Why the hell does he keep helping Alfred? - The Last Kingdom (2015) Discussion

[–] Scifi71 9 years ago

He was just sentenced to death by Alfred,

and WHY was that again?

I love how some portray Uthred as some innocent Victim of Alfred's.

Uthred makes his own messes.

Uthred needs Alfred's influence and power to make money and gather a saxon army to take back his home.

Humankind cannot bear very much reality. ~T.S. Eliot

reply

[–] Sabre-El 9 years ago

Cos he has nowhere else to go and as of now Alfred needs him as much as he needs Alfred. And I guess he knows that if the Danes win, they will not let Uthred live.

Yes he could have killed Alfred, but he would have gained nothing from it. Now, as Alfred says, he is indebted to Uthred.... although..

I'm betting Alfred doesn't even free him of his debt even now after he has saved Alfred's kingdom a second time and Alfred's son.

this could be true :D

Clark: Jonathan Kent; isn't it a little past your bedtime?

reply

[–] ls_guy 9 years ago

Cos he has nowhere else to go and as of now Alfred needs him as much as he needs Alfred. And I guess he knows that if the Danes win, they will not let Uthred live.

Brida seems to think he has a place to go. She's invited him several times to join Ragnar and get revenge for his adopted father. And why would he think he'd be more accepted by Wessex than the Danes? He was sentenced to death by Alfred. Its just bothering me that no matter how often Alfred and Wessex screw him over he's never tempted to abandon them or kill them. This is a character that has done some very stupid things by acting on instinct and not thinking things out but, for the convenience of the plot, he never does attacks Alfred or any one in Wessex. Which would make logical sense.. It's just stupid

I love how some portray Uthred as some innocent Victim of Alfred's.

As for this...

Thanks for putting words in my mouth. I never said Uthred was innocent. I'm just saying given his temperament it seems unlikely he'd still serve Alfred and not take a sword to him given a chance(a very opened chanced at that.) Its basically out of character. As you said he makes his own messes but when there's a mess he should make he suddenly acts responsibly? There's no way the Uthred's we have watched for 7 episodes, after being screwed at every possible meeting with Alfred, wouldn't get revenge when the opportunity presented itself. He'd do it just for making him crawl on his knees, not to mention the 4 other times he screwed him over.

reply

[–] dizzy-b 9 years ago

Is Guy. I think your problem is that you are taking that you are taking this show as fact, and getting so involved in it you think it is totally real.

In the books, Uhtred basically comes across as a Juvenile, boorish oaf, who despises Alfred for trying to create an ordered society based on law and justice when be believes its all pointless because the world is going to imminently end in chaos. (Nowdays we would call a person like that a 'religious fundamentalist but I suppose we don't do that with Uhtred because he is a pagan and paganism is fashionable).

We know from history that Alfred was one of England's greatest Kings, who helped re-establish learning and scholarship, reformed the law and the defence system and saved his Kingdom from barbarians like Uhtred and company who are too preoccupied with 'feasting, drinking and humping'- who thought thier gods liked them to rape pillage and burn.

So don't complain to me about Alfred being bad, and Uhtred mistreated.

reply

[–] Zantor169 9 years ago

I wish he would help the Danes lol Or am I the only one that wish the Danes would win? But of course we all know that in the end they lose and are converted.

But his ultimate goal is to live for revenge and to get his old families land back and he see's Alfred as the only way to do that. So he puts up with the humiliation and and name calling to further that goal.

reply

[–] Sabre-El 9 years ago

Or am I the only one that wish the Danes would win

There may be more like you. I'm not :D I guess the way the shows (both Vikings and this) portray these Danes, they are not likeable at all.

Clark: Jonathan Kent; isn't it a little past your bedtime?

reply

[–] 9 years ago

[deleted]

[–] dizzy-b 9 years ago

I think the problem with many shows like this is the glorification and glamorization of Danish/Viking culture.

People think its all fun and partying and freedom, whereas the Saxons are all dour and disapproving 'party-poopers'- but this is very simlistic, silly, and rather childish interpretation.

As a Swedish historian recently said, for all that people praise them as peaceful traders, the Vikings liked pillaging and ravaging- and that is what the Danes did in England. They attacked other people's country, killed many of thier men, raped or enslaved thier women and children, and destroyed the repositories of learning and scholarship (the monastries).

I for one consider this lamentable that the Saxons, who were probably more sophisticated and advanced than the Danes as far as science and learning were concerned, were replaced with a bunch if violent, fatalistic, oafs who believed the earth was held together by a giant snake with its tail in its mouth.

That is why I for, one am glad the Danes did not win, and will always vouch for Alfred.

reply

[–] torakaze33 9 years ago

The tv show really doesn't make the reasons for this plain, the way that the books do.

The reason Uthred has chosen the Saxons over the Danes, is that at some point he realized he would always be an outsider to the Danes, and that the only power the Danes would let him have would be a sham instead of the real thing.

Uthred's earliest memories are of his father instructing him in the ways and responsibilities of being an Ealdorman, basically a noble. And when his older brother got himself killed, Uthred became direct heir to his father's title and lands.

He views it and Bebbanburg the fortified city in Northumbria, that his father commanded, as his birthright. And He wants it back from his uncle, he wants to pass it on to his future heir. He wants what he considers his birthright, because not having it is making him feel cheated and denied.

The Danes cannot and will not help him get back Bebbanburg. Even if they could, he'd be nothing but a puppet for them, and he knows it.

Alfred acknowledges him as Uthred of Bebbanburg a saxon noble. His only real chance of reclaiming his birthright and social status as a noble, is to try and help Alfred drive the Danes out of England.

And several times he has sworn an oath to Alfred. And swearing oaths and pledging yourself to a lord, was deadly serious at the time this story takes place. Your reputation was everything, and if you got the reputation of being an oathbreaker, especially to a lord, almost no one would help you with anything, no matter what your ambitions might be.

If he breaks his oath to Alfred, word will spread throughout England amongst the powerful, and his name will be mud universally.

He has ambitions to power, and the only way to get any help to realize those ambitions, is to establish a honorable reputation among the Saxon nobility.

Uthred does not want to be a nobody or a has been. He wants to be seen and treated as a noble, and the only way to secure his position in the nobility is to serve the king.

reply

[–] bluerisk 9 years ago

Even the show gives me enough insight to understand why he is still loyal to Alfred.

And by the way: Alfred was willing to spare his live, and before that he allowed him a trial of combat.

And in consideration of the committed crimes and the evidences that were brought forward Alfred was not free in his decision.

I don't know the books, but after the treason of Odda the younger, and the proven loyalty and worth as general of his army by Uthred, will have tought Alfred a lesson - so I hope.

I also like both actors and the way they portray their characters.

Only Alfred's wife is hard to take.

Ich bin kein ausgeklügelt Buch, ich bin ein Mensch mit seinem Widerspruch.
Conrad Ferdinand Meyer

reply

[–] dizzy-b 9 years ago

And in consideration of the committed crimes and the evidences that were brought forward Alfred was not free in his decision.

I agree. I don't get this 'Poor mistreated Uhtred' rubbish that some people are putting acrross here. Uhtred is basically a murderer. He killed a man on the mere suspicion he was stealing from him, without giving him recourse to law or presenting any evidence.
Then he refuses to pay his family the Wergild (blood price) required by the law, which would help his wife provide for his children, instead just callously says 'they will cope'. He refuses to answer for this crime, or pay the legal penalty.

Then he raided territory that was meant to be at peace with Wessex, siding with the Danes who killed its Kind and stole his treasure. Then he marches into the Witan, whinging about someone stealing his glory and draws his sword on the King (which was considered totally inapproporate behaviour and treasonable in many cultures).

I could also mention how he expects his wife not to mind when he brings another woman home- in other words, not to disapprove of him sleeping with another woman. He treats her like a piece of s**t.

I think Alfred's actions and his wife's are totally justified.

reply

[–] aimer_le_loup 9 years ago

^This

It makes no sense that Uthred keeps going back to the dour Alfred. I really can't stand the actor who plays him and his repulsive wife. This is why I don't love the show as much as Vikings. I'm really not as interested in the English and their exploits.

If I were Ragnar or Brida I would dump Uthred as a friend, he changes sides every other episode.

This will never end cause I want more. More, give me more, give me more...Vikings/If I Had A Heart

reply

[–] Scifi71 9 years ago

If I were Ragnar or Brida I would dump Uthred as a friend, he changes sides every other episode.

That will continue

Humankind cannot bear very much reality. ~T.S. Eliot

reply

[–] dizzy-b 9 years ago

You forget that for one Brida is a Saxon and English by birth, but chose to live with the Vikings because she likes shagging Danes and getting high on Mushrooms- and is quite happy to allow her male counterparts to rape and abuse English women- as she did when she opened the gates of Winchester to Gurthrum and co.

In the fifth book, the Burning Land, her worldview is clearly spelled out. She wants to invade Wessex to eradicate Christianity, because she thinks the Saxons will have the audacity to take back the land that was once theirs, and the evil Christians will stop thier children from having 'fun' as she sees it, and might even teach them to read and obey rules and laws.

She is basically just like and overgrown bratty teenager to resents the 'grown-ups' for telling her what to do. She attitude and outlook, like those of Uhtred are really just petty, childish and juvenile. Oh, they go on about freedom, and 'enjoying life' but they really just want rape, pillage and anarchy and hate the synbols of an ordered and Educated society.

I could be very cynical and say thier worst fear is that the wicked Christian Saxons might stop the children of her generation from believing in a giant snake with its tail in its mouth surrounding the earth, or subterranean women weaving to determine the fate of men- and insttead make them literate scholars writing about science, law and philosopy. How horrific!

reply

[–] Scifi71 9 years ago

This is why I don't love the show as much as Vikings. I'm really not as interested in the English and their exploits.

Expliots? you mean them trying to save Wessex from the Vikings burning it down, killing evreybody and taking over? lol

Humankind cannot bear very much reality. ~T.S. Eliot

reply

[–] VGsam 9 years ago

It will be intresting to to Micheal Hirst written portrayal of Alfred on "Vikings" in series 4/5. I have a feeling it might be based much more on the history based Alfred. Bernard Cornwell tends to play down the historical Alfred's skills to make the fictional Uthred look tougher/stronger

reply

[–] shelley_smiles 9 years ago

I think he'll be a noble version of Ecbert. The strategy, the patience, the intelligence, with Athelstan's goodness.

I don't think that Cornwell made Alfred annoying to play up Uhtred so much as he needed dramatic conflict and didn't know how to write it. It's hard to write rounded, flawed characters and still make them likable, especially throwing in pious to boot. Too hard for Cornwell. Pair that with an actor who looks sniveling and weak and you get TLK's Alfred. He wanted considered, rationale, patient, and civilized vs brash, rebellious, physical, and wild.

"Good work, zombie arm."

reply

[–] Prismark10 9 years ago

Alfred is a prick.

I am shocked he has not been stabbed to death.

I like to think this Alfred is not historical accurate.

It's that man again!!

reply

[–] Scifi71 9 years ago

I like to think this Alfred is not historical accurate.

He's not. Cornwell says he wrote his own biased views(about Christians) into Alfred.

Humankind cannot bear very much reality. ~T.S. Eliot

reply

[–] toa-775-926194 9 years ago

I allways have a strange kind of love/hate relationship with Uthred.. I love him for his passion but as a Dane ;) I can not help cheering for the true masters of Danelaw (the vikings).. :)

reply

[–] dizzy-b 9 years ago

I understand that as a Dane you vouch for your countrymen, but as I said above, from the English standpoint, its probably no exaggeration to say that it would have been disastrous for us if the Danes had defeated Alfred.

For Brits like me Alfred is one of our most important rulers, the main reason being that if he had been defeated, its not too much of a leap to day there might not be a nation of England today.

We would probably have ended up an outpost of a pagan, illiterate Danish Empire. We would probably not have become the state with pretty much the strongest and best adminstrative and centralized governmental system in Europe, as we were on the eve of the Norman Conquest.
The Literature and scholarship of our forbears from before the Danes came would probably have become a distant memory, or been lost altogether.

In other words, English history would have been a lot different, and probably not for the better.

reply

[–] shelley_smiles 9 years ago

Does it matter, you pretty much got conquered by the viking decedents from Normandy anyway?

"Good work, zombie arm."

reply

[–] Leo_ofRedKeep 9 years ago

These were even worse, they spoke French.

reply

[–] VGsam 9 years ago

For Brits like me Alfred is one of our most important rulers, the main reason being that if he had been defeated, its not too much of a leap to day there might not be a nation of England today.

True

I think Alfred/Edward/Athelstan were a vitally inmportant major dynasty. ALfred's daughter was a serious badass as well.

An amazing family!

reply

[–] SevenHouses 9 years ago

ALfred's daughter was a serious badass as well.

Can't wait for her to grow up.

"Now, who has the key?"

reply

[–] lettyatuni 9 years ago

Alfred is a prick.

To be fair, I'd be a 'prick' as well if my country was being taken over by a bunch of raping half-wits who were literally bullying the people into giving away all their goods. I'd also be a prick if some idiot who came to court with the idea of 'using' me to get rich was running around laughing at my beliefs, being a nuisance and waving his sword in my face because he was annoyed.

reply

[–] VGsam 9 years ago

To be fair, I'd be a 'prick' as well if my country was being taken over by a bunch of raping half-wits who were literally bullying the people into giving away all their goods. I'd also be a prick if some idiot who came to court with the idea of 'using' me to get rich was running around laughing at my beliefs, being a nuisance and waving his sword in my face because he was annoyed.



reply

[–] stephanieericsson 9 years ago

That's an interesting bit of history about him. I've read most of his books, and it's his wicked, droll sense of humor and his perspective on the "Great" institutions like government and church that have made him a favorite of mine. Some would call it cynicism, and I would have too in my youth. But the older I get, the more I'd call it realism.

Every time I read one of his books, I realize how pissed off I should be toward the Catholic Church, not from personal childhood experience so much because the Franciscans were very good to me as a kid, but from the personal experience of being a woman in this world and from a historian's perspective. The Catholic Church, (and let's remember, until the 16th century, everyone was Catholic,) is the greatest propagandist of all time.

Cornwell rages against tyranny over the individual, particularly in his humor. I also think he is unrivaled in his characterizations of complicated men, the necessity of violence and what it means to be a man in this world. And he manages it with a self-deprecating sense of whimsy and humility.

God made man because he loves stories. —Rabbi Nachman

reply

[–] 9 years ago

[deleted]

[–] stephanieericsson 9 years ago

Even in Europe there were many Pagan religions and Gods for thousands of years
before Christianity.

I know but they were my relatives and don't count.

Catholicism itself is just an off shoot of Judaism.

I like to think of Catholicism as the missionary branch of Judaism..

God made man because he loves stories. —Rabbi Nachman

reply

[–] dizzy-b 9 years ago

This is very revealing. The depiction of Alfred is based on Bernard Cornwell's own hatred of Christianity and perhaps a slightly anarchic view of society.

The problem is that people are taking this depiction as 'historical fact' and like the person who started this thread- getting very hot under the collar about his supposed 'badness'.

From a modern standpoint, Alfred did a huge amount for Britain in his reforms of defence and law. From the standpoint of rationalism and reason, his re-establishment of education bought great benefits. As I have said before, the Danes (if Uhtred's beliefs were anything to go by), were fatalistic, superstitious idiots who believed that the earth was surrounded by a giant serpent with its tail in its mouth and would end when it let go.

The Saxons by contrast, were writing about the earth as being 'round like a ball' and the moon effecting the tides decades before the Viking invasions- and a century before any Islamic scholars.

Yet what we see in Bernard Cornwell's books is the Danes abject horror that the evil Saxons might stop them having fun (feasting, drinking and humping with impunity), or even worse, teach their children to read. Uhtred is incensed with Alfred for (among other things) having the audacity for wanting to create an ordered society based on law and order, when he believes the earth is going to imminently end in chaos when that snake lets go of his tail.

Or, to put it another way, he and his Danish friends are as much religious fundamentalists as the Saxons they condemn- and aggressive fundamentalists at that- intent to the destruction of a more advanced and sophisticed civilisation than thier own.

reply

[–] dizzy-b 9 years ago

Is Guy. I am taking it you are an American/Canadian? You can correct me if I am wrong of course.

For Brits like me Alfred is one of our most important rulers, the main reason being that if he had been defeated, its not too much of a leap to day there might not be a nation of England today.

We would probably have ended up an outpost of a pagan, illiterate Danish Empire. We would probably not have become the state with pretty much the strongest and best adminstrative and centralized governmental system in Europe, as we were on the eve of the Norman Conquest.
The Literature and scholarship of our forbears from before the Danes came would probably have become a distant memory, or been lost altogether.

In other words, English history would have been a lot different, and probably not for the better.

reply