The Saxon Stories Dear Mr Cornwell I've been enjoying the early English period of c400 - 1100, since when I was about 11 and father held me over Swanage cliffs and told me about the Viking ships "down there". I accumalated a lot of knowledge from as many sources as possible over the next 45 years, and then started fairly intensive study, ending up doing courses (as a part time lecturer for UEA, WEA, Adult Ed, history clubs etc) until 2006. I now just do interested groups more or less as hobby, but go on studying. I have to say I find it absolutely amazing that for an author covering so many historical periods you have gained such an in-depth knowledge, and I can't begin to guess how many different sources you have consulted, and I suspect, enjoyed. There are very few points with which I would disagree, only one of which may affect the plot. Most of the points are minor, for instance in the 800s it's unlikely that East Angles, Northumbrians and Mercians would take to being called Saxons. Bede's works seem to have contained the earliest reference to 'English', and probably by then Angles or Saxons would accept being called English, but would still be either Saxon or Angle. I've picked out, but not written as I read, a few minor points like that, but the two main ones have been 1. Primogeniture was not introduced until the Normans arrived and messed up what was one of the most highly developed civilisations north of the Alps. The early English system was a choice of a throneworthy member of the wider royal family, the witan and the dying king making the decision. King and witan were reliant on each other and a wise king like Alfred avoided picking a bunch of sychophants. When Alfred's brother Ethelred died, his sons were not old enough to be throneworthy, and certainly with Alfred a proven warrior, and given the 'backs to the wall' position of the English as a whole, he could be the only choice, and Aethelwald and Ethelhelm would not have had any more rights, other than to come under consideration on Alfred's death. Obviously there would have been some lobbying in 900/901, but if Edward was considered throneworthy on Alfred's death he would have had to take is chance, 'though he was obviously in a very strong position. 2. I can't understand your dislike of Alfred. Even if you believe the minority of academics who say Asser is lying, there is plenty of evidence to show that, as in his laws (once you get past the necessary religious lead in) he was very pragmatic. My own studies, too, seem to show that he led from the front, and that he did not hold back in rewarding good service. No king without these attributes would have lasted the 30 years he did, and then cut short only by bad health. Had he been as subservient to the church as described in the books, then undoubtedly he'd have been canonised as were others far less worthy. Not too sure about the beards, his and Burgred's, my coins seem to show them clean-shaven. Whilst on coins. No shillings, just silver pennies and the occasional round half-penny (the cut 1/2d coming in later). the gold thrymsa, which may have been a shilling went out in the 600s, and the 'mancus' was probably only a weight of gold; it seems uncertain whether of 20d or 30d. I'm interested to know your source for 'peace cow'; my understanding is of 'peace-maiden' or 'peace-weaver'. I think the chapter I've enjoyed most was your description of the Ethandun battle. Absolutely brilliant, 'though I'm sure Alfred would have led from the front if he wanted to survive as king! Uhtred to me is a very good character indeed and I hope he lives through Aethelstan's campaigns 'though I don't suppose he'll actually be fighting at Brunanburh! Looking forward to the next in the series Kind regards John Chatwin