In January 878 Guthrum fell on the court of the West Saxon king, lost the battle of Edington in May, accepted baptism and went on to rule East Anglia as "King Æthelstan". Few Vikings of the ninth century are as well documented, and few are as dark before 874. This article works through the sources in order, separates what they say from what is inferred, and marks the points where scholars disagree.
The Anglo-Saxon Chronicle, a set of year-by-year annals preserved in several manuscripts and put together in the circle of King Alfred, first brings Guthrum in when the Viking army takes its winter quarters at Cambridge. Before that we know nothing about him: no origin, no father, no homeland named by a ninth-century source. That matters, because contemporaries did record ancestry when they had it. Here they are silent.
The spelling varies as well. In its entry for 890 the Chronicle has the form Godrum; modern writers use Guthrum, Guthorm or Godrum. All mean the same man. His baptismal name Æthelstan (Old English Æðelstán, "noble stone") was an old English royal name, and he did not pick it himself; more on that below. Do not confuse him with the later King Æthelstan who ruled in the 920s and 930s. Guthrum-Æthelstan died in 890, more than thirty years earlier.
A word on dates. The year numbers of the Chronicle are not identical in every manuscript, and I follow the years as they stand in the usual translations. Where historians differ by a year, it is normally a matter of how the annals are counted, not a different event.
On the web and in some books you will read that Guthrum was born around 835 in Denmark, a nephew of King Horik II and an unsuccessful claimant to a share of the Danish throne. I found these statements in a summary, but not in any source that supports them. The Chronicle says nothing of the kind, nor does Asser, and I treat the claims as unattested. The same goes for the old suggestion that he is identical with a saga figure called Gormr; older reference works list it as "possible", and as far as I can tell it has never been proved.
There is one concrete handle, his epithet. In its entry for 890 the Chronicle calls him se norþerna cyning, "the northern king". What that means is unclear. It could mean "the Dane", simply "the one from the north", or a comment on his position relative to the southern English. Older literature sometimes renders it as "Norwegian"; no safe conclusion about his origin follows. In accounts of the Vikings in England he is usually called a Dane, because Asser and the Chronicle label the armies collectively as "Danes". That is a catch-all used by Anglo-Saxon writers, not a statement about the individual.
The idea that he was one of Ragnar's sons also surfaces now and then. In the sources I read he is never described that way. The sagas attach names such as Ivar and Halfdan to the sons of Ragnar; Guthrum does not belong to the legendary circle around Ivar the Boneless. Halfdan, on the other hand, does appear in the Chronicle, and at exactly the point where Guthrum first steps forward.
For Guthrum we have three contemporary or near-contemporary texts at the core, and one later one. The Anglo-Saxon Chronicle is the densest source for dates. It grew out of the West Saxon court's own historiography, and that colours it: Alfred's defeats are reported tersely, his victories at length. Asser, a Welsh cleric who lived at Alfred's court, wrote a biography of the king around 893. He tells the events of 878 more fully than the Chronicle and is the only source for some details of the baptism. The one old manuscript of his work, the Cotton manuscript of about 1000, burned in 1731 in the fire at Ashburnham House; we know the text through copies. The historian Alfred Smyth has argued that the work is a later forgery, which the great majority of scholars reject. Anyone citing Asser should know about that dispute without overrating it.
Then there is Æthelweard, an ealdorman (high royal official) connected with the West Saxon royal house, who wrote a Latin chronicle in the late tenth century. He depends heavily on a version of the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle; I have not read him for this article and do not rely on individual passages. Finally the Annals of St Neots, a medieval compilation drawn largely from the Chronicle, Asser and other material. They give the only hint of Guthrum's burial place and matter for that reason, although they are late. No source from Guthrum's own side exists: no inscription, no letter, only coins.
The consequence for any reader: everything we know about Guthrum's intentions comes from the pens of his opponents. When Asser writes that Guthrum promised to accept Christianity, that is the victor's view. Whether Guthrum understood it as submission, as an alliance or as a political bargain, we cannot say.
The background is that of the Great Army, the Viking forces that harried England from 865 onwards. After the winter at Repton, where the Mercian king Burgred was driven out, the army split. Halfdan went north with one part; as a second group, the sources name three kings, Guthrum among them, who went to Cambridge. This is the moment his name enters the record. Together with two other leaders, Oscytel and Anwend, he spent the winter there. Why the army divided no source states outright; the usual reading is that the northern group wanted to settle in Northumbria, where the realm later centred on Jórvík took shape, while Guthrum turned towards the south. That is an interpretation of events, not a statement of the Chronicle.
In 876, according to the summaries I read, Guthrum's group seized Wareham in Dorset. Alfred could not storm the fortification. Hostages and oaths were agreed, and the Danes are said to have sworn on a sacred ring. They broke the oath, are said to have killed the hostages, and slipped away by night to Exeter. There the army was blockaded; a relief fleet ran into a storm, the Danes had to submit and withdrew into Mercia. I know this sequence only from summaries and therefore report it with caution. What is certain: Alfred had already negotiated with this same group before 878, and the arrangement did not hold. That helps explain why, after his victory in 878, hostages and oaths no longer sufficed and baptism was added.
For the year 878 the Chronicle has a famous sentence: in midwinter, after the twelfth night, that is after 6 January, the army "stole away" to Chippenham and overran the land of the West Saxons. Many people were driven overseas; most of the rest submitted. Chippenham in Wiltshire was a royal vill, an estate with a hall, where Alfred had spent the Christmas season according to the accounts I read. That the king was not expecting an army there is the heart of the surprise. The timing is tight: the night around Epiphany, so the first days of January.
How it succeeded is one of the open questions. Part of the scholarship sees a genuine sudden strike. Others, such as Barbara Yorke in her work on Wessex, think of betrayal or arrangements. One anchor is the ealdorman of Wiltshire, Wulfhere. A charter of 901, under King Edward the Elder, says that estates on the Wylye were taken from him and his wife because, "despite his oath", they had abandoned the king and the country. From this it follows that Wulfhere left Alfred. Whether he negotiated with Guthrum is interpretation; Yorke considers that he may have had a nephew in mind as a dependent king of Wessex. The charter cannot show that; it is a thought experiment.
Alfred fled with a small band into the marshes of Somerset, the wetlands around Athelney. The Chronicle says he went with a few men into the woods and fens. The legend of the burnt cakes belongs here; it was first written down about a hundred years after Alfred's death and has nothing to do with the story of Guthrum. More on the king and his policy is in the article on Alfred the Great.
At Easter, the Chronicle says, Alfred built a fortification at Athelney and raided the army from it. Seven weeks after Easter, so roughly in May, he called the men of Somerset, Wiltshire and part of Hampshire to a place called Ecgbryhtesstan, "Egbert's Stone", east of Selwood. Asser names Iley Oak as the next stage. Where exactly these places lay is disputed; Egbert's Stone is not a securely located site. What matters is this: the levies of three shires followed the king, which means that his ealdormen and officials, with isolated exceptions, had stayed loyal. That is significant, because Chippenham looks like a collapse while the march shows an administration that still worked.
How many men stood on either side we do not know. The sources give no numbers for the army at Edington, and estimates for Viking armies in general diverge widely: one view reckons with no more than about a thousand men, another with more than five thousand fighters in the early period. For Guthrum's force in 878 I found no reliable figure.
The Chronicle calls the battlefield Eðandun, Asser writes Ethandun. Asser describes how Alfred fought "with a close shield-wall" against the whole pagan army and, after a hard fight and great slaughter, defeated it. In the translation I read he says Alfred triumphed "by divine aid". The survivors withdrew into a fortification, where Alfred besieged them for fourteen nights; then they asked for peace and gave hostages. The detail of the "fourteen nights" stands in the Chronicle as I read it.
The identification of Ethandun with Edington near Westbury in Wiltshire is the prevailing view. It rests on the name form and on testimony from Alfred's circle: according to the summaries I read, Alfred's will leaves an estate called Eðandun to his wife, and a charter records a council meeting there. That makes Edington a place the royal family knew. William Henry Stevenson, who produced the critical edition of Asser in 1904, tested the equation and, as the summary has it, found little reason to doubt it. The question did not go entirely without dissent: the Tudor historian Polydore Vergil moved the battle to Abingdon, probably through a misreading, and nineteenth-century antiquarians proposed other sites, mostly on the basis of place names. Which sites those were I cannot say from the sources I read.
A point of perspective: that Edington is the best solution does not mean the battlefield is archaeologically secured. I know of no find that pins the fight to a particular spot. The location rests on names, routes and probability. A sign in Wiltshire reading "site of the battle" reports a reasoned assumption.
After the siege Guthrum came to Alfred. Asser writes that he came with thirty chosen men of his army to Aller near Athelney; the Chronicle likewise says he came with thirty of the most distinguished men of the army. The baptism took place there, as both sources report. About eight days later, at Wedmore, a royal vill, came the chrism-loosing (Old English roughly "loosing of the chrism"): the newly baptised wore a white cloth around the head by old custom, and it was removed after some days. Afterwards Guthrum stayed twelve nights with the king and received rich gifts. The numbers are attested; Asser and the Chronicle word them slightly differently, but agree in substance.
Alfred was godfather. That this was more than ceremony follows from the legal situation: whoever lifted someone from the font entered into a spiritual kinship, which created obligations an ordinary treaty did not. Asser puts it like this:
“… Alfred received him as a son by adoption and raised him from the sacred font of baptism.”Asser, Life of King Alfred, account of 878 (read in the English translation in the Internet Medieval Sourcebook; public domain; own rendering)
What is missing: the name Æthelstan does not occur in the text of Asser that I read. It appears in the Chronicle only under the year 890, at Guthrum's death, where it says his baptismal name was Æðelstán and that he was Alfred's godson. That he received the name already in 878 is the natural assumption, but explicitly it is attested only years later. The name was not alien in England: as early as the ninth century an East Anglian king called Æthelstan (825 to 840) had struck coins. Whether the choice was deliberate or chance cannot be said.
Reading the baptism as an act of submission, as the victor's sources suggest, is legitimate but not compulsory. Politically Guthrum gained something: he stayed king, kept his following and acquired a kinship with the most powerful ruler of the south. How far he committed himself to the Christian faith, no one can say. The wider question of how the northern peoples were converted is taken up in the article on the Christianisation of the Germanic peoples.
People often speak of a "Treaty of Wedmore". That is a modern label for what was agreed in 878: hostages, oaths, withdrawal and baptism. No written document from that year survives. The text we have, the treaty between Alfred and Guthrum, is later. It is preserved in an Old English version in the manuscript Corpus Christi College Cambridge, MS 383, and in a Latin version in the compilation Quadripartitus. The label "Treaty of Wedmore" blurs these two things, and the two are often read together.
As to content, from the English translation I could consult: the treaty opens with the names of King Alfred and King Guthrum, of the witan (council) of the English people and of all the people in East Anglia, and it is sworn for descendants, "born and unborn". The boundary, in the first clause, runs up the Thames, then up the Lea to its source, from there straight to Bedford, then up the Ouse to Watling Street, the old Roman highway. East of this line lay Guthrum's area, west of it Alfred's. The second clause sets the wergild, the price put on a man's life, equal for English and Danes: eight half-marks of pure gold for a slain man; excepted are the ceorl on rented land and the freedmen of the Danes, for whom two hundred shillings apply. The third clause regulates oath-helpers in homicide charges, the fourth requires anyone acquiring slaves, horses or oxen to know his warrantor, and the fifth forbids free or unfree people to go over to the other side's army without permission; trade is allowed if hostages are given as a pledge of peace.
Two things stand out. First, according to the summaries I read, the treaty gives London to Alfred, and the Thames-Lea line fits that. I did not see the passage in the wording myself. Second, the document is not a partition of England "by nationality" but a border and legal agreement between two kings that regulates daily life: who may trade where, who is liable for stolen cattle, how a human life is valued. Lesley Abrams, a scholar of the subject, has, from what I saw of her work, argued that it was primarily a tool of border management.
The date of the treaty is not recorded. The latest possible time is certain: Guthrum died in 890. The earliest is disputed. Giles Morgan has argued for 879, David Horspool for 886, according to the summaries I read. Two lines of reasoning confront each other in the literature. The first ties the treaty to Alfred's occupation of London in 886, which the Chronicle records under that year: if London falls to Alfred under the treaty, it must have been concluded after the city was regained. The second points to the entry for 885, according to which the army in East Anglia "broke the peace with King Alfred". That could suggest a peace treaty already existed when this happened, and so the treaty is older. Both arguments have gaps: the text itself names no year, and the link to London is a reading, not a wording.
One feature the reader should know: there is a second text, the Peace of Edward and Guthrum. It sounds like a sequel, but according to Dorothy Whitelock (1941) it is a forgery by Archbishop Wulfstan of York, made between 1002 and 1023. Ten tenth-century charters name a Guthrum as dux or king; it used to be assumed that this was a second Guthrum, because the East Anglian one died in 890. Who that later Guthrum was cannot be settled here. For our subject it is enough that from the genuine Alfred-Guthrum treaty a straight line leads to a later forgery that leans on it.
The notion that this treaty created the Danelaw is widespread and misleading. The word itself is younger and does not appear in the clauses I read. The line divides two spheres of rule; whether one may see in it the birth of a legal region is a modern interpretation.
What happened after the treaty? For 879 the Chronicle reports the army's move from Chippenham to Cirencester, where it stayed a year, and for 880 the move on to East Anglia, "where it occupied and divided the land". That is the moment when Guthrum, in the standard picture, became king of East Anglia. The Chronicle for 890 puts it in retrospect: according to the summaries I read, he was the first to settle the land. East Anglia had previously been conquered by the armies that were in the country from 865; the situation before that is not the subject of this article.
We know little of his reign, and what we do know is indirect. The face handed down later is that of a king who remained a war leader for his Norse followers and presented himself as a Christian ruler to his Saxon subjects. That is a summary of modern accounts; whether contemporaries saw it that way is not secure. The Chronicle for 885 notes that Alfred sent a fleet from Kent to East Anglia and that the army in East Anglia afterwards broke the peace with him. It does not say who led it, and whether Guthrum took part or watched powerless the sources do not tell. What is certain is that the treaty, as far as we understand it, regulated the peace between the two kings and that in 890 there was still a king in East Anglia.
The only testimony from Guthrum's own reign is coins. Silver pennies struck in East Anglia and bearing the name Æthelstan are attributed to him. The British Museum lists under "Aethelstan II" (with the variant Guthrum) nineteen coins, most from the Cuerdale hoard, struck in East Anglia; moneyers appear with names such as Elda, Guntere and Iudelberd. One coin formerly attributed to Alfred the Great is now regarded as a striking of this Æthelstan. The Ashmolean Museum in Oxford dates the coinage to 880 to 890. I have not read the inscriptions and can therefore say nothing about their wording or imagery.
The attribution is plausible and customary, but it is an attribution. As early as the ninth century there was an East Anglian king Æthelstan I (825 to 840), and name and place alone would not suffice; the dating rests on style, find context and the historical situation. It is remarkable that a Danish king had coins struck with his Christian name. That fits the baptism, but the conclusion that he had thereby become a Christian ruler would go too far: the name on the coin is the statement, the intention behind it unknown.
The Chronicle records his death under the year 890. I read the Old English phrase through the dictionary Bosworth-Toller:
The entry reads in essence: Hér Godrum se norþerna cyning forþferde, ðæs fulluhtnama wæs Æðelstán, roughly "In this year Godrum, the northern king, died, whose baptismal name was Æthelstan". The continuation, which calls him Alfred's godson and says he was the first to settle East Anglia, I know only from summaries. As his place of burial the Annals of St Neots give Hadleigh in Suffolk, written Headleage. The Annals date from the high Middle Ages (the twelfth century according to Wikipedia), and the statement is the only one; there is no confirmation from a contemporary source.
Who followed him in East Anglia I did not find clearly attested in the sources I read, and I leave it open. The wider frame in which the Danish-ruled territories later stand is explained in the article on the Danelaw.
Whether Guthrum belonged to the Great Army from 865 cannot be derived from the sources. He appears after the winter at Repton as one of three kings of the southern group. Some accounts have him arrive in 871 with the "Summer Army"; as far as I can see this is not uniform: other accounts name Bagsecg, not Guthrum, as leader of that army. I cannot decide the matter and treat his earlier membership as open. That his group emerged from the force we summarise as the Great Army is plausible, but that too is an assignment made by later readers.
It is important to keep apart another force: under 879 the Chronicle records a further army that gathered at Fulham on the Thames and crossed to Ghent the following year. It is not Guthrum's army. His trail leads through Cirencester to East Anglia, while the Fulham force went to the continent. What it did there is dealt with in the article on the Great Army on the continent.
Several questions remain unanswered. First, origin: there is no source. Second, the dating of the treaty, somewhere between 879 and 890. Third, the location of Ethandun, which counts as Edington but is not supported by finds. Fourth, the role of Wulfhere and the character of the strike at Chippenham, described as a surprise attack but also interpreted as the result of internal tensions. Fifth, the assessment of Asser, whose authenticity a minority disputes.
Richard Abels, according to the summaries I saw, has remarked that Guthrum's defeat may also reflect the waning cohesion of the Danish army. That is an interpretation that fits well with the observation that this army had split and regrouped several times in the preceding years. It cannot be proved.
A general lesson from the case of Guthrum: the figure we call "Guthrum" is a product of the sources. Had Alfred lost in 878, the Chronicle would be silent about him or tell it differently. That we have a name, a baptism, a treaty and coins we owe to the victory of a king whose court wrote the history. This does not make the testimony false, but it determines what one may ask of it.
Who was Guthrum? A Viking king and war leader who appears in English sources from 874/75, fought Alfred the Great in 878, accepted baptism and ruled East Anglia until 890. Nothing reliable is known about the time before.
Why was he later called Æthelstan? It was his baptismal name. The Anglo-Saxon Chronicle gives it under 890; that he received it already in 878 is probable but not explicitly attested.
Where was Ethandun? By prevailing opinion at Edington near Westbury in Wiltshire. The equation is well argued but not secured by archaeological finds.
When was the treaty between Alfred and Guthrum made? Nobody knows. The latest possible date is Guthrum's death in 890; years between 879 and 886 have been proposed, with 886 tied to Alfred's recovery of London.
Did Guthrum belong to the Great Army? His group probably emerged from the force that scholarship calls by that name, but his position before 874 is not documented.
The other side and the surroundings: Alfred the Great, The Danelaw, The Great Army, Jórvík, Ivar the Boneless, Ragnar's Sons, Vikings in England and The Christianisation of the Germanic Peoples.
Alfred the Great · The Danelaw · The Great Heathen Army · Ivar the Boneless · The Vikings in England – from Lindisfarne to 1066.
All History & Finds articles →
The Gutones are named by Tacitus and Ptolemy in the area of the lower Vistula. They are widely regarded as the early …
Read more →Hedeby was not a fortress and not a royal seat. It was a place where goods changed hands – the most important one in …
Read more →Halfdan is one of the best-known names of the Great Heathen Army, and yet he is surprisingly hard to pin down in the …
Read more →Harald Bluetooth (Old Norse Haraldr Gormsson, Danish Harald Blåtand) was king of the Danes from about 958 until 986/87 …
Read more →