n History, the guy fought in over 50 battles. some with his brother and some when he was King, as well as an experienced hunter
Why does Bernard Cornwell make him out to be a weakling who can't fight or even make a choice without the fictional Uthred? Or is this just on the show?
[deleted]
Uhtred is a fictional character.
Cornwell had a very unhappy childhood.
He has probably created a father he wished he had.
You will find many references and quotes from the author himself
on other threads.
Alfred the Great and his wife seem to me to be more like the
Peculiar People who adopted him rather than the historical figures.
[deleted]
To make his hero Uthred look better. He's takes Alfred's accomplishments and gives them to Uthred. Obviously Alfred had no Dane advising him or "saving Wessex" during his reign.
For example: BG insists Alfred was not a good fighter because he was sick all the time. Which is not what history dictates.
The weaker Alfred is the better Uthred looks. In History, ALfred is the hero, to BS, Uthred is the hero and he made him such.
I have not read the books but I bet money, Uthred will be the one to advise Alfred to build the fortified towns along the waterway. lol.
Humankind cannot bear very much reality. ~T.S. Eliot
To make his hero Uthred look better. He's takes Alfred's accomplishments and gives them to Uthred. Obviously Alfred had no Dane advising him or "saving Wessex" during his reign.
For example: BG insists Alfred was not a good fighter because he was sick all the time. Which is not what history dictates.
The weaker Alfred is the better Uthred looks. In History, ALfred is the hero, to BS, Uthred is the hero and he made him such.
I have not read the books but I bet money, Uthred will be the one to advise Alfred to build the fortified towns along the waterway. lol.
Remember, History is written by the victors. King Alfred's priests, and the nobles would've put him on a pedestal whether he deserved it or not. Was he a great fighter? Probably yes, but we really only have the documents from the those I referenced above.
shareTrue. But unless you can prove that Alfred was incompetent, believing a fictional character's achievements over Alfred the Great's history is ridiculous.
shareCornwell admits that his portrayal of Alfred isn't accurate, but he does give him credit for his accomplishments. Uthred is the hero here, the novels are first person through Uthred eyes so Alfred is a secondary character.
share[deleted]
That's arguable(since asser says he actually fought eyeball to eyeball) but he was still a formidable hunter who hunted in the marshes as a kid. He knew it well. But in the show/book Uthred and Co. were afraid he was going to get LOST in the marshes.
But, since the above post says Cornwell says the the Alfred portrayal is not accurate. Makes sense that a lot of stuff was dropped or changed about him.
Even scholars don't agree how reliable Asser's portrayal of Alfred is...
"Now, who has the key?"
Even scholars don't agree how reliable Asser's portrayal of Alfred is...
I wouldn't recommend you to read Bernard Cornwell's Arthurian books.
I just read the first one and it is quite incredible, but the way some of Arthur's knights are presented in it will probably make you hate it instantly. For starters, they aren't even called knights - or, at least, in the Bulgarian translation they aren't. And Lancelot is presented in a way that makes the young Odda in this show look like a saint in comparison.
Which goes to show that Cornwell does take a lot of liberties with the material he is writing about, but he is doing this from the position of a writer who knows the material very well.
---
Click here:
http://soundcloud.com/tigermaster/
Which goes to show that Cornwell does take a lot of liberties with the material he is writing about
The hero is hard to like as he is often stupid, rash, and thoughtless.
shareI do not believe Alfred was perceived as a formidable fighter. A great leader and a great intellectual, yes. Courageous too perhaps. Physically weak which would have impacted on fighting from what is believed to have been Crohn's disease.
Regardless, this is a fictional story and not an historical documentary. Much like vikings and not to be taken seriously :P
Much like vikings and not to be taken seriously
Both are based on historical fact & fictional characters. Real events & people bases both series. Are they true to life...no. But enjoyable just the same.
shareUthred is there for "local colour". Alfred the Great was, in fact, great. I have read a bloody good book on him and for the life of me can't find it in my house so can't quote it here. So there is a great book on him out there. Plus there is the well known Anglo Saxon Chronicle which is based on Christian Missionary written down "embellished" but maybe including many facts which is where the "Great" comes from. These monks were the ones that had to live with those F heads the bloody Normans when they came along which, as we all know, F'ed the Saxons LOL
Oh and yes he did have, I think, Chrones Disease but that needs checking out and I for one cannot believe any guy who, I believe had a F'ing high IQ and had that bloody problem, did what he did and can't be "great".
[deleted]
He commanded over battles, highly doubtful he'd fight in them. He wouldn't be much use anyway, the scholars all insist he probably had Chron's disease.
--------------------
Duty Now For The Future
Well he certainly couldn't have been the sniveling, weakling, pious, double-crossing, unjust douche he is presented as here. Someone would have killed him easily enough and nobody would have followed him.
"Good work, zombie arm."
[deleted]
He might have been
[deleted]
Get out go to libraries and read some books. He was the king that defeated the Danes. Full point.
shareHe was the king that defeated the Danes.
Or not, as the case may be.
hey conquered Wessex. He drove them out and reconquered/rebuilt the kingdom. So, he defeated them.