was a result of Alfred’s victory over Guthrum at Ethandun and Alfred’s

cornering Guthrum’s forces at Chippenham. A peace between them culminated in an oath-making and

the baptising of Guthrum at Wedmore. Haslam has argued that this surviving text of the Treaty is not

actually the ‘Wedmore agreement’ at all but a later arrangement reflecting the realities of what led to

and followed from Guthrum’s withdrawal from Cirencester. Haslam argues that Alfred bargained to

let Guthrum have ‘East Anglia’ (not clearly defined) and vacate Hwicce/ Cirencester and that is how

he acquired ‘London’, this being shortly after in 878-9. We might call it Haslam’s theory of a ‘Treaty

of Cirencester’. Haslam here closely follows the arguments of Dumville (Dumville ‘Treaty ...’ in

‘Wessex and England ...’ 1996) who proposes a Treaty of Chippenham along the same lines but the

The latter’s arguments are to prove his theory of a radically different border arrangement between

Alfred and Guthrum’s kingdoms than most other commentators. (Dumville’s paper giving a

completely different interpretation of the Treaty and what the border represented in it meant for the

division of territories between the English and the Vikings causes so many other issues and problems

to arise that this author has dealt with it below in an Appendix: §Whither Essex?).

However, it is here proposed that the text demonstrates that Haslam’s (or Dumville’s or anyone

following this line of argument) assertions cannot be sustained, partly because his own arguments lead

to a contrary conclusion. This review is intended to supply a forensic examination to reveal the fine

detail of the reasons why this is so. It was demonstrated, in the relevant section above, that the likely

veracity of the ASC dating of 886 for Alfred’s re-occupation of London was that it followed the events

of the attack by either or both the ‘Fulham’ Vikings and Guthrum on Kent in ASC recte ‘884’ and

Alfred’s counter attack in 885. The academic consensus is that the Treaty reflects the situation as after

Alfred’s occupation of ‘London’ ie no earlier than 886, as delineated in the ASC annal sa ‘885’

although there is a caveat to accepting the date itself because of the belief that what the ASC says

about the events at 878-879 dovetails with the Treaty so that there appears to be a seven year gap. The

period following the retreat from Cirencester is designated as the ‘Continuation War’ by this author.

However, this paper’s conclusions also contradict parts of the consensus position as well.

We need to clarify what the Treaty does not represent. It is not the earliest definition of the so-called

‘Danelaw’. We should apply the term ‘Danelaw’ sparingly in any period under scrutiny (see for a

summary and warning Lesley Abrams Edward the Elder’s Danelaw in Higham and Hill op cit pp128-

143). The agreement is not between all Viking armies and Alfred, but only between him and of the

Vikings owing allegiance to ‘king’ Guthrum, which was limited to ‘East Anglia’, the areas of the later

shires of Norfolk, Suffolk, Essex, parts of Hertford, east-Bedford, Huntingdon and Cambridge ‘shires’.

That excludes, York, ‘The Five Boroughs’, Northampton and the western midlands and north-west of

what had been Mercia, all of which were dominated by different affinities.

We also have to differentiate those parts of England where Scandinavian influences went deepest and

lasted and those places which where occupied for a shorter period; these latter areas would not have

either place-name nor land tenure differences that took root or indeed may never have been introduced

before the Edwardian reconquest, they effectively were frontier territories or ‘debatable lands’. So that

the later west-midland shires would not show many of these ‘Danelaw’ features but that does not mean

they were under Anglo-Saxon political influence continuously after the collapse of Mercia. Likewise

long-term political control of an area by the Vikings does not mean they had deep settlement of the

same territory. When we are informed that their armies divided up and settled the land and gave some

to the vanquished Angles or Saxons it means precisely they took some for themselves and not all of it.

Yet conversely an area which actually has a shorter and later history of known Scandinavian political

control (arriving from Ireland, hence ‘Hiberno-Norse’), from 902 to 920, the north-west, principally

the area between the Dee and the Ribble, especially along the Dee and Mersey estuaries, has strong

Viking settlement evidenced through place-names. Other areas may also have place-name evidence

showing settlement but that does not mean they held political control. Such settlers may have taken

‘English’ overlordship rather than give up the land; these farmers may even have joined the Anglo-

Saxon fyrd in the same way the English found themselves allies of the Vikings. There is no simple

uniform dynamic to ‘Danelaw’ of political control / equalling settlement / equalling ethnic affiliation.

The Treaty

This text exists in a later period copy held in the library of Corpus Christi Cambridge and consists

of eight clauses which has here been divided and numbered for ease of reference:-

Facsimile of Leibermann ‘B’ text.

1 This is the peace that King Alfred & King

Guthrum, & the witan of all the English nation,

& all the people that are in East Anglia, have all

ordained & with oaths confirmed, for themselves

& for their descendants, as well forborn as for

unborn, who reckon of God's mercy or of ours.

2

Concerning our land boundaries: And along the

Thames, then up on the Lea, and along the Lea

until its source, then straight to Bedford, then up

on the Ouse until Watling Street.

3

Then is this: If a man be slain, we estimate all

equally dear, English and Danish, at viii half

marks of pure gold; except the ceorl who resides

on rented land & their [the Danes ] freedmen;

they also are equally dear, either at cc shillings.

4

& if a king's thegn be accused of manslaying, if

he dare clear himself on oath, let him do that

with 12 king's thegns. If any one accuse that man

who is of less degree than the king's thegn, let

him clear himself with xi of his equals & with

one king's thegn.

5

& so in every suit which may be more than iv

mancuses.

6

& if he darenot, let him pay for it threefold, as it

may be valued.

7

& that every man know his warrantor in

acquiring slaves and horses and oxen.

8

& we all ordained on that day that the oaths were

sworn, that neither bond nor free might go to the

host without leave, no more than any of them to

us. But if it happen that from necessity any of

them will have traffic with us or we with them,

with cattle and with goods, that is to be allowed in

this wise: that hostages be given in pledge of

peace, & as evidence whereby it may be known

that the party has a clean back.

Trans: Sharp following Swanton and Dumville/ Leibermann

[mancuses;- a money of account representing thirty silver pence which survived into the modern era as a ‘Half-Crown’]

Timing of the Treaty

Clause 1 of the Treaty states : “This is the peace that King Alfred and King Guthrum, & the witan of

all the English nation, & all the people that are in East Anglia, have all ordained & with oaths

confirmed, for themselves & for their descendants, as well forborn as for unborn, who reckon of God's

mercy or of ours ...”. (writer’s emphases)

We are told, at ASC ‘A’/‘E’ recte 879, that Guthrum’s army “... went from Cirencester into East

Anglia and settled that land and divided it up ...”. Haslam therefore proposes that the Treaty text

represents this withdrawal to the east, ie from Cirencester to ‘East Anglia’. Dumville holds that the

earlier annal of 878 referring to Guthrum agreeing to leave ‘Alfred’s Kingdom’ was the Treaty as

concluded at Chippenham/ Wedmore; some commentators conflate both events. The death of Guthrum

in 890 gives us the latest date for the Treaty. Scholars who have claimed that it represents the

arrangements following Ethandun and Wedmore would place it at 878-879 and Haslam places it only

a little later ie following Guthrum’s departure from Cirencester in very late 879. So that we have an

eleven years range for its agreement.

This text is more neutrally referred to as ‘Alfred and Guthrum’s Treaty’ which leaves open its dating

and place of agreement. One can agree with Haslam and others that this Treaty does not represent the

‘Wedmore agreement’ (separately ‘Treaty at Wedmore’) which simply concerns Guthrum’s

withdrawal into Cirencester/ Hwicce in recte 878. What happened after Wedmore/ Chippenham was

that Guthrum left for Cirencester. One disagrees with Haslam that the Treaty represents the

arrangements that led to Guthrum’s removal to ‘East Anglia’ from Cirencester. The first strong

argument against this is that Alfred had no status near ‘East Anglia’ to come to any agreement with

Guthrum about a border between them there, nor to sanction any settlement or dividing up of the land

at that date. What is more, neither did Guthrum. Alfred could not have led a ‘united’ English Witan

(the witan of all the English nation ie of West Saxon and ‘English’ Mercians) at the time of Wedmore,

as he was trying to induce Guthrum to leave Wessex, ie Chippenham. So in this period 878-879 Alfred

had concluded no alliance with the Mercian part of the ‘English nation’ and there was no ‘united’

Witan.

Before Ethandun and so before the events in the Somerset Levels culminating in the arrangements at

Wedmore, the Mercians did not support the West Saxons, indeed they were formally allied by

Ceolwulf with Guthrum. After Wedmore in 878 Guthrum left for Cirencester in Mercia, presumably

because it was that part of Ceolwulf’s ‘English’ Mercia that had been divided up by him after he left

Exeter in 877. There was no reason at all how or why Alfred could induce Guthrum to move out of

western Mercia into ‘East Anglia’ at Wedmore or at Cirencester. There was at that point no political or

military situation which could cause this. Any agreement at Wedmore was just to remove Guthrum

from Wessex. When Guthrum arrived at Cirencester he remained for the rest of the year and then

another Viking-army arrived at Fulham. Something did change whch caused Guthrum to retreat to the

east in this period but it was not an agreement with either the Mercians or with Alfred. Guthrum

vacated the area because something else had changed and that change was the situation within

‘English’ Mercia and the balance of forces marshalled by Wessex whilst Guthrum was at Cirencester.

Rather, the evidence that we have is that the sequence of events indicates that it was Guthrum who

took a unilateral initiative and he entered into some vacuum of power or contacted his old allies in

‘East Anglia’, he then made his way back there. If, as Swanton notes, Ubba was the Viking leader

killed on the raid on Devon in 878 then he was the last brother of the three that had taken control of

East Anglia; he is also supposed to have been the killer of King Edmund there (Swanton loc cit p72

fn2; p75 fn12). After all, Guthrum’s campaign originated in Cambridge in 874 from where he marched

on Wareham in 875. As described above, the probable route of ‘Guthrum’s Retreat’ took him through

the gap of Akeman Street back to the east. He may have been primus inter pares of the group that had

settled there or simply the last surviving of their ‘heroic’ leaders and possibly also the wealthiest. He

arrived in Cambridge in 874 as one of ‘three kings’ the others, Oscytel and Anund, we hear of no

more.

This writer is therefore against the general supposition that Guthrum became ‘king’ of all the Viking

armies south of the Humber (eg Smyth – Alfred p83) therefore including the east Midlands armies later

known as the ‘Five Boroughs’ and that at Northampton which were part of ‘old’ Mercia. If we analyse

the boundary line in the text we can see that his authority was only over Cambridge, Huntingdon,

Essex, with parts of Hertford and Bedford ‘shires’ and East Anglia (ie Norfolk and Suffolk) and that

this kingdom itself had dissolved by the period of Edward’s advances into the northern ‘home

counties’ in the second decade of the tenth century, if not indeed following Guthrum’s death in 890.

In this regard also we need to consider the ASC sa 890 statement that Guthrum was the first to settle

East Anglia, presumably referring to the earlier entry of 879 when he removes to and “settles and

divides it up”. Yet, the East Anglian kingdom had clearly been destroyed as a polity by a Viking army

in 869 and was being settled by the first wave of the ‘Great Army’, ie those who had followed Halfdan

and were probably already bringing their families and trade across the North Sea. It is difficult to

accept that he was already ‘king’ of the East Anglian based armies in 869 or 874 or that there was no

settlement and dividing of it between then and his return in 879. Guthrum seems to be a ‘second wave’

arrival taking part in the first Wessex war stemming from the attacks from Reading. The ‘resident’

Viking army/ navy latterly was actively supporting Guthrum’s activities in Wessex, after he left

Cambridge to attack Wareham so that we can see co-ordination here but we are not informed that the

other two confederate kings there had died or left. Perhaps all that the statement at 890 means is that

he was the first of the Viking ‘kings’ of East Anglia and that was after the events of 879. We should

regard it as telling that Guthrum leaves Cambridge in 874 and spends until 879 in Wessex and western

Mercia; he had left to find a new settlement area for himself and his followers. It could be that there

was insufficient resources for his ‘army’ and those of Oscytel and Anund as well in Cambridge-

‘shire’. He wanted Wessex and may have been constrained by the Halfdan - Ceolwulf Treaty from

going into ‘English’ Mercia, but after being roundly beaten by Alfred at Exeter he decided to ignore

that and take part of Ceolwulf’s kingdom anyway.

The principal points are that:-

i) the Treaty must be composed after the occupation of the east and not before leaving Cirencester;

ii) nor could any agreement in these terms have been made at Cirencester as it predicts arrangements

between the English and Danes under Guthrum “that are in East Anglia”.

iii) nor is the Treaty a consequence of Guthrum’s vacating Cirencester as he would have strengthened

his position by doing so, as was detailed in the route he took from there in his Retreat.

iv) the Treaty reflects facts not aspirations and the wording is about the facts existing on the border

between Viking ‘East Anglia’ and Wessex/ ‘English’ Mercia and not at Cirencester; this is so whether

we accept Dumville’s arguments as to the territorial division or the consensus position.

v) the Treaty therefore reflects some later events than those of 878-879. Hence, “...all the people that

are in East Anglia...” could not “with oaths confirmed” have agreed anything between Alfred, the

witan and Guthrum in 879 or would need to. Therefore the Treaty could not have been made then nor

did it reflect any agreement, if any had been made at all, in regard to the departure from Cirencester.

‘London’/ Middlesex and Essex cannot have been under Alfred’s control at the time of Guthrum’s

departure to the east as even by Haslam’s own proposal that movement resulted in ‘London’ being

regained by Alfred. One cannot use the evidence both ways like this. So again, Alfred could not have

made an agreement about this border in 879. Furthermore, the ASC entry for recte 879 does not give

any credit to Alfred for causing Guthrum’s departure, it merely states that Guthrum “... went from

Cirencester...” this indicates to this writer that it was of a voluntary character. One can agree with

Haslam that Guthrum recognised the strategic predicament of the position at Cirencester; that is it is

both above the Cricklade burh and west of Oxford and Buckingham burhs. Guthrum’s move east

therefore is more in the character of a movement of consolidation. Guthrum need not make any

agreement to do this, nor was there any motivation for him to do so. He had never honoured any

agreement he made, even under duress; if he had any advantage he would always press it. He had no

need to give up ‘London’/ Middlesex if he was about to march through it and combine with other

Viking forces, either the ‘Fulham’ or other ‘East Anglian’ contingents.

Fig 2: Proposed Treaties without documentation (NB not exhaustive) Proposed by *Sharp: †Dumville: ‡Haslam: + Smyth

§ = identifications of AGT by various authors

REIGN OF ALFRED’S TREATIES

Date Descriptive Title Parties

871*† ‘Treaty of Wilton’ Alfred and Halfdan

871* ‘Treaty at London’ Burgred and Halfdan

874* ‘Halfdan – Ceolwulf’ Halfdan and Ceolwulf

875*+ ‘Treaty of Wareham’ Alfred and Guthrum

877*+ ‘Treaty of Exeter’ Alfred and Guthrum

877*‡ ‘Guthrum – Ceolwulf’ Guthrum and Ceolwulf

878*‡ ‘Treaty of Wedmore’ Alfred and Guthrum

878†§ ‘Treaty of Chippenham’ Alfred and Guthrum

879‡§ ‘Treaty of Cirencester’ Alfred and Guthrum

893*+ ‘Treaty of Milton’ Alfred and Hæstan

893*+ ‘Treaty of Benfleet’ Alfred and Hæstan

EDWARD’S TREATIES

905†‡ ‘Treaty at Tiddingford’ Edward and ?Vikings

914* ‘Treaty at the pearroc’ Edward and Hroald’s army

914* ‘Treaty at Bedford’ Edward and Thurcytel et al

917* ‘Treaty at Towcester’ Edward and Thurferth

918* ‘Treaty of Leicester’ Æthelflaed and Yorviks

918* ‘Treaty of Tamworth’ Edward and Welsh

920* ‘Treaty at Bakewell’ Edward and All Others

From the information that we have in the ASC it seems that Guthrum’s principal tactic when his

attacks were not successful was to ‘Cut and Run’; we see this at Wareham, Exeter, Ethandun,

Chippenham and this author proposes it was what occured at Cirencester and also at ‘London’.

Evidence of this paper’s interpretation can be gained from a comparison from the same period of the

language of ASC in regard to what might be called ‘truces’ or ‘agreements’. Those of defeat by the

Anglo-Saxons are exampled as follows:-

In 865 the people of Kent “made peace” with the Vikings “and promised them money in return for

that peace”. A little later in East Anglia, the Vikings “were provided with horses there, and made

peace with them”. At York/ Northumbria in 866 we are told the English “... survivors made peace ...”.

At Nottingham in 867 the joint Mercian/ Wessex army did not fight but “... the Mercians made peace

...” with the invaders instead. In 871 after a series of nine major battles in Wessex, virtually all of

which the Vikings clearly won, we are informed “... and that year the West Saxons made peace ...”

with them. After the invaders marched from Reading to occupy London in 871 “... the Mercians made

peace ...” with them. In 872 they occupy for winter-quarters Torksey “... and the Mercians made

peace ...” with the occupiers. Finally, in 874 after they had moved to Repton for winter-quarters the

year before, they finished the job off by causing King Burgred’s abdication “... and conquered all that

land ...” and Ceolwulf “ ... swore them oaths and granted hostages ...” to them. When Guthrum’s

army returned to Mercia, from Exeter, in 877 they “ divided it up and some they granted to Ceolwulf.”

So this is the language when the English are losing. What about when they are achieving stalemate or

victory? Here are the relevant comparator examples in the ASC:-

In 875 Guthrum crossed Wessex from Cambridge to Wareham and after Alfred besieged him there in

876 he “... made peace ... and they swore him oaths on the sacred ring...”. For all that this was a

solemn heathen oath, Guthrum did not leave Wessex in peace but marched to Exeter where he was

again besieged, by Alfred, in the fort there. This time he gave Alfred hostages “... as many as he

wanted to have, and swore great oaths, and then held to a good peace” and at last in 877 “... went into

the land of Mercia ... and some they granted to Ceolwulf.” Note that Guthrum is said to have held to a

good peace regarding the Exeter agreement so here we have what could be described as the ‘Treaty of

Exeter’. After Alfred corners the Vikings at Chippenham in 878 we have the following elaborate

rituals of what these papers of this writer describe as The Treaty at Wedmore: The invader’s army

gave Alfred “... prime hostages and great oaths that they would leave his kingdom, and also promised

him that their king would receive baptism & fulfilled it thus ... and 3 weeks later the king Guthrum

came to him, one of thirty ... at Aller ... [and Alfred] received him at baptism; and his chrism-loosing

was at Wedmore; and he was 12 days with [Alfred, who] greatly honoured him and his companions

with riches.”. So that Guthrum is called by his army to convert and give hostages, then he went from

somewhere, perhaps Chippenham, taking three weeks to arrive at Aller in Somerset, thence to

Wedmore and after a fortnight went back to Chippenham. After some months there they went to

Cirencester in Mercia/ Hwicce where they stayed for a year. The conditions of this agreement,

emphasised in the quotation, were fulfilled by Guthrum and his most senior commanders with their

receipt of baptism and the leaving of Chippenham for Cirencester, not anywhere else (cf for

phraseological usage Courtnay Konshuh Fighting with a lytle werode: Alfred’s retinue in the Anglo-

Saxon Chronicle Winchester University 2015).

Cirencester in 879

Now contrast all of this with the next annal’s information for recte 879: “Here the Viking army went

from Cirencester into East Anglia & settled that land & divided it up”. Now this is over a full year

after the formalities at the Somerset levels which could lead one to assume that there had been a

‘treaty’ of sorts at Cirencester as suggested at Wedmore, marked clearly by the oaths, hostages,

baptisms and gift-giving there. Cirencester was not in Alfred’s Wessex, but in Guthrum’s part of

Mercia, where he had agreed to go from Chippenham.

Yet there is no reference at recte 879 to any agreement of any kind between anyone at Cirencester;

Guthrum’s affinity simply move camp and go to another place, one previously conquered and

occupied by them or their erstwhile confederates and now to be the subject of some more permanent

settlement. Note, however, that we are told about them settling and dividing the land, the same

terminology is used for Halfdan’s conquest in Northumbria and Guthrum’s attempted takeover of what

was left of ‘English’ Mercia in 877/878. It simply cannot be that what they took from Ceolwulf was

the eastern Mercian borderlands with ‘East Anglia’ because these had already been conquered and

divided up when Burgred was still king, thus causing his abdication. Haslam has argued strenuously

that the events and ceremonial at Chippenham/ Aller/ Wedmore are not the Treaty but simply the

agreement, by the Viking army, of having given “... hostages and great oaths that they would leave his

kingdom” and this statement is made before Guthrum even arrives at Aller. This is about departing

Wessex/ Chippenham and going into Mercia/ Hwicce. The text of the ASC shows that Guthrum’s army

did indeed leave Alfred’s kingdom, he went to Cirencester, one cannot stretch this event to include

what is contained in the terms of Alfred and Guthrum’s Treaty. Nor, one would argue, can the

subsequent events at Cirencester be contained within that document’s narrative either.

Haslam convincingly argues that the departure from Cirencester to ‘East Anglia’, over a year later is

induced by Alfred’s BH Programme (op cit). One concurs, insofar as he removed to east of the Colne/

Ouzel, but that move did not involve anything like the formal agreements that we are clearly told

about and heralded on all of the other occasions. There is no ‘making peace’, no ‘giving hostages’, no

‘great oaths’, no ‘promises’, no ‘swearing on rings/ relics’, no offers of Christian bonding, no gift

exchanges, no intent to leave Wessex alone with a ‘good peace’. All that we are told, tersely, is similar

to Guthrum’s other invasion activities; the raiding army moving location, settling land and dividing it

up, although they had previously over-run East Anglia and Cambridge-shire (and of course virtually

all of Mercia). One must conclude, therefore, that the Treaty is not an agreement related to the move to

the east from Cirencester and that there was no agreement with Alfred in regard to this. The immediate

advantage to the Anglo-Saxon alliance was the re-occupation or rather reassertion of control over the

vacated Cirencester/ Hwicce.

Once Guthrum had migrated/ retreated along ‘Akeman Street’ he was beyond the reach of Alfred.

Therefore Guthrum would have had no need to have agreed the Treaty with Alfred in 879 or shortly

thereafter. We have no evidence that he agreed to anything with Alfred at Cirencester in 879.

Indeed, if there is an arrangement reported in the ASC that one can ascribe to the other statements in

the Treaty then there is a remarkable similarity of its terminology at Clause 1 “King Alfred and King

Guthrum, & the witan of all the English nation” and the statement at ASC recte 886 “Alfred settled

Lundenburh; & all the English nation turned to him, & without those captive by the Danes.” This

similarity is because they describe the same event at the same period, the annalist would know the

Treaty text just as we do.

Dating relationship between the Treaty and the Burghal Hidage

As outlined in the preceding sections of this essay, the consensus is that the BH cannot both name

Oxford and Buckingham and be contemporary with the events of 878-879 and therefore it is a

document of the first decades of the next century, whereas Haslam points out that the BH Programme

must have been a pre-condition for the withdrawal of Guthrum to the east and that all the burhs listed,

including those at Oxford and Buckingham, must have been in use or underway at its composition.

One therefore proposes that the Alfred and Guthrum Treaty provides the clearest evidence of an early

BH List dating precisely because it post-dates it, ie BH itself is composed at latest before 890 (death of

Guthrum) the Vikings moved from west Mercia which was vacated because of the BH Programme’s

burhs. This must be so because the variants of the BH List refer to burhs that were under the control of

the Anglo-Saxons to the west of the Treaty border. We can refer again to the perplexed opinion of

Brooks and Davis cited elsewhere in the other sections above to the effect that if Bedford is mentioned

here then Buckingham must be in the BH Programme and the List before the Treaty’s composition, ie

before 890.

Clause 2 is regarded as the formal definition of the border of Alfred’s and Guthrum’s domains. The

Clauses 3 to 8 are those that define Viking ‘law’ and English law or rather jurisdiction, but it is clear

that these laws are not territorially specific but apply to the distinct peoples within those territories and

to regulating peaceful ‘cross-border’ trade between them. Yet it is an agreement only with Guthrum’s

people and not with the other Viking armies/ affinities settled elsewhere. So that the physical boundary

is subsumed within a legal framework of relations of their subjects.

Places named in the Treaty

Clause 2 states: [Liebermann ‘A’] “Concerning our land boundaries: Up on the Thames, & then up

on the Lea, & along the Lea until its source, then straight to Bedford, then up on the Ouse until

Watling Street.” [cf Liebermann ‘B’ (facsimile above) “Concerning our land boundaries: And along

the Thames, then up on the Lea, and along the Lea until its source, then straight to Bedford, then up

on the Ouse until Watling Street...”. nb ‘and’ is used rather than ‘⁊/&’.]

There is a minor debate as to the status of Essex both before and as a result of the Treaty. Professor

Dumville proposed that the Treaty line actually ran eastwards from the source of the Thames to the

Lee, which would reverse the areas of authority so that western Mercia would be Guthrum’s and Essex

would be Alfred’s (Dumville 1992 pp1-28). There are simply too many issues to discuss here in order

to refute what is a most complex and convoluted position, it places an emphasis on an extraordinary

interpretation of the phrase “Up on the Thames ...” and/or on the alternative text which says the border

runs “Along the Thames” which would be more consistent to support Dumville’s argument ie he holds

that these terms can mean respectively ‘up stream’ and ‘down stream’. Either phrase actually can be

interpreted both ways; as Dumville fails to notice, we are given instructions in the Treaty to follow the

Lea in one direction only, from its confluence with the Thames to its well-spring, but the terminology

for this uses both phrases “... & then up on the Lea, & along the Lea until its source”. We could say

that the terms are ‘directionally’ neutral meaning simply “follow the course of” in either direction one

meets it.

However, Abels (op cit p162) whilst rejecting this general position favours Essex remaining in

Alfred’s control. This seems to be a confusion by him between the gathering of Viking forces at

Benfleet mentioned by Æthelweard to assist the attack on Canterbury in 885 (writing a century later

whom may have confounded the later ASC entry at 894 reference to Benfleet) (Abels discussion op cit

pp172-173; the ‘southern’ region of the Thames controlled by the English, he refers to and confuses is

Kent, not the Essex littoral).

These essays have proposed above that Essex probably fell to the Vikings no later than the ‘Treaty of

Wilton’ and that we can draw the boundary of control as “Up on the Thames, & then up on the Lea ...’

as meaning “from the Wessex/ Kent border on the Thames opposite to the Lea” which places Essex

under Guthrum. Essex’s Thames-side may have been temporarily reconquered after the operations

against Hæstan in the following decade when Benfleet and Shoebury were perhaps taken by Alfred; its

interior was occupied in later operations by King Edward.

The only town/ burh named in the Treaty is Bedford (if it is not at this date merely a toponym) and its

naming as a termination of a straight line north from the source of the Lea does seem at variance to

creating a simple observable boundary defined by a topographical feature between two polities. We

are not dealing with American State lines here but a hostile frontier. The Treaty states that the

boundary between them is “... along the Lea until its source, then straight to Bedford...” [oð = ‘until’,

usually translated as ‘unto’]; now the source of the Lea is at Luton (Lea-tun/ Lea-grave) and Bedford

is due north of it. Yet if the parties wanted to create a really defined border then they could have

simply agreed that the boundary was continued from Luton along the ancient trackway known as the

‘Icknield Way’ and that would cross with the other great Roman road of ‘Watling Street’ a short

distance to the west at Dunstable. Indeed that road is also to be regarded as the boundary, but much

further north where it crosses with the Great Ouse on its course between Bedford and Buckingham.

This crossing is at Passenham and Stony Stratford which could have been ideally placed for a burh to

watch across the border not just to observe Guthrum but also the Viking settlers of Northampton near

that juncture. Likewise, the River Ouzel/ Lovat rises at Dagnall in the Chilterns and still forms the

boundary of Bedfordshire and Buckinghamshire on its way to Newport Pagnall where it joins the

Great Ouse. That too would be a neater boundary a little further west of the Bedford-Luton line; this

line boundary of the Treaty creates ‘a salient’ beyond the natural features of the Roman ‘Streets’ and

river junctions. So Bedford- Luton’s exposed position leads us to conclude that a forward burh was

created there in some later campaign than that of the BH Programme. Hence, it is proposed that this

later campaign is coincident with the liberation of ‘London’/Middlesex, the conclusion of the

‘Continuation War’.

The Treaty Clause 2 says “Up on the Thames, and then up on the Lea, and along the Lea until its

source, then straight to Bedford, then up on the Ouse until Watling Street ”. The author’s emphases

made in this Clause may seem odd as they are in regard of the direction terms rather than the places

named. Note the direction terms: ‘up on’ three times, ‘along the’ once and ‘until/ unto’ twice. The

term ‘oð = until/ unto’ marks a termination at the line at the Lea’s source and then at Watling Street. If

the boundary between Alfred and Guthrum (or anyone else) continued further along the ancient

Roman road beyond the junction with the Great Ouse the text would say and along the Watling Street;

it does not.

The naming of ‘Watling Street’ as the junction of the boundary termination has to do with the

‘Northampton’ Viking settlement which was a separate affinity and independent of Guthrum. Indeed,

Edward marched to Passenham to effect the reconquest of Northampton-shire and built a burh at

nearby Towcester in 917. This author concludes, therefore, that there was no boundary between

Alfred’s and Guthrum’s domains further along the Street at the time of the Treaty.

This was even more so of the group of Viking army-settlements above the course of the River

Welland, north-east side of the Street, known as the ‘Five Boroughs’ (later Leicester-shire,

Nottingham-shire, Derby-shire and Lincoln-shire / Stamford). As the Street continues to the north-

west it runs through the later Northampton-shire, then alongside lands of the later Stafford-shire and

Shrop-shire already lost to the English from 874 and not regained until the reconquest period by

Æthelred/ Æthelflæd and Edward more than thirty years later. It did not mean that Alfredian control

continued above that point on the western side of the Street across the Great Ouse, nor that Guthrum’s

affinity held sway on the eastern side of the route either. There is little proof that Anglo-Saxon

authority went beyond the Warwickshire-Avon’s course above Warwick or beyond the Arden. The

Treaty line only indicates a boundary between Alfred and Guthrum’s areas of authority, it is silent as

to relations between other Viking-armies and the Anglo-Saxons.

The evidence as to ‘Scandinavian’ place-names being principally to the north and east side of Watling

Street and few if any on the other side simply reflects lower settlement density rather than lesser

political control and perhaps ‘English law’ was followed by the majority of the population in the

dominated areas; indeed, there is Danish place-name evidence in Northampton-shire in the area south-

west of Watling Street. Incidentally, this author’s emphasis on the distinct polities of Guthrum’s ‘East

Anglia’ and Northampton-shire may be evidenced by the separate Viking leaderships that Edward

confronted in the reconquest period 25 years later. Indeed these groups amongst the Vikings are

evidenced earlier when we are informed that the king of York fought against those of the ‘Five

Boroughs’ in 895-6 to gain Lindsey (from Æthelweard’s Chronicon cited in Abels op cit p303; York

and Torksey in Lindsey are thought by Stenton to be the additional units in references to the ‘Seven

Boroughs’; see also Note 3 Part 2 below ‘The Four or Five Boroughs’).

The first mention of Bedford in the ASC ‘A’ in this period is at recte 914 when various Vikings from

there seem to peacefully accept the authority of Edward the Elder, Alfred’s son, who arrives there in

‘915’, its Viking leader Jarl Thurcytel ‘coming over’ to him. The year previously the ‘men of Luton’

fought off an attack from the Vikings, so presumably this part of the ‘shire’ had never been lost to

Anglo-Saxon control after the Treaty. There is a possibility that it is Guthrum who held Bedford under

the Treaty, as the location of the burh is on the north-bank: if so one wonders how Alfred could expect

to hold the line from Luton to there and the territory west of it. Edward’s arrival at Bedford in ASC ‘D’

915 on campaign route from Buckingham, strongly suggests that the ‘Bedford- Luton Salient’ had

been lost to the Anglo-Saxon polity since some time after the Treaty, perhaps in the later Viking

invasion of the 890s. Hæstan’s expedition to Chester from Essex in 894 with both York and ‘East

Anglian’ Viking confederates, marched the length of Watling Street and this occasion may have

emboldened the neighbouring Vikings, successors to Guthrum, to infiltrate and cause the effective loss

of the ‘Bedford-Luton Salient’ whilst Alfred’s forces were engaged with Hæstan in the north-west. It

would be surprising to specifically name a place of such strategic and diplomatic importance which

would not have some military role. Moreover, if it was at some point an Alfredian burh then it is not

itemised in the BH List; which if that document is dated after the first mention in ASC of Buckingham

in ‘914’ is a rather odd exclusion. It is just as odd that Bedford does not appear in the BH List if that

document is contemporary with or later than the Treaty. The conclusion therefore is that Bedford was

a Viking burh at the time of the Treaty.

Why would Guthrum agree to a place being a boundary before he got any where near it and how could

Alfred make any demands in relation to a border in the east before he occupied any territory there?

Alfred had no practical status in 879 in regard to the area; likewise Guthrum probably moved into a

‘power vacuum’ of leadership among the Vikings there, being perhaps the last survivor of the ‘heroic’

leadership of the ‘Great Army’ and also now perhaps the wealthiest. Therefore, Bedford’s burh status

is after 879 but before the composition of the Treaty. The only strategic logic of naming the boundary

at Bedford is its relation to the Great Ouse and therefore communication with Buckingham to the west.

Bedford, on the Great Ouse, is east of Watling Street and therefore well to the east of both

Buckingham and Oxford. As these two burhs are west of Watling Street, Alfred / the Anglo-Saxon

alliance, must have had some status in those places as well and this must have been before 886-890;

therefore both of these burhs can be regarded as properly within the BH’s earliest dating by this

paper’s proposal, ie before 886-890.

Furthermore, Edward’s successful expidition to the Bedford Vikings was because he had shortly

before this had reinforced the burh at Buckingham, indeed he created two forts on either side of the

river Great Ouse there (ASC ‘D’ 914 simply states he went there with his army, no mention of a battle

or of anyone submitting to him). The transfer of the area west of the Lea including Buckingham is

surely indicated by the Statement at ASC 911 that the lands pertaining to Oxford and ‘London’ were

acquired by him at Æthelred’s demise. One is driven to conclude that the Treaty is later than the BH

List and that therefore the BH’s inclusion of Buckingham and Oxford is a true record of the number of

burhs existing before Guthrum agreed the Treaty. Therefore BH List is certainly coherent as a

document produced before 886-890 naming those places as burhs, and the Treaty must post-date the

BH Programme.

The ‘loss’ of the ‘Bedford-Luton Salient’ may have been occasioned in two ways. One way as a result

of the military activities of Hæstan in the mid-890s, Guthrum’s successors creeping their authority

over the Treaty line to take advantage of a tactical weakness as a result of this campaign. The

alternative reason could be as the result of Clauses 3 to 8 of the Treaty. This defined trading and legal

relations and it may simply be that peaceful infiltration or even passive integration by the English and

Danes in this border land replaced conflict. Certainly the ASC indicates that its re-accession to the

English polity under Edward thirty years hence was largely a diplomatic exercise; the ASC states that

the men of these places came over to Edward rather than he conquered them.

Can we now give a closer date to the Treaty’s composition? It is here suggested that Alfred’s status

east of the rivers Colne and Ouzel and Watling Street required a campaign to take ‘London’/

Middlesex. As we have seen some movement was undertaken there by 883 and definitely resolved by

886. A manoeuvre from Buckingham and both across the Chilterns and along the Ouse to Bedford

would be a flanking action in such a campaign and could occur when Viking forces where busy

elsewhere (cf Davis op cit p807-808). The Annal for the ‘settlement’ at Lundenburh does not make a

strong military claim for the action as such and may be the result of more general pressures and a

diplomatic conclusion. It was proposed above that the fighting between the Guthrum/‘Fulham’ armies

and Alfred in 885 in Kent and on the East Anglian coast induced the withdrawal by Guthrum from

‘London’/ Middlesex across the River Lea into ‘East Anglia’/ Essex, concluding the ‘Continuation

War’.

Therefore the Treaty text represents the conclusion of that phase of the ‘reconquest’. It has nothing to

do with the events post Ethandun and the ‘Treaty at Wedmore’. All that was agreed therein was that

Guthrum would leave Chippenham and go to what was left of Ceolwulf’s Mercia, nothing about ‘East

Anglia’ was involved.

As was suggested above, the ‘salient’ of Alfredian territory between Bedford, the Great Ouse and

Watling Street north of the source of the Lea was subject to encroachment in the following period.

This may have been a peaceful infiltration of Guthrum’s affinity because we have an odd copy of a

later period charter which names both Edward and Ealdorman Æthelred as inducing the recipient of

the charter to purchase from a Dane an area in Chalgrave and Tebworth just seven miles to the west of

Luton and incidentally Tittingford is nearby. The involvement of Æthelred reminds us that they were

not simply brothers-in-law but allies and that west ‘Bedford-shire’ was regarded as at least partly

within the sphere of ‘Mercian’ responsibility until the death of Æthelred.

The treaty can therefore be placed as reflecting arrangements from later than 885 and following the

statement in the ASC recte 886 that “The same year King Alfred settled Lundenburh; & all the English

nation turned to him, & without those captive by the Danes. & then he gave the burh to Ealdorman

Æthelred, to hold it.” (author’s translation). The phrases regarding those & all the English nation and

the Englishmen captive by the Danes is the same sort of language as the Alfred and Guthrum’s Treaty

provisions in Clauses 1, 3 to 8 and this can be considered evidence of their being contemporary or that

the annalist had the Treaty text before him. Perhaps we can catalogue the agreement ‘The Treaty of the

Lea 886’.

The ‘Bedford-Luton Salient’

As a sequel to the ‘Treaty’ it is necessary to describe its demise. Although much has been touched on

elsewhere in this essay regarding the reconquest period and therefore the redundancy of the boundary

described in that document, it really was broken in principal when events occurred that led to the loss

to the Anglo-Saxons of areas to the west of the boundary line.

The area of re-intrusion of the Vikings was limited to what this paper has called the ‘Bedford-Luton

Salient’ named so because the movement to the west is clearly across that straight line of the Treaty

boundary between these two places. Just how far into Alfred’s land did it go?

Professor RHC Davis has summed up the issues as follows:

“... Hertford and Bedford would have been frontier towns ... while Buckingham would have been

safely in English territory ...[yet] according to the Chronicle, these three towns were taken from the

Danes only in the reign of ... Edward the Elder: Hertford in 912, Buckingham in 914 and Bedford in

915. In the interim there must have been a large Danish advance, but the Chronicle does not record

any such thing.” (RHC Davis Alfred and Guthrum’s Frontier in EHR 1982 p803: my emphases)

He continues with offering an evidence in the record of this unreported event: “... some confirmation

of a change of frontier is given by a charter of King Æthelstan dated 926. In it he grants Chalgrave

and Tebworth (Beds) to ... Eldred who , according to the charter, had purchased the land from the

pagans ‘at the command of King Edward ... and the ealdorman Ethelred’ ... According to the Treaty,

Chalgrave and Tebworth should have been in English territory ... but the charter implies that ...

between 899 and 911 they were Danish” ( op cit p803-804).

Davis does propose that the most likely period for this loss was that of the invasions of Hæstan of 892-

895. Now although the proof of the loss of territory is evidenced by the Chalgrave charter the status of

the supposed loss of Bedford, Buckingham and Hertford is more problematic and Davis’ assumption

of their being some how “were taken from the Danes” in the second decade of the tenth century is not

actually supported by the information that we have. Firstly, Hertford and Bedford may not have been

‘frontier towns’ at the time of the Treaty: their names are toponyms. Hertford is not mentioned in the

Treaty and neither is Buckingham, which is a BH burh. Bedford was probably always a Viking-burh.

Luton is not mentioned directly in the Treaty either but it does make an appearance in the reconquest

annals of the ASC as an English place being attacked by the Vikings. Let us nevertheless look at each

of these in turn.

Hertford

Although Archbishop Theodore called a synod at Hertford in 672, it was unlikely to have been

anything more than a small settlement. Hertford is not named in the Treaty but from the reconquest is

named as a burh. At ASC ‘A’ and ‘D’ ‘913’ recte 912 we are informed:

“Her on þys geare ymb Martines mæssan het Eadweard cyning atimbran þa norðran burg æt

Heorotforda betweox Memeran ⁊ Beneficcan ⁊ Lygean; [...] ⁊ sum his fultum worhte þa burg þa

hwile æt Heorotforda on suþhealfe Lygean. ”

“Here in this year, around Martinmas, King Edward ordered to be built the northern burh at Hertford

between the Mimran & the Beane & the Lea. [...] & some of his support army built the burh while at

Hertford on the south-side of the Lea.”

These two references to Hertford, in this annal, are divided by Edward’s expedition into Essex of 912

to an advance burh at Witham and a camp at Maldon. Now Davis proposes that any English Alfred

‘Treaty’ burh would be on the south-side of the Lea. There is no evidence for a burh at that time.

During the allies of Hæstan’s attacks in 892-896 at recte 895 they are said to have built a fortification

on the Lea ‘twenty miles above London’ but Hertford is not named. Alfred’s army attacked this but it

was repulsed, four king’s Thegn’s were killed. Alfred sent another force to keep this Viking-army at

bay whilst his people took in the harvest. Then Alfred created two burhs either side of the river to stop

these marauders ships leaving. Again, this is not said to be Hertford, yet it may be, but this seems to be

only a temporary tactical double-fort, which entrapped the Vikings ships there. However, the entry for

895 clearly demonstrates that the side of the Lea ‘Treaty’ boundary was still occupied by Alfred and

he could cross the river with impunity to erect in Guthrum’s successors’ territory one of these two

forts (see § Alfred’s Last War and the role of the Burhs).

Now returning to the entry for 912. This tells us that Edward simply ordered a fortification on the

north-bank of the Lea at Hertford; it does not mention a battle or that anybody welcomed him there.

So that it looks like this area was not occupied or lost to the Vikings in an earlier period either and

Edward is able to cross the Treaty line undisturbed. Just like at Buckingham, Edward seems to be

creating an offensive base, he went on to Witham in Essex, whilst he was there part of his troop

remained at Hertford and built the south-bank fort a ‘double-burh’. Overall therefore, Hertford or

rather the area west of the Lea in this area cannot be shown to have been lost earlier as Davis supposes

and therefore it was not ‘re-taken from the Danes’.

Luton

Davis does not mention Luton and it does not appear as such in the ‘Treaty’, the reference is to the

‘source of the Lea’ which is Leagrave at Luton. The ASC reference to it follows in the annal after the

building of Hertford.

ASC ‘A’ ‘917’ recte 913:-

“Her on þys gere rad se here ut ofer Eastron of Hamtune, ⁊ of Ligeraceastre ⁊ bræcon þone friþ ⁊ slogon monige men æt Hocneratune, ⁊ þær onbutan; ⁊ þa swiðe raþe æfter þæm, swa þa oþre ham

comon, þa fundon hie oþre flocrade, þæt rad ut wið Lygtunes ...”

“Here in this year after Easter the Viking army rode out of [North]Hampton & of Leicester & broke

the peace & slaughtered many men at Hook Norton & there around; & very swiftly after that as they

went home they found another mounted band that rode out against Luton...”

There is clearly a confederacy here between the Northamptonians and one of the ‘Five Boroughs’ ie

Leicester, who are ranging widely across both Oxfordshire and thence to Bedford-shire. The English

fyrd countered them at great loss and the enemy retired but then as the English were returning they

came across another Viking army on its way to Luton. This force was attacked by a major

mobilisation, presumably from the Bedford-shire area. The point is that Luton is clearly an English

base at 913. Had it been lost before this? Perhaps as the defined shoulder of the ‘Salient’ it remained in

English territory. Again there is no evidence here, as per Davis’ view that it was ‘re-taken’ from the

Danes as it was never ‘lost’ to them.

Buckingham

What of Buckingham? The ASC ‘A’ ‘918’ and ‘D’ ‘915’ recte 914 tells us:

“... gere foran to Martines mæssan, ða for Eadweard cyning to Buccinga[hamm] mid his firde, ⁊ sæt þær feower wucan, ⁊ geworhte þa burga buta on ægþere healfe eas ær he þonon fore; ⁊ þurcytel eorl hine gesohte him to hlaforde, ⁊ þa holdas ealle, ⁊ þa ieldstan men ealle mæste ðe to

Bedanforda hierdon, ⁊ eac monige þara þe to Hamtune hierdon. ”

“... before Martinmas [11 November] King Edward went to Buckingham with his army and stayed four

weeks & built both of the burhs either side [of the river Ouse] as was [‘before’], before he went from

there. & Jarl Thurcytel sought him out as lord & all the Holds, & almost all the main men who were

of Bedford & also many of those who were of [North]Hampton.” (my emphases: Sharp translation).

Now it is notable that no military action is reported at Buckingham here; Edward arrives and nobody

opposes him. It does not seem to have been “taken from the Danes” as Davis believes. As suggested

elsewhere in these papers, Buckingham had not in fact fallen between its appearance in the BH and at

this annal, but rather Edward is simply reorganising the place from being a defensive location to

something more able to be a base of operations for offensive action, his building the two burhs on the

Ouse. He had acquired the area north of the Thames and west of the Lea at Æthelred’s demise in 911.

One also emphasises part of the statement which may seem a little tortuous in the grammar and others

have rendered simply as “before he went from there” (cf Swanton sa 918) but the double ‘before’ (eas

ær) and ‘before he went from there’ (he þonon fore) does appear. This might be indicating that there

had been a burh preceding the two new burhs Edward built at this annal (ie to gloss: “built both the

burhs as before; then he went from there ...”). It was a success because when he left to campaign in the

borderland the Viking leaders (Jarls and Holds) of Bedford and at least some of those of Northampton

(“the main men” the English?) came and surrendered to him without a fight.

Bedford

What of Bedford? Now as Davis remarks this was on the north-bank of the Ouse and it may have been

either Guthrum’s forward position or just perhaps Alfred’s in the Treaty. If Viking then it was never

actually ‘lost’ to the Anglo-Saxons after the Treaty and so its capture in 915 is not a problem for us in

interpreting the Treaty provisions. Whether Bedford was originally a planned Mercian town taken over

by the enemy or a new one they created and which was extended after Edward’s takeover is discussed

by Haslam (The Origin and Plan of Bedford in Bedfordshire Archaeology 16 (1983), 28-36

contrasting the views of Hill et al on the line of defences; the methodology could be extended to

Buckingham’s dating). After the events at Buckingham at ASC ‘A’ ‘919’ recte 914 or 915 (?):-

“Her on þys gere Eadweard cyng for mid fierde to Bedanforda foran to Martines mæssan, ⁊ beget

þa burg, ⁊ him cirdon to mæst ealle þa burgware þe hie ær budon, ⁊ he sæt þær feower wucan, ⁊ het atimbran þa burg on suþhealfe þære eas ær he þonan fore. ”

“Here in this year King Edward went with his army to Bedford, before Martinmas, & took the burh &

almost all the burh-warriors who had been there before turned to him, & he stayed there four weeks &

he had built the burh on the south-side [of the river] there before he left.” (my emphases: Sharp translation)

Notable dating problems here; the formulæ of this annal is so similar to the preceding entry that it is

almost a copy of it and some of what we are told about the ‘almost all ... the Bedford men’ is repeated.

The reference to Martinmas is another indication of this. It seems that if it happened after the events at

Buckingham, November 914, where Edward was for four weeks then this event follows in the new

year which ‘old style’ would still be 914 (or both events occurred in ‘old style’ 915) and not a full year

afterwards as it seems to say ie Martinmas ‘914’ to Martinmas ‘915’. Bedford is therefore captured

four weeks after Edward built his offensive base at Buckingham. Edward marches along the Ouse to

Bedford either with some of the Bedfordians who surrendered in the field or they submitted to him

when he arrived there. It is clearly described as a burh and perhaps the Bedfordians had abandoned

this to surrender to him as they are said to be those who had dwelt there before (there is a difficulty

about the term burgware as it may be limited to a garrison or mean all of the people there).

Nevertheless as we are told that there is a burh when Edward arrives and he builds another on the

south-bank then he has created a double-burh. So we can regard the first of these burh that surrenders

as on the north-bank and this had probably already been a Viking/ Guthrum originated fort at the time

of the Treaty. So that there is no evidence that ‘Bedford’ was lost to Alfred/ Edward as Davis suggests

after the ‘Treaty’ because it probably was already Viking controlled, although the south-bank ‘Salient’

defined by the line to Luton seems to have been Alfred’s and then lost at some point later and this is

confirmed from the evidence of those later charters mentioned by Davis. The Bedfordians may have

been English under the thrall. At ASC ‘A’ ‘921’ recte 917 the Vikings attacked Bedford and were

repulsed (see Note below).

What was lost to the English after the Treaty?

So we can delimit the Viking incursion across the ‘Treaty’ line by not including Buckingham and

Hertford and possibly regard ‘Luton’ as remaining in English hands as well, whilst Bedford may have

always been Viking. We can provide an illustration based on that of RHC Davis’s (ibid p802) to show

this (see Map 7). However, loss of territory to the Anglo-Saxons is evidenced by the charter referring

to Chalgrave and Tebworth and that is clearly well west of the ‘Treaty’ line.

Prof Davis also explains (following Stenton) that Æthelstan issued an almost identical charter referring

to his father’s, Edward’s, inducing another Englishman to purchase land from the Viking settlers in

Derby-shire (at Hope and Ashford near Bakewell) (ibid p804 fn2). Now Edward’s sister Æthelflaed

would eventually conquer that area but at the time of Edward’s instruction it was a long way into

Viking territory, Edwards armies were nowhere bordering on it. So that we seem to have a ‘fabian’

policy exercised by Edward along the lines as set out in the ‘Treaty’ to govern commercial relations

between the English and the Vikings in their areas, perhaps by peaceful settlement. Derby-shire being

part of ‘The Five Boroughs’ confederacy could not have been included in its diplomatic provisions.

This is an alternative to fighting, the English landholders in the enemy areas owe allegiance to the

Anglo-Saxon polity, they are a ‘fifth column’. The grant by the English king would give de jure rights

to the purchaser ahead of when the area became subject to re-conquest.

As proposed elsewhere in these essays, the political-military conditions for the loss of the Salient

where most opportune during the Hæstan invasions of 892-895; therefore, this author is in complete

agreement with Prof Davis principal argument (op cit p806) and contradicts Prof Dumville’s opinions

(see for a fuller discussion the appendix below §‘Whither Essex?’). These in combination with the

other Viking forces placed Alfred and Æthelred into their most perilous period since the defeat of

Guthrum. That the Anglo-Saxon system of burhs and fyrd withstood it in a way no other insular

kingdom had done so is remarkable; that it could become a spring-board for the reconquest in the next

generation may then have been discerned.

Map 7: The Treaty boundary and the ‘Bedford-Luton Salient’

Key: SASHES {29} = BH burh. Hertford [912] = ‘Re-conquest burhs: -Wey = Rivers:

=== Watling Street Roman/ Ancient trackways: C+T = Chalgrave and Tebworth

= ‘Bedford - Luton Salient’: A-G-T = Treaty boundary Map by Sharp based on Davis and Haslam

During the many attacks and campaigns of ‘Alfred’s Last War’ listed in the period 892 – 896 it would

have been relatively easy for the Vikings of post-Guthrum’s ‘East Anglia’ to have moved their power

across the Salient and find a more identifiable border coming to rest at the line of Watling Street. A

‘bulge’ was pinched in this process (see Map 7). Certainly, it would make sense to both parties if it

was agreed that the boundary was continued from Luton along the ancient trackway known as the

‘Icknield Way’ crossing at Watling Street a little to the west at Dunstable perhaps pushed to the course

of the Ouzel and its headwaters in the Chilterns; either line would leave Luton within the Mercian

domain.

Dumville argues that the Treaty of Tiddingford ‘905’ (Dumville op cit p2-3) involved a major swap of

territories (see Appendix §‘Whither Essex’). However, Haslam proposes that the arrangement at

Tiddingford recognised a more modest adjustment which agreed to a more ‘natural’ (ie topographic)

boundary including the area of the ‘Bedford-Luton Salient’ and crossing the line of Watling Street and

extending just west of it where bounded by the River Ouzel to its ford of the Street to the north then

following the Street to Stony Stratford (Haslam Alfred etc op cit). The Ouzel joins the Great Ouse at

Newport Pagnall. This line is something that one finds difficult to hold assent from, the junction of

ancient pathways, the Chilterns and the head springs of the Colne and Ouzel all combine to make a

readily identifiable border land. Indeed, the Ouzel became the boundary between the later parts of

Buckingham-shire and Bedford-shire. Those two rivers had probably previously been the frontier

between ‘English’ Mercia and Guthrum’s ‘East Anglia’ after Cirencester.

The difficulty one has for full concurrence is that if this line was agreed at Tiddingford in 905 one

wonders how the exposed position of the Salient had survived for over a decade without rupture.

Perhaps Tiddingford may have simply healed a number of running sores between the parties which

had led to many minor clashes and jurisdictional disputes following the loss of the Salient during

‘Alfred’s Last War’. These issues were simply finalised and combined with the cessation of

hostililities caused by the Æthelwold’s invasions that year; as it says in the ASC recte 905 to Edward’s

satisfaction and agreement. He already had strategies in mind which would reduce this to a side show.

Conclusion

In the Preface and Methodology the author remarked that all of the evidence that we have on these

matters ought to be accepted and that we need not regard the information contained in the three

principal documents and their variants, the Anglo Saxon Chronicle, the Burghal Hidage and Alfred

and Guthrum’s Treaty as contradictory. It was argued that if we interrogated and tested them against

each other we need not reject any part of them but rather could see how they could assist in a mutual

interpretation without having to do any violence to their contents. It is believed that the foregoing

essays have achieved this, all of their information can be assimilated into one coherent narrative which

gains in explanatory power of these major historic events.

Revised Chronology

The sequence of events as proposed by the author is as follows:

877 Alfred gets Guthrum to leave Exeter for ‘Mercia’ (Treaty of Exeter). Guthrum - shares out the land with

his army “and some he granted to Ceolwulf” (Guthrum - Ceolwulf Treaty). Perhaps Guthrum took control

of at least Hwicce/ Gloucester. There is no further mention of Ceolwulf after this annal.

878 Guthrum attacks Wessex successfully. Alfred survives, re-organises and defeats Guthrum at Ethandun

and pursues him into a siege at Chippenham. Guthrum agrees to baptism, bonds of peace and giving

hostages: this is the so called Treaty at/ of Wedmore; Guthrum moves to Cirencester and the ‘Fulham’

Vikings arrive.

878-79 Alfred manoeuvres with some of the Mercian nobility; the ‘Æthelred faction’, go over to the Alfredian

alliance. Alfred creates the BH Programme including those burhs at Oxford and Buckingham as part of

this because their governing nobles reject the Guthrum/ Ceolwulf arrangements (‘London’ is not listed).

879 Guthrum abandons Cirencester when he perceives the strategic danger of the burhs and moves to ‘East

Anglia’ via Akeman Street to his confederate areas of south of Bedford-shire, ‘London’/Middlesex giving

him control over the later Bedford-shire, Hertford-shire, Essex and ‘East Anglia’. Boundary between

‘English’ Mercia and Guthrum along Rivers Colne and Ouzel.

879 Worcester and Warwick reaccessioned ie join Wessex-Mercian alliance (?)

879 ‘Fulham’ Vikings depart for Continent.

879-80 Gloucester and Hereford join with independent Mercians and Wessex alliance.

883 ‘Continuation War’: Alfred lays siege to or is besieged ‘at London’, perhaps an event involving mutually

opposed forces in the encampments occupied by them respectively in ‘Southwark’/ Lundenwic and

Lundenburh.

885 Alfred relieves siege attack on Rochester by a returning party of the ‘Fulham’ Vikings and invades

Guthrum’s positions on the Stour in Essex and East Anglia.

886 Alfred occupies Lundenburh / Middlesex and areas east of Watling Street; Guthrum withdraws from the

area, across the Lea.

886 Alfred and Guthrum’s Treaty defines their respective territories and spheres of influence; Bedford is

mentioned in this document but not in the BH List because it is a Viking fort.

892-95 Some time after the Treaty but before 900 the ‘Bedford-Luton Salient’ is lost by the Anglo-Saxons.

Note on the Borders between English Mercia- Wessex and the Viking Armies between 874 - 895

The author has proposed that the relevant territories between the Viking armies and the independent

Anglo Saxon polities in the south can be understood as being subject to various phases of military and

diplomatic action preceding Guthrum’s attack on Wareham in 875 and in the period following the

events at Wedmore and Cirencester. This is distinguished from the consensus position which dates the

division of eastern Mercia from the remnant as occurring at 877 when Guthrum arrived in Ceolwulf’s

kingdom after leaving Wessex and is said there to have ‘divided it up’. Haslam produced an excellent

map with his own more detailed arguments supporting and extrapolating this position. (Haslam 2006

op cit and see map 7a below).

Haslam here proposes the boundary of what he designates as the ‘Western Limit of Danelaw at 877’,

ie before Guthrum’s second attack on Wessex. ‘Danelaw’ is clearly a shorthand expression for the

Viking armies occupied areas. He intends to represent the state of affairs obtaining after Guthrum

departed Exeter and arrived in Ceolwulf’s Mercia in which he is said to have divided it up and left a

portion to Ceolwulf. Haslam and those following Stenton et al argue that the division was along this

line so that the apportionment was that the remnant of ‘English’ Mercia was to the west of it. This ran

along the Colne and Ouzel and at the intersection of the latter with Watling Street then follows that

route across Northampton-‘shire’ north-westerly. Inasmuch that political boundaries of the era should

follow natural and topographical features one is in agreement with this. Haslam’s position is that he

concedes more territory, authority and independence of action to Ceolwulf than this writer believes is

warranted. However, the author argues that the Northamptonian Viking-army area and boundary

includes what became the later ‘shire area’ to the south-west of the Roman road. One also suggests

that this line actually is best regarded as the territory of eastern Mercia ceded to Halfdan as part of the

arrangements following the abdication of Burgred and the agreement of Ceolwulf to become his ally in

874. This would be at least the territory of southern Derby-‘shire’, with the areas around Leicester and

Northampton. The same year the ASC notes Guthrum’s arrival with two confederates in Cambridge

settling the area between East Anglia proper and the rest of the south-eastern midlands, inclusive of

parts or whole of Middlesex, Hertford and Bedford ‘shires’.

To recapitulate the progress of the Viking conquest that is relevant to the author’s position before the

accession of Ceolwulf:- Mercia and its king, Burgred, was clearly compromised and would not assist

Wessex after the ‘peace’ following the failure of the siege at Nottingham at 868; he had allowed

access to the Vikings across his territory to attack East Anglia in 869. In 870 the invaders crossed

southern Mercia from East Anglia and settled at Reading which was in the Wessex Thames borders of

Berk-shire. This was allowed by Burgred and stopped any effective alliance by Wessex with the

Mercians because the Viking army had now arrived to directly threaten Æthelred I’s kingdom. There

is a possibility that Essex had already been taken over before this, from East Anglia, so reducing

Wessex to the area below the Thames as part of a proposed ‘Treaty of Wilton’ in 871. In this period of

failure against the invaders the retention of Essex with an enemy to both its north and to its west would

be unlikely; this would be even more so if Kent had been neutralised as the author suggests by the

events at ASC 865, when the ‘People of Kent’ are said to have made peace with a Viking-army yet

were devastated anyway (§6 Whither Kent? A Missing War).

In 871 a Viking army also occupied Lundenbyrig and once again the Mercians made peace there with

the Vikings. An occupation of the London area would allow direct lines of communication via Ermine

Street to the eastern midlands and via Watling Street to the north; in effect it gave control over the

territory comprising Middlesex and what became western Hertford-shire and Bedford-shire. From

London Halfdan went into Northumbria to support their client against a rebellion against them in 872.

To do so they had to move through Mercian territory. If this area was not directly under Viking control

there was no bar made against them, Burgred seems to have given them free passage whenever to

wherever they wanted to go. After these later events at York/ Northumbria, the east midlands areas of

Mercia were occupied, Lindsey in 872, Derby-shire in 873 and perhaps other areas; this led to

Burgred’s abdication in 874. This writer’s conclusion therefore is that the line that Haslam et al draws

at 877 (after Guthrum’s arrival in Hwicce and is said to have divided up what was left of Mercia) can

be drawn at 874 because of these losses to the Mercians as shown in the agreement by Halfdan with

Ceolwulf. It was the remnant of Ceolwulf’s kingdom to the west that was divided up in 877.

Haslam then shows the adjustment of the boundary after the movement of the Viking army in 879 to

‘East Anglia’; the consensus is that Guthrum’s authority extended into the later Bedford, Hertford,

Cambridge and Huntingdon ‘shire areas’ and Essex rather than was restricted to the ancient kingdom

of that name. Haslam et al regards 879 as the date of the ‘Alfred Guthrum Treaty’ being made at

Cirencester and distinct from any agreement at Wedmore. He therefore draws the line as delineated in

that document so that it finishes at the Great Ouse intersection with Watling Street at Passenham but

leaves any limit of the ‘Danelaw’ or Guthrum’s authority beyond that point open; nevertheless this he

holds is the position at 879.

This writer regards the line along the Colne-Ouzel, of 874, as already ceded to the Great Army at the

accession of Ceolwulf, was that which Guthrum retreated to in 879 after departing Cirencester, there is

no evidence of any treaty being agreed there to move east. Therefore, the Treaty that was effected in

886 as coincident with the Alfredian ‘settlement’ of ‘London’ was as in the Statement in the ASC

annal at sa ‘885’. Whether or not the Roman road was involved as the informal ‘retreat’ boundary at

879 is open to discussion, so that the junction was either at Passenham or at Newport Pagnall where

the Ouzel joins the Great Ouse. On balance the author believes it was at the former point because of

this being referenced as the later Treaty terminal.

The Treaty, no matter which date one accepts, either 879 or 886, moved the boundary from the Colne-

Ouzel to the Lee-Great Ouse, as a result of what this writer designates a ‘Continuation War’ after

Guthrum’s retreat from Cirencester. This effectively created two portions of additional territory

conceded to the Anglo-Saxons comprising Middlesex, western Hertford- and western Bedford-‘shire

areas’ joined at the line between Luton and the Icknield Way route to where it intersects Watling

Street or the Ouzel. The northern portion is the area that this writer designates as the ‘Luton-Bedford

Salient’ because its eastern boundary in the Treaty is simply a straight north-south line between the

spring of the Lea and Bedford without any natural or topographic feature and comprising the area

between the Ouzel and the line (see §7 When Did Alfred Occupy London? and §9 Dating and intent of

‘Alfred and Guthrum’s Treaty’).

Haslam then delineates the ‘Western limit of Danelaw c 906’ by incorporating the ‘Luton-Bedford

Salient’ moving the boundary line westwards from Luton following the Icknield Way route to its

junction with the Ouzel, thence from that river’s intersection with Watling Street on to Passenham.

This he argues changed as a result of the ‘Treaty of Tiddingford’, between Edward and other unnamed

Viking armies in ASC sa ‘905’. The author largely accepts the line, as it explains some of the charter

evidence that in the early tenth century territory in the area was subject to Viking ownership.

However, this writer proposes that the ‘Salient’ was pinched during the various invasions by Hæstan

between 892-895 (§10 The Last War of Alfred and the Role of the Burhs). Therefore, the ‘Treaty of

Tiddingford’ was probably related to matters falling out from the failed invasion by Æthelwold and his

allies, at most it may have simply confirmed the boundary adjustment from the earlier hostilities. The

Viking acquisition would still leave Luton within Anglo-Saxon control as evidenced by the Statement

at ASC sa 913 that a Viking army attacked it at that time. However, this area was recaptured by

Edward when he marched from Buckingham to take Bedford in 914.

Southwark, April 2016

Map 7a : Possible boundaries between the the Viking armies and Anglo-Saxons between 874 - 906

After Haslam with author’s emendations

KEY:

Haslam et al :Western limit of ‘Great Army’ at 877 : Colne-Ouzel-Watling Street thence to the northwest

The ‘Alfred and Guthrum Treaty’ line at 879 (Haslam et al) or 886 (Sharp et al):

defined by line of Lea-Luton-Bedford-Great Ouse- Passenham

1, 2, 3: Sharp et al : all shaded areas ‘Great Army ‘ controlled at 874

2, 3: Sharp : shaded areas Guthrum controlled when he retreated from Cirencester at 879 including

east of the Lea as part of his ‘East Anglia’; the areas 2 and 3 came under Anglo-Saxon control as a

result of the ‘Alfred and Guthrum Treaty’ following the ‘Continuation War’ 879-886.

3: The ‘Bedford-Luton Salient’: (retaken by Vikings 895 (Sharp et al) or 906 (Haslam et al)