Cross and Scepter

by Bagge, Sverre

  The following account of the three Scandinavian kingdoms can therefore be regarded as a kind of European history in miniature, showing the rise of kingdoms from their very beginning and how the borders originally established by military conquest became part of the right order of the world. In addition to extending the geographical area normally covered in overviews of European medieval history, it may also contribute to the understanding of the European state system as such. Although of course no thorough-going comparison with other areas will be attempted, a study of one area may contribute to an understanding of the export of state formation from the old to the new areas of Western Christendom, of the relationship between the imported and indigenous elements of this process, and of the general relationship between the old and the new regions. It is my hope in this way to stimulate further research into these questions.

  Living in a secularized society, we tend to identify the state with the monarchy, particularly in the Scandinavian countries with their long Protestant tradition. If we are interested in government, however, there is no reason to focus exclusively on the monarchy. The later state was a descendant not only of the monarchy but also of the Church, a point that is particularly obvious in Scandinavia, where at the Reformation the king took over most of the Church’s lands and administration. From the point of view of the common people, it hardly mattered very much whether they were subject to the king, the Church, or a local lord, and the administrative and judicial systems employed by these power holders were not necessarily very different. Admittedly, rivalry within the governing elite might have serious consequences and might even lead to the dissolution of the country in question, or to its conquest by stronger and more centralized neighbors. As we shall see, however, Scandinavian, as well as European state formation was in general characterized by a certain balance between the various elements that made up the governing elite.

  CHAPTER ONE

  The Origins of the Scandinavian Kingdoms

  Early Scandinavian Society

  Although most histories of Scandinavia, including the present one, focus on the period from the formation of the kingdoms in the tenth and eleventh centuries, the area as a whole has a long history going back to the first settlements which date to the end of the last glacial age around 10,000 BC. The earliest inhabitants were hunters and gatherers. Agriculture was introduced gradually from around 4000 BC, first in the form of slash and burn cultivation, later with the establishment of permanent settlement. Already during the last centuries BC, a largely homogenous agricultural zone had developed in Denmark, southern Sweden, the coastal regions of Norway up to Trøndelag, and southern and western Finland. The rest of Scandinavia was dominated by low-intensive agriculture, hunting and gathering, or pastoral nomadism (the Sami in northern Norway, Sweden, and Finland). The high-intensive agricultural zone gradually expanded until the demographic crisis caused by the Black Death in the mid-fourteenth century, after which a new expansion of the zone of intensive agriculture followed in the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries. In parts of the north, however, nomadic or half-nomadic life continued until the twentieth century.

  Because of its climate and terrain, large parts of Scandinavia pose problems for agriculture. The Scandinavian countries are situated between around 54 and 70 degrees north, thus forming the northernmost part of Western Christendom. In addition to being far north, large parts of Scandinavia are also highland, particularly in Norway, and to some extent also in northern Sweden. However, because of the Gulf Stream, the climate is far warmer than in any other part of the world at this latitude—by as much as 5 to 7 degrees C. Thus, it is possible to grow grain at around 70 degrees north in Norway.

  As the southernmost of the three kingdoms, with no elevations greater than 200 meters above sea level, Denmark is clearly best suited for agriculture. In the Middle Ages, this country was both the most populous and the most densely settled, its population equal to or perhaps even larger than Sweden and Norway combined. In absolute numbers, the population of Denmark has been estimated at more than 1 million, perhaps nearly 2 million in the early fourteenth century, that of Norway at between 350,00 and 500,000, and the Swedish population at somewhere between 500,000 and 650,000.

  But even in Denmark there are local variations. The islands and eastern Jutland were the richest agricultural areas in the Middle Ages, while heath and more marginal land prevailed in western and northern Jutland. Sweden, the largest of the three countries, also had significantly less highland than Norway and correspondingly larger agricultural areas. The latter were mainly concentrated in two parts of the country, in the Mälar valley west of present-day Stockholm and around the large lakes further west, Vänern and Vättern. The southern coast of Finland also has good agricultural land. It eventually became densely settled and formed an important part of the kingdom of Sweden. The remaining part of Sweden and Finland are more hilly and have less productive soil. Taken together the main agricultural areas in Norway, the area around Lake Mjøsa in the east, Jæren in the southwest, and the large valley north of present-day Trondheim in the north, cover a far smaller area than the corresponding districts in Sweden. However, the more marginal areas of this country have other assets, which make them suitable for human habitation. The coast of Norway, as well as its rivers and lakes, have rich fisheries, and the forests and mountains abound in game (elk, deer, and various smaller animals), and provide pasture. Although it is not particularly well suited to agriculture, the western coast of Norway has a mild climate, which protects the grain from frost and, together with the fisheries and wide areas suited for pasture, creates conditions conducive to relatively dense settlements. By contrast, eastern Norway and the more marginal parts of Sweden have the same advantages when it comes to hunting and pasture, and fish are plentiful in the lakes and rivers, but crops are more exposed to frost.

  Iceland is by far the most marginal of the Scandinavian countries, not because it is so far north—at 63–67 degrees, it is just south of the Arctic Circle—but because it is situated far out in the Atlantic and its soil is mostly ill-suited to agriculture. When the immigrants arrived, mostly in the period between 870 and 930, the pastures and fisheries were extremely rich. It was also possible to grow grain there until around 1100, when the climate became colder. Eventually, the pastures deteriorated because of too much grazing, the forest was cut down or destroyed by the animals, and the soil became poorer because of erosion. Iceland became a marginal country with very difficult living conditions.

  The natural conditions largely explain settlement and to some extent also social organization. Village settlement, which was the normal form of habitation in most of England and large parts of the Continent, was only to be found in Denmark and the best agricultural parts of Sweden. Settlement in the rest of Scandinavia was dominated by individual farms, although, particularly in western Norway, such farms, at least in later periods, are known to have been divided between several families whose houses were joined around a common courtyard.

  The written sources give the impression that the Scandinavians suddenly came into contact with Europe around 800, with the expansion of the Carolingian Empire and the Viking expeditions, and that Scandinavia was then transformed as the result of the introduction of the monarchy and the conversion to Christianity. In addition, earlier scholarship has often depicted Scandinavian society in the previous period as relatively egalitarian, a society of free and independent farmers organized in extended families. This society was then gradually transformed, as a result of demographic growth and the new impulses from Europe, into the hierarchical and aristocratic society we know from the following period.

  More recent research has revised this picture. There is archaeological evidence dating back to the first centuries AD of contacts with Europe as well as social stratification. A number of graves excavated in various parts of Scandinavia contain exquisite objects of Roman origin: drinking-horns and cups of glass, silver plates with reliefs of warriors and deer, and arm-rings used as in
dications of rank. Even a drinking-cup of silver has been found, showing two scenes from Homer: King Priam of Troy humbly asking Achilles for the body of his son Hector and Odysseus stealing Hercules’s bow from Philoctetes.

  Some of these objects may of course just be booty from plundering expeditions in parts of the Roman world, but their number and the context in which they have been found suggest something more. They may be the result of gift exchanges or rewards for war services rendered to the Romans, and they certainly form evidence of powerful rulers already at this time. The sacrifices of thousands of conquered arms, dating from the beginning of the Christian era until around 500, found in swamps in Denmark, complete the picture. The arms come from various parts of Europe, but most are from Germany and the other Scandinavian countries. It is likely that they indicate victories over people in these areas. They may even form a kind of parallel to the Roman triumph; the fact that only arms and not men were sacrificed makes it most likely that the arms were captured abroad. Did the Danish chieftains stage a procession similar to the Roman triumph but then destroy the arms as a sacrifice instead of retooling them for use by their own army, as the Romans did?

  Figure 1. Drinking-cup from Hoby (Denmark), Roman, ca. first century AD. Priam, to the left, kneels before Achilles, asking to have his son Hector’s body returned to him for burial. From Nordiske Fortidsminder, vol. 2, ed. Det Kgl. Nordiske Oldtidsselskab (The Royal Nordic Society of Antiquities) (Copenhagen, 1911), plate 9. Photo: Pacht & Crone Eftf. Fotoyp. Avdeling for Spesialsamlinger, Universitetsbiblioteket i Bergen (Department of Special Collections, University of Bergen Library).

  There is also evidence from the Roman period of principalities in various parts of Scandinavia, first in Denmark, southern Sweden and southern Norway, and the Baltic islands of Gotland and Öland; later from northern Sweden, and parts of Finland and Norway as far north as Lofoten in northern Norway.

  A reduction of the quantity of grave-goods in finds from the seventh century was earlier interpreted as evidence of an agrarian crisis, similar to the one that took place in the fourteenth century, and was explained in the same way, namely as a consequence of the plague, which we know hit the Mediterranean region from the sixth century onwards. Later archaeologists found evidence of continued population growth and attribute the shortfall of grave-goods to cultural change rather than poverty. There thus seems to be a greater continuity between the wealth of the powerful chieftains of the Roman and Merovingian periods and the Scandinavian chieftains we meet in Carolingian sources from the eighth and ninth centuries and during the Viking expansion.

  Taken together, the evidence suggests the existence of kingdoms and principalities in Scandinavia from the first centuries of the Christian Era onwards, possibly covering quite extensive areas, although it is impossible to trace exact borders. Large territorial units and strong rulers are therefore not necessarily a novelty resulting from the formation of the three kingdoms in the tenth and eleventh centuries. However, there is little to suggest that the earlier units corresponded to the later ones; most probably, we are dealing with various entities in mutual competition and with considerable changes in the centers of power over time.

  Although there is no sure way to quantify the distribution of landownership or to delineate the social structure in the early Middle Ages, it is reasonable to imagine a wider distribution of land and less social stratification than in the following period. Most important institutions were local, with the king’s position depending on his ability to gain adherents and satisfy them, failing which he might easily be deposed or killed. The Eddic poem Rigsthula may provide some clues. Here society is depicted as consisting of three classes, represented by three individuals: the slave, the commoner, and the earl. The commoner represents a kind of middle class, living respectably in contrast to the slave but not in luxury, in contrast to the earl. Although the date of Rigsthula is uncertain and disputed, there are good reasons to believe that it dates from the Viking Age. Moreover, we can point to other evidence confirming its picture. Archaeological material as well as foreign sources suggest the existence of large armies, in contrast to the elite forces that dominated from the twelfth century onwards, and place names point in the same direction.

  This does not mean that early-medieval society mostly consisted of small, independent farmers owning their own land. Instead, we should probably imagine landownership as less strictly defined than in later times. Examinations of early-medieval agrarian structures in Norway based on place names and archaeological evidence suggest a combination of larger farms, probably owned by local magnates, and smaller ones dependent on them, but probably in a kind of patron-client rather than owner-tenant relationship. As in the rest of Europe in the early Middle Ages, land was not particularly valuable in itself. What was most important was control over the people who worked the land. Moreover, chieftains needed subordinates not only to cultivate the land, but also to serve them as warriors, both as participants in Viking expeditions and in conflicts with other chieftains. Thus, even if early-medieval society was neither democratic nor egalitarian, there are reasons to believe that it was less hierarchical than it later became. The magnates were more numerous and less wealthy and the social distance between them and the rest of the people was not as great.

  Earlier scholarship imagined early-medieval society as stateless and dominated by large clans headed by elders, and regarded kinship solidarity as the main source of security. Some passages in the laws, as well as evidence from the sagas seem to point in this direction. However, there is little support for the idea of a “society of kindred” in recent research. A closer examination of the Scandinavian kinship system has shown that it was bilateral, as was the case in most of Western Europe. Nor is there any evidence that this system replaced an earlier one of large clans, as is to be found in many other parts of the world. When descent is reckoned in the cognatic as well as the agnatic line, families overlap and there will be a tendency for relatives either to mediate conflicts or to take a stand based on considerations other than kinship. It has also been claimed that the often-elaborate kinship system we meet in some of the laws is actually a late inventions, influenced by the Church (below, pp. 98–101). Nevertheless, the “anti-kinship trend” can easily be taken too far. Even if there were no large clans, kinship was clearly important in the early Middle Ages. Norwegian provincial laws, which are the oldest in Scandinavia, suggest the existence of a relatively strong kindred group, based on male descendants from a common agnatic grandfather. In addition, marriage created strong links and, more generally, links between people, tended to be personal rather than institutional, either between people of equal status or between patrons and clients of higher and lower status, respectively. Relatives were important, though the ties between them were not automatic but depended on choice.

  In his Heimskringla, Snorri Sturluson tells the story of the local chieftain Asbjørn in northern Norway, who at the age of eighteen inherited his father Sigurd’s farm and position in local society. Sigurd had been a highly respected man, known for his generosity and for the lavish parties he gave in honor of the gods in the pagan period and then of Christ after the conversion to Christianity. Asbjørn followed in his father’s footsteps. Eventually, however, the harvests deteriorated and it became more difficult to continue the hospitality. His mother suggested that he reduce it, but Asbjørn refused and scoured the surrounding countryside to buy the foods he needed for entertaining his neighbors. After another bad year, however, even this was not possible, and Asbjørn decided to go south to buy grain from his maternal uncle, Erling Skjalgsson, at Sola, south of present-day Stavanger. Erling had plenty of grain, but there was a problem. King Olav Haraldsson had forbidden exports from southern Norway to ensure that there would be sufficient provisions for his own visit to the area the following summer. Erling had just made peace with the king and did not want to provoke him. On the other hand, it would be a great shame for him to let down his nephew, so he allowed Asbjørn to buy grai
n from his slaves, hoping that this would not be considered a direct breach of the king’s command.

  However, Asbjørn was caught by the king’s local representative, had his cargo confiscated, and had to return empty handed. He could afford no Christmas party, found it humiliating to accept the invitation of his paternal uncle, Tore Hund (Dog), and suffered ridicule from Tore and from his neighbors. Next spring, he went south to take revenge. He cut off the head of the royal representative in the king’s presence, so that it landed in the king’s lap. Asbjørn was detained and immediately condemned to death, but he was saved at the last moment by Erling, who arrived with a large army and forced the king to accept a settlement. When Asbjørn later broke the settlement, he was killed by one of the king’s men. This brought Tore Hund into the conflict. On a visit to Asbjørn’s mother, Tore received the spear that had pierced Asbjørn as a parting gift with the words:

  Here is the spear that pierced my son Asbjørn, and there is still blood on it…. Now you would perform a brave deed if you thrust it out of your hands in such a way that it stood in the breast of King Olav. And now I say … that you will be considered a coward by every man if you do not avenge Asbjørn. (Heimskringla, The Saga of St. Olav, ch. 123)

  The story is only known from thirteenth-century sources and its trustworthiness is doubtful. Nevertheless, its picture of norms and behavior is confirmed by a number of other sources and has a realistic ring. There is extensive archaeological evidence of great sacrificial parties from the pre-Christian period, including large halls that were evidently used for such purposes, such as the one in Lejre in Denmark (Zealand). Around thirty to forty such halls dating from the first millennium AD have been excavated in various places in Scandinavia, from Lofoten in the north to southern Jutland in the south. In a runic inscription from Blekinge in Denmark (now in Sweden), dated to 550–700, a man called Haduwolf boasts that he has sacrificed nine stallions and nine bucks for a good year. The sacrifice as well as the inscription show the same aim as motivated Asbjørn, a chieftain wanting to defend or extend his leadership through lavish hospitality. Nor did the opportunity to do this disappear with the conversion to Christianity; for, like the story of Asbjørn, Norwegian provincial laws emphasize continuity, decreeing that three great drinking parties should be held each year in honor of Christ and the Virgin.