Archaeological discoveries

English Navy:researchers question the nautical genius of Alfred the Great

Alfred the Great is often presented as the founder of the British Royal Navy. But a study reveals that his father already had an effective fleet to fend off Viking attacks.

Portrait of Alfred the Great

Two Australian researchers from Flinders University have looked into the history of England's sea power in the 10th century and earlier. They were thus able to discover that the origins of the Royal Navy, the maritime branch of the British armed forces, are not those that we believe.

Æthelstan of Kent's forgotten victory

King of Wessex since 871 then King of the Anglo-Saxons from 886 to 899, Alfred the Great is also presented as the founder of the British naval forces. Also, Matthew Firth and Erin Sebo wanted to assess the naval power of his predecessors. Based on 10th century writings and other archaeological evidence (or rather lack of evidence), they assert that Alfred the Great "was not the first English monarch to coordinate a fleet to defend the country against viking attacks ", they note in a press release.

The "Anglo-Saxon Chronicles "trace part of the history of this people. They relate other naval battles even before the coronation of Alfred the Great. Thus, in 851, an ealdorman (a title borne by certain nobles in medieval England ) and King Æthelstan of Kent are said to have defeated Vikings near the town of Sandwich, home to one of the main ports of the time. Structured naval attacks, led by a strategically equipped English fleet, were therefore already taking place when the Alfred's father, Æthelwulf of Wessex, was in power. And possibly even before. "The idea that Alfred founded the navy is widely held - and this claim has been reproduced without reservation by reputable authorities such as the National Museum of the Royal Navy, the Encyclopædia Britannica and the BBC history web page ", emphasizes Matthew Firth.

The mysterious Æthelstan of Kent. Æthelstan of Kent was evidently the eldest son of Æthelwulf of Wessex and thus Alfred's brother. But he did not enjoy the same fame. Reigning over Kent, he remains "an obscure figure in Anglo-Saxon history ", note the two Australian researchers in a study published on July 22, 2020 in the journal International Journal of Nautical Archaeology. After his rescue from the town of Sandwich, he disappeared from the records. And "the description of his victory does not detail either the strategy or the composition of his army ".

A belief in a sovereign master of the seas

In 875, an attack against a fleet of seven ships occurred for the first time during the reign of Alfred the Great. In 882, a new attack by a flotilla of only four ships is reported. These two events therefore occur long after the defense of England by Æthelstan of Kent. But the writings have largely embellished Alfred the Great's contribution to the British navy. Furthermore, "Alfred's ship design, as described in the records, was impractical and failed as a sea force in his first sea battle against more experienced Viking sailors ", explains Firth.

Why did the writings make this sovereign a naval visionary? Because at that time, maritime power was particularly prestigious. She was "central to English royalty both in terms of prestige culture and political power It "was central to the exercise of authority because English ports facilitated the trade and communication on which the economy was based ". And this power was also necessary because it made it possible to defend England against the Scandinavian raids and the Viking invasion. Finally, the belief in a sovereign ruler of the seas was more important than its veracity for the balance of the kingdom.

A faulty fleet. In 896, the "Anglo-Saxon Chronicles" recounts the battle between nine new ships of Alfred the Great's fleet, sent to attack six Danish ships off the Isle of Wight (still English today). "Although Alfred's forces won, only two of the six Danish ships were captured and, quite extraordinarily, all nine of Alfred's ships ran aground ", relate the two Australian scholars. The English owe their victory only to the land battle that followed. was not a gifted maritime leader and that the new fleet suffered from inefficient design or an inexperienced crew “, conclude the researchers.