The Civil Wars Revisited

Birgit Sawyer: Civil Wars

The 'Civil Wars' revisitedBirgit Sawyer

In Denmark, Norway, and Sweden protracted 'civil wars' began in the 1130s. Many studies have been devoted to these conflicts and their causes, but little has been done to study them in a Scandinavian perspective. The early accounts of this period all treat them as personal struggles for power between rivals and their adherents. In the twentieth century most historians were not satisfied with such simple and personal explanations, and have, instead, looked for more fundamental causes, ideological, constitutional, economic or regional. It cannot be denied that such factors had a role, but here it is argued that rivalry for royal power was far more important, and attention is drawn to the individuals involved and the strategies planned by and for them. Throughout Scandinavia these involved the creation of power networks, in which women were not only pawns but also important agents. The description of these conflicts as 'civil wars' is questioned, and a plea is made that we should try to escape the limitations of national 'strait-jackets' and of retrospective interpretations.

Conventional national traditions are deeply rooted and still haunt our historical interpretations. It is understandable that in the nineteenth-century climate of state idealism historians were interested in the origin of their countries and wanted to trace the gradual 'development' that led to the states of their own day. It is less understandable why this approach has persisted and is still so common in Scandinavia,especially since the belief in linear development has lost many adherents during recent decades.1 In modern times many national histories have been published

in Denmark, Norway, and Sweden, both in general multi-volume works and as university course books. Most begin long before the nations existed, and some even go back to the Ice Age. More specialized scholarly projects are also caught in this 'national strait-jacket', for example the Danish 'From Tribe to State' ('Fra stamme til stat'), the Norwegian 'The change of religion in the North' ('Religionsskiftet i Norden', which nevertheless concentrated on Norway), and 'The

1 Cf. Harald Gustafsson, Gamla riken, nya stater, Stockholm 2000, p.22.

1


Christianization of Sweden' ('Sveriges kristnande'), although the processes in question began long before the medieval kingdoms were formed. The habit of writing history 'backwards' is also deeply

rooted, the conviction being that in order to say anything about early periods for which there are few and fragmentary sources, we must start from what is known, that is from later periods with more abundant evidence.2 As Harald Gustafsson has recently emphasized, the danger of this approach is that we tend to put too much weight on what is afterwards considered to point ahead, thereby giving a picture of historical 'development' in which certain factors and events are given an importance they did not have at the time.3 In hisstudy of the dissolution of the Kalmar Union, Gustafsson considers how the political agents at that time perceived the political structures and alternative possibilities. Since the end result, the dissolution of the Union, was not given and the views of those who were politically active affected what actually happened, Gustafsson sets out to write history 'forwards' in order to understand the process.A 'forward perspective', that involves tracing threads that

were broken off, does not mean speculating about what might have happened, but it does serve as a welcome reminder that the results are never inevitable.4 Discussions of the so-called 'civil wars' in twelfth-century Scandinavia have yielded many interpretations that are both national and retrospective. These conflicts are, therefore, an appropriate topic for a new study in which they are treated in a Scandinavian as well as a 'forward' perspective.

1. The political background

2 Cf. Jens Arup Seip, ’Problemer og metode i norsk middelalderforskning’, (Norwegian) Historisk Tidsskrift 32 (1940), reprinted in Norske historikere i utvalg 2, Oslo 1969, pp. 123-74 (used here).3 Harald Gustafsson, Gamla riken, nya stater, p. 21.4 Cf. also Göran B. Nilsson, ’Historia som humaniora’, (Swedish) Historisk Tidskrift 1989, pp. 1-15.

2


Power conflicts were not new in twelfth-century Scandinavia, but the kingdoms were. Before the tenth century only two Scandinavian kingdoms are mentioned in contemporary sources,5 those of the Danes and Svear, but they were very different from the kingdoms that were contested in the twelfth century. These contests cannot be understood without some knowledge of the prehistory of the kingdoms and the conflicts that shaped them.6

The Danish hegemonyBy the end of the tenth century only the Danish kingdom was well-established, encompassing most of what was to become medieval Denmark. The kingdom of the Svear was not territorially well-defined but was rather a sphere of interest of the Svear under their king, whose base was in the region north of lake Mälaren.7 By then, if not long before, magnates from the other main Swedish group, the Götar, who occupied the plains of central southern Sweden, began competing for the Svea-kingship, and the first king known to have been acknowledged by both groups was Olof Eriksson or Skötkonung (c. 995 - c. 1022) from Götaland. There is much to indicate that Olof was under Danish overlordship, from which he freed himself after the death of king Sven Forkbeard in 1014. At least from the end of the eighth century parts of what

was to become Norway were also under Danish overlordship. The first known attempt to create a kingdom of the Norsemen (in western Norway) was by Harald Finehair (c. 900) when the Danish kingdom was temporarily weakened, but it soon fell apart under his successors. From the middle of the tenth century Norway remained under Danish overlordship for almost acentury (until the death of Knud the Great in 1035) with short5 Excluding Bornholm which is referred to as having a king in the Old English version of Orosius, written in the late ninth century, see Ottar og Wulfstan: to rejsebeskrivelser fra vikingetiden, ed. Niels Lund, Roskilde 1983, p. 24.6 For lists of rulers, see table 1.7 Peter Sawyer, När Sverige blev Sverige, Alingsås 1991, pp. 24-35.

3


periods of independence during the reigns of Olav Tryggvason (c. 995-1000) and Olav Haraldsson (1015-1028). This Danish domination in Scandinavia may well have been

older than can be traced in our written sources. The reason for their supremacy was that the Danes had many advantages: a relatively numerous population, easy access to all parts of their territory, and, above all, control of the entrance to the Baltic which enabled their kings to regulate and benefit from the trade between western Europe and the Baltic region, that was of growing importance in the eighth century. By extending their authority to Norway the Danes also profited from the trade along the Norwegian coast (that is to say, the 'North way', after which the kingdom was named). We do not know how much of Sweden was dominated by Danish kings; it is clear, though, that many 'Swedes' (Svear and Götar) accepted Danish kings as their overlords, and that was obviously what the Danes wanted, rather than territorial control.

The dominance of the Danes provoked opposition and in the latetenth and early eleventh centuries they were opposed by alliances between the Svea kings and Norwegian, Polish and Russian rulers. The Norwegian king Olav Haraldsson and Anund, Olof Eriksson's son, joined forces against Knud the Great. After Knud's death in 1035 the Danish hegemony in Scandinavia came to an end, only to be revived in the twelfth century whenValdemar I briefly regained supremacy in Viken and two Danishprinces were recognized as kings in Sweden. Danish domination and the strategies of some - not all - leading people in Norway and Sweden to resist it are the key to understanding political developments in the eleventh and twelfth centuries. From the middle of the eleventh century the main actors on thescene were not only the Danish, Norwegian, and Swedish kings, but also other members of the royal families, who competed forpower both inside and outside their own kingdoms. Marriage andfriendship alliances were built that created very complicated patterns to which far too little attention has hitherto been paid. Loyalties cut across the borders of the kingdoms, and

4


rivals for power could count on support from different groups in neighbouring countries.

Scandinavia after the end of the Viking AgeIn the twelfth century kings and magnates donated land to churches and religious houses on a grand scale, but as they could not then hope to gather wealth by Viking raids in Russiaor western Europe, resources to sustain their power had to be sought in other ways. One solution was to exploit the resources at home more effectively, and thus, in all three kingdoms the duties, obligations, and fees of tenants were carefully regulated, and land-owners encouraged internal colonization in order to increase their income. Another solution was to conquer new territory.Expansion abroad took different directions; Norwegian kings

not only strove to strengthen their authority in the Northern and Western Isles but also to gain control over some frontier areas that later became Swedish. Magnus Bareleg (Berrføtt) attempted to seize the province of Dalsland, west of Lake Vänern, but was successfully opposed by the Swedish king Inge I. That war ended with reconciliation in 1101; Magnus married Inge's daughter Margareta, who had the disputed territory as her dowry. Towards the end of the twelfth century the provinceof Jämtland became part of the Norwegian kingdom, though ecclesiastically it came to belong to the Swedish archbishopric, created in 1164. Danish kings did not give up their attempts to control southern Norway and were intermittently successful; so for example in 1170 Erling Skakke (ruling on behalf of his son Magnus) was forced to recognize Valdemar I as his overlord in 'Viken' (the area around the Oslo fjord). Danish influence was also strong in Sweden, where Danish kings and princes inherited large amountsof land from Inge I. Two Danish princes were briefly recognized as kings in Sweden; in c. 1128 Magnus Nielsen was accepted at least by the Götar, and 1160-61 Magnus Henriksen ruled over both Götar and Svear. A Danish attack on Sweden bySven Eriksen was, however, unsuccessful. The most important Danish expansion was directed south-eastwards and along the

5


Baltic coast, an expansion that made Denmark a leading power in this area until the 1220s.

Swedish kings directed their efforts both west- and eastwards: in the west their aim was not to expand but rather to stop their neighbours doing so. The west coast of modern Sweden was divided between Norway and Denmark, and the only outlet the Swedes had to the west was the town of Lödöse, situated on Göta Älv, c. 30 km. from the sea. Originally founded in the eleventh century, its importance grew during the twelfth century, and royal presence there is evidenced by coins and fortifications. In the east, however, the Swedes could expand and did so by means of 'crusades' against Finnishand Baltic peoples, that led to conflicts with the Danes.

2. How the wars startedBy the end of the eleventh century it was the accepted rule inboth Denmark and Norway that only members of the royal families could become kings. At that stage legitimacy was not required; some sons of royal concubines made successful claims. Although most of Sven Estridsen's children were illegitimate, five of his sons reigned after him in succession. The last was Niels, after whose death in 1134 there were violent succession disputes for 23 years between claimants who were all Sven's descendants. Contemporary developments in Norway were similar. After

Magnus Bareleg's death in 1103, his three illegitimate sons, Sigurd, Øystein, and Olav were all acknowledged as kings, not as in Denmark one at a time, but sharing the throne jointly. Sigurd 'the Crusader' (Jorsalfar) survived his brothers, and after his death in 1130 his son Magnus was forced to share thethrone with Harald Gille - his uncle, according to the sagas. This arrangement, however, was broken in 1134 when Magnus drove his uncle into exile, but was defeated, blinded and imprisoned a year later by Harald, who returned with Danish support. These events have generally been treated as the beginning of a period of violent succession disputes that lasted much longer than in Denmark.

6


The situation in Sweden was more complicated. The Svear claimed the sole right to choose Swedish kings, but on severaloccasions in the eleventh and twelfth centuries they chose Götar. The eleventh century saw the beginning of a royal dynasty that traced its descent from Olof Skötkonung, who diedc. 1022, and whose power was apparently based in Västergötland. Olof's great-grandson Inge I died c. 1110 after a reign of some thirty years, and was succeeded by two nephews, both of whom were dead by c. 1120, leaving no heirs. There was then an interregum. The only male representatives oftheir dynasty were the young sons of Inge I's daughters, one of whom, Magnus, the son of Margareta and the Danish king Niels, was acknowledged as king by the Götar. At about the same time he married Rikissa, daughter of the Polish ruler Boleslaw III. The Svear did not recognize him and chose an alternative, who was, however, killed by the Götar.8 That event marks the beginning of conflicts over the succession that were even more protracted than in Norway mainly because they were not, as in Norway and Denmark, struggles to gain power in a relatively well developed kingdom, but were part ofthe process that led to the creation of the medieval kingdom.9

The main protagonists of the 'civil wars':This is not the place to describe these Scandinavian succession conflicts in detail, but a brief outline is needed.In Denmark king Niels' son Magnus had his cousin and

competitor Knud Lavard (Erik Ejegod's son) killed in 1131, which led Knud's brother Erik Emune to take revenge. In 1134 Erik Emune and his people defeated Niels and Magnus (at Fotevig), and after Erik's death (1137) his nephew Erik Lam reigned until 1146. Between 1146 and 1157 the Danish royal power was shared and disputed between Erik Ejegod's son Sven, Magnus Nielsen's son Knud, and Knud Lavard's son Valdemar. Eventually Knud and Valdemar joined forces against Sven, but in 1157 both Knud and Sven were killed, leaving Valdemar as

8 The name of this Svea-king is not known.9 Peter Sawyer, När Sverige blev Sverige.

7


the sole ruler until his death in 1182. His reign was not undisturbed, however; there were serious revolts against both him and his supporter, archbishop Absalon. Nevertheless, Valdemar's branch of the royal family retained power; he was succeeded by his two sons, first by Knud (who died in 1202) and then by Valdemar II (who died in 1241).

Table 2: Sven Estridsen's descendants

In Norway Harald Gille (allegedly a half-brother of Sigurd theCrusader) was killed by his half-brother Sigurd Slembe (1136),but his sons Sigurd, Inge, and - later (1142) - Øystein were acknowledged as sharing the Norwegian kingship, even if they fought each other. Inge survived his brothers and after his death (1161) the throne was claimed by his nephew Håkon Heredebrei, who died a year later. In 1163 the magnate Erling Skakke, who was married to Sigurd the Crusader's daughter Kristina, claimed the throne on behalf of their son Magnus, who was crowned by the archbishop in 1163/64 as king of Norway. Magnus was later attacked by rivals, first by Øystein's son (with the same name), then by the priest Sverre,who also claimed to be Harald Gille's grandson. Eventually Sverre defeated Magnus (1183/4) but had to face a series of revolts during the 1180s and 1190s. Revolts continued after the succession of his son Håkon in 1202, and it is an open question when these Norwegian succession conflicts finally ended; some scholars argue for the beginning of Håkon Håkonsson's rule (1217), while others consider they continued until 1227 when the 'Ribbung-revolt' was crushed, or even until Håkon's defeat of Jarl Skule in 1240.

Table 3: Magnus Bareleg's descendants

In about 1130 the Svear chose a magnate from Östergötland, Sverker, to oppose Magnus Nielsen, who apparently lost power in Sweden sometime before he was killed at Fotevig in 1134. Itis significant that Sverker and Erik, another man of obscure origin who was recognized as king in Sweden, both married

8


women who were in different ways closely connected with Inge I. Sverker's first known wife was Ulvhild, a Norwegian of veryhigh status, who had married the Danish king Niels after the death of Margareta, Inge I's daughter (in about 1130?) and was, therefore, the step-mother of Magnus. After Ulvhild died,between 1143 and 1150,10 he married Magnus' widow, the Polish princess Rikissa, thereby becoming the stepfather of Knud, Magnus' son who, as a descendant of Inge I, had a claim to a Swedish inheritance. When Knud married a daughter of Sverker and Ulvhild, Sverker also became his father-in-law.Very little is known about the career of Erik, the son of a

certain 'Jedvard' (possibly an Englishman). There is evidence that he was recognized as king in Västergötland, that he was killed in Svealand in 1160, and regarded as a martyr before the end of the century. It is very likely that he caused the troubles that Sverker is reported to have had in the early 1150s.11 He married Kristina, granddaughter of Inge I, who on her father's side was also a descendant of both Sven Estridsen and Magnus Bareleg. The man responsible for Erik's death was the Danish prince Magnus Henriksen, another descendant of Inge I, who was himself killed in 1161 after briefly being recognized as king. With support in both Norway and Denmark the descendants of

Sverker and Erik competed for Swedish royal power for almost acentury. They both created dynastic links not only with the Inge-family but also with different branches of the Danish andNorwegian royal families. Sverker married a daughter to the Dane Knud Magnusen, and Erik married his daughter Margareta tothe Norwegian king Sverre. Sverker's son Karl married Kristina, Knud Lavard's granddaughter, and Erik's grandson married Sofia, Valdemar I's daughter. Other kinship links between the Norwegian and Danish royal families will be discussed below.

10 Knut B. Westman, ’Erik den helige och hans tid’, in Erik den helige: historia, kult och reliker, ed. Bengt Thordeman, Stockholm1954, p. 44.11 Knut B. Westman, ’Erik den helige…’, pp. 28-32.

9


Table 4: Inge I:s descendants As violent struggles for power were not a novelty in Scandinavia, the question is why they had such far-reaching and long-lasting consequences in the twelfth century. One answer, true for both Denmark and Norway, is that the late eleventh-century kings Sven Estridsen and Magnus Bareleg were survived by several adult sons, whose many descendants set outto claim the throne, and since legitimacy was not yet a condition, there were many 'jacks-in-the-box' who could - and did - claim a right to succeed. In Sweden things were somewhat different; king Inge I:s only son Ragnvald is a very shadowy figure, who - for some reason - did not succeed him, but his daughters and a granddaughter all produced off-spring with claims to the Swedish throne.

3. The 'civil wars'; earlier explanationsThe early sources for this period (sagas, chronicles, and annals) all treat the twelfth-century 'civil wars' as personalstruggles for power between rivals for royal power and their adherents, with the different groups bound together by commoninterests and personal loyalties. Historians, however, have not been satisfied with such a simple and person-orientated explanation, and have looked for deeper-lying conflicts, ideological, constitutional, economic or regional.12 There have, thus, been many attempts to explain what caused

these 'civil wars', and what made them last so long. Many of the proposed explanations agree in seeing the roots of the conflicts in the clashing interests of King, Church, and Aristocracy. Then, however, the explanations differ radically:nineteenth- and some early twentieth-century scholars saw a conflict between the new, centralizing, royal power and the old land-owning class, that was supposed to have defended traditional values and a decentralized power structure.13

12 Cf. Knut Helle, Under kirke og kongemakt 1130-1350, vol 3 in Aschehoug’s Norges Historie, Oslo 1995, p. 19.13 As far as Norway is concerned, some earlier scholars (e.g. R. Keyser and P. A. Munch) held the view that the

10


During the first half of the twentieth century, however, Norwegian marxist research described the main conflicts as social; i.e. between an increasing group of great land-owners (King, Church and Aristocracy) and the threatened group of land-owning farmers, sometimes supported by the landless proletariat.14 Many other Scandinavian scholars have seen the conflicts as

competition between Kingdom and Church (Regnum and Sacerdotium), between the ideals of a 'national' church under royal leadership and of the 'universal' church, led by the pope and his archbishops.15 Alternatively, conflicts between different regions within

the three kingdoms have been suggested as the main cause; in Denmark the tensions between Jutland, Sjælland, and Skåne havebeen stressed; in Norway particularly those between Trøndelag and Viken, and in Sweden those between the Svear and the Götar.As far as Norway is concerned, Sverre Bagge and Knut Helle

have both rejected such explanations and suggested that the wars were aristocratic conflicts caused by a 'resource crisis', which in its turn was caused by the reduced oppportunities for magnates to enrich themselves abroad and byextensive royal donations to the church.16

Church, originally having supported the royal power, ended up siding with the aristocracy, while the farmers/tenants, having originally supported the aristocracy, switched over to side with the king. See Jens Arup Seip, ’Problemer og metode i norsk middelalderforskning’, pp. 123-74.14 E. g. E. Bull, J. Schreiner, A. Holmsen. See Knut Helle, Norge blir en stat 1130-1319, Bergen 1974, pp. 38-41.15 E. g. E. Arup, H. Koch, L. Weibull, K.B. Westman, A. Taranger, A. Bugge. See Lars Hermanson, Släkt, vänner och makt:en studie av elitens politiska kultur I 1100-talets Danmark, Göteborg 2000, pp. 15-44 and Knut Helle, Norge blir en stat…, p. 39.16 Sverre Bagge, ’Borgerkrig og statsutvikling i Norge i middelalderen’, (Norwegian) Historisk Tidsskrift 1986, pp. 145-97; Knut Helle, Norge blir en stat…, pp. 37-41; idem, Under kirke og kongemakt 1130-1350, pp. 11-21.

11


It is obvious that we cannot find a single cause; there must have been several factors, changing over time, some more important in one kingdom than the other(s). It is, however, remarkable that so little has been done to treat the three kingdoms together and to study these wars in a Scandinavian perspective. The fact that they broke out at roughly the sametime, and that the protagonists were intimately connected not only with their Scandinavian but also their Russian, Polish, and German neighbours, strongly suggests that narrow national interpretations are inherently unsatisfactory. Before discussing the wars as a Scandinavian phenomenon, some furthercomment on earlier explanations is needed.

Opposition to a strong royal power?It is true that there was opposition to the new centralizing royal power, but not as early as in the 1130s. In Norway and Sweden such opposition did not begin to be serious until the end of the 12th century, in the reigns of Sverre and Knut Eriksson. In Denmark it began somewhat earlier, during the reigns of Valdemar I and his son Knud VI, when revolts were led by those who opposed a strong central power that demanded new and heavy burdens.

Social conflicts?As far as Norway is concerned, marxist scholars have explainedthe wars as due to social conflicts, resulting from populationgrowth, which forced impoverished farmers to leave their own land, either to become tenants, or to join the poor and landless proletariat. According to this view the larger estates increased in size, and the great land-owners could afford to keep professional warriors to secure their power over the tenants. Thus the growing gulf between a land-owning upper-class and a land-renting or land-less lower-class in itself led to conflicts, in which the latter had nothing to lose but everything to win in pursuing plunder and warfare.As Knut Helle has pointed out, however, the problem with

this view is that, for this period, a dramatic increase in the

12


number of tenants has no support in contemporary sources, and the role of large estates in the high Middle Ages is still very uncertain.17 Further, according to the marxist view, the great land-owners (King, Church, and Aristocracy) co-operated against the farmers (tenants and minor land-owners), the king being nothing but an instrument to forward their common interests. As Jens Arup Seip and Knut Helle have emphasized, however, this view is not supported by our sources.18 Instead, both scholars stress the functional relationship between king and farmers, with the royal power meeting the need for law and order, and consequently gaining strength. Knut Helle has underlined the role of the kings, who increased their power and kept the balance between the great land-owners and the farmers, especially towards the end of thewars:19

... the warfare strengthened the kingdom, leading to agrowing military power under the kings and their rivals. This power was used to force the farmers to yield more, thereby laying the foundation for a more efficient central administration. This stimulated increased resistance in areas and among social classes, resisting the new pressure from the king. Towards the end of the civil wars the farmers' reactions against the enforced obligations and encroachments were so strong that they had to be takenseriously. The conflict between farmers and aristocracy grew so serious that it led the aristocracy to join forces with and gather around one of the contestants for the kingship. The royal power found it desirable to comply with the farmers' longingfor peace, a policy urged by the church.

17 Knut Helle, Norge blir en stat…, p. 32 f.18 Jens Arup Seip, ’Problemer og metode…’; Knut Helle, Norge blir en stat…, pp. 32-4.19 Knut Helle, Under kirke og kongemakt…, p. 21 (my translation).

13


Conflict between Regnum and Sacerdotium?A third explanation, that the conflict was deepened by the struggle between Regnum and Sacerdotium, has been dismissed bythe Danish historian Carsten Breengard, who denies that this was the case in twelfth-century Denmark. He emphasizes instead'the ever-increasing ecclesiastical demand for an extension ofthe king's authority due to the crucial function of the latteras a means of social protection for the Church'.20 As for Sweden, it has been argued that, while the Sverker-

dynasty supported the Gregorian ideals and the idea of the 'universal' church, the Erik-dynasty represented the conservative opponents, defending the right of the kings and magnates in each country to lead their own 'national' churches.21 This interpretation, however, has no support in the sources; we know next to nothing about Erik I's policy, and even if Sverker I is known to have invited the first Cistercians, and helped to found their monasteries, and his son Karl was ruling when the Swedish archbishopric was created, it is likewise true that Erik I:s son Knut endowed these monasteries and was active in the creation of the new Swedish bishopric of Växjö. Thus, both dynasties were supporting the church, and there is no hint of a conflict between Regnum and Sacerdotium in twelfth-century Sweden.Before the reign of Sverre there is no hint of such a

conflict in contemporary Norway either. Earlier scholars, including Storm, Taranger, Bugge, and Bull, saw the higher clergy, as well as the aristocracy, as opponents of royal power after the establishment of the archbishopric in Nidaros.But, as Knut Helle points out, in Magnus Erlingsson's time, the Church was actively working to strengthen royal power22 -as it did in Denmark and Sweden.

It is also important to underline that the aristocracy did notlose by this co-operation between Church and royal power. Many

20 Carsten Breengaard, Muren om Israels hus, København 1982, p. 333.21 Knut B. Westman, ’Erik den helige och hans tid’, p. 4.22 Knut Helle, Norge blir en stat…, p. 39.

14


Danish scholars have argued that the archbishop's canonizationof Valdemar I’s father Knud Lavard, and the coronation of his son Knud reduced the power of the aristocracy and founded an entirely new legal basis and ideological legitimization for government.23 Lars Hermanson, however, has seriously questioned this interpretation and, instead, emphasized continuity in the political development:24

The conclusion is drawn that the Ringsted meeting cannot be interpreted as a victory of the royal power and the Church over the aristocracy. The ceremony is above all seen as expressing the king's wish to legitimize a new rule, according to which only legitimate sons had the right to inherit the throne. The Ringsted meeting did not mean a final triumph for the institutions of kingdom and Church, leading to radical changes in the political conditions of society. Instead the ceremony ought to be seen as an official manifestation of a European ideology of royalpower that was already introduced into Denmark during king Niels' time.

Thus, the aristocracy did not - as a group - oppose co-operation between King and Church; if anything this co-operation must have reduced the causes of conflict.The same is probably true of Norway; the coronation of

Magnus Erlingsson (1163/64) is likely to have inspired king Valdemar I to arrange the coronation of his son (in Ringsted 1170). The cooperation between the Church and King, manifested not only by Magnus Erlingsson's coronation but alsoby the coronation oath and the law of succession,25 did not mean the foundation of a new kind of government but was, aboveall, important in legitimizing Magnus Erlingsson as king. What

23 Lars Hermanson, Släkt, vänner och makt…, p. 264.24 Lars Hermanson, Släkt, vänner och makt…, pp. 266-7.25 Possibly also a collection of Canones, regulating e.g. ecclesiastical elections, jurisdiction and economy; see Knut Helle, Norge blir en stat…, pp. 57-69.

15


can be said, however, is that - as in Ringsted - 'a seed had been sown for a future order of government'.26 Knut Helle stresses the fact that most members of the aristocracy forwarded the same centralizing policy as the church.27

Regional conflicts?Regional conflicts have been suggested as one of the main causes of the civil wars. It is true that early sources describe the contenders as having stronger or lesser support in certain regions, but - apart from king Sverre's support in Trøndelag - there was no consistency. Loyalties often crossed regional as well as national borders. This is not to deny regional differences. For example, the dominant position of the Sjælland Hvide-group in Danish politics provoked opposition in both Jutland and Skåne, while, in Sweden, the tensions between the Svear and the Götar - and among the Götarthemselves - were an obstacle to the unification of a Swedish kingdom. In Trøndelag there was a clear tendency to oppose kings from other parts of Norway (especially Viken) who tried to extend their authority, but, as Knut Helle has argued, the regional loyalties, that were due to geographical barriers andlack of institutions that could unite the kingdom, were not asimportant as has been supposed.28 Instead of seeing conflicts between different regions within

Norway, Helle sees a conflict between the centre and the periphery, and suggests that people in more distant and marginal areas of the country reacted against the exercise of central power as such, burdening them with new obligations andreducing their old political and judicial system of self-government. Helle is then referring to the later phases of thewars, starting with Sverre, who recruited many of his followers among poor and landless people in peripheral areas of south-eastern Norway (birkebeiner = 'the birch-legs', who were so poor that they had to cover their legs with birchbark). As soon as he succeeded in gaining royal power -

26 Lars Hermanson, Släkt, vänner och makt…, p. 267.27 Knut Helle, Under kirke og kongemakt…, p. 39.28 Knut Helle, Under kirke og kongemakt…, p. 20.

16


and richly rewarded his followers -, his opponents, having lost their property and status, were supported by other impoverished people.It is very likely that the same was true of late twelfth-

century Denmark and Sweden. The real opposition to strong royal power in Sweden came from a branch of the Erik-family, the so-called 'Folkungar', who resisted rulers who threatened 'the traditional rights of the people' during the whole thirteenth century.29 Even if the Folkunga-leaders themselvesbelonged to the propertied élite, many of their followers mustcertainly have been recruited among the landless.We do not know how far the opponents to the rule of Valdemar

I and Knud VI recruited followers among the landless in Denmark, but it seems likely that it was the case there as elsewhere.

A 'resource crisis' Sverre Bagge's and Knut Helle's view that in Norway the civil wars began as aristocratic conflicts due to a resource crisis is questionable; conflicts over resources were not new or especially characteristic of the early twelfth century and cannot explain the outbreak of the warfare in the 1130s. What caused the supposed 'resource crisis' was, according to

Bagge, first of all the end of the viking expeditions with their opportunities of enrichment.30 Since these expeditions ceased by c. 1050, he admits that we would expect conflicts and rivalry within the aristocracy already then, but since this was not the case, his explanation is that - at least for a while - the aristocrats found new means of maintaining themselves by entering royal service. Because of the extensiveroyal donations to the church Bagge concludes that there was gradually less land left to give to those serving the king,

29 Erik Lönnroth, ’De äkta folkungarnas program’, in Kungl.Humanistiska vetenskaps-samfundets i Uppsala årsbok, Uppsala and Leipzig 1944, pp. 5-26; reprinted in En annan uppfattning, Stockholm 1949, pp. 36-38, and in Från svensk medeltid, Stockholm 1959, pp. 13-29, used here.30 Sverre Bagge, ’Borgerkrig og statsutvikling…’, p. 163.

17


and that it was this that led to the outbreak of the wars. It remains to be proved, however, how common it was that in the eleventh century aristocrats entered royal service, and, aboveall, on what terms. The land may not always have been given tothem by the king; it is as likely that much was originally their own, but by paying homage to the king they were allowed to keep it. And even if Bagge is right in stressing the royal donations to the church, it should not be forgotten that the leaders of the church were recruited from the aristocracy.Knut Helle has a different explanation why the wars did not

break out until the 1130s. He argues that the whole period c. 1030-1130 was expansive, and that under Magnus Olavsson, Harald Hardrade, Magnus Bareleg, and Sigurd the Crusader, magnates had opportunities to 'indulge their warlike predilections', and win 'glory and riches in the form of war booty, plundered goods, and tribute'.31 It remains to be proved that the wars led by these kings - especially the one Sigurd fought in Småland - could really have satisfied resource-hungry magnates.Finally, even if resources were never abundant in Norway, it

is hard to believe in a serious crisis during a century in which several cathedrals, religious houses, and many stone churches were built, financed by kings, bishops - and magnates.

No doubt the competition for resources was one of the most important factors in the 'civil wars' in all the three kingdoms. After the Viking Age magnates increasingly had to look for them at home rather than abroad, which intensified their attempts not only to guard what they already had, but also to enlarge it and control how the resources were distributed. This does not mean, however, that the magnates ceased to be interested in external resources; this is shown by the many alliances across the borders, inside Scandinavia as well as with German and Slav rulers, discussed below.

31 Knut Helle, Under kirke og kongemakt…, p. 19 (my translation).

18


4. A reassessment of the 'civil wars'None of the earlier explanations has satisfactorily answered the question why the wars in all three Scandinavian kingdoms broke out in the 1130s. I suggest the answer should be sought in the complicated networks, internal and external, that had been created, and that, when activated, caused the conflicts to be both extensive and prolonged. How did the competitors for royal power recruit adherents?

It is not very likely that, as some scholars have argued, men risked their property and lives for ideas and principles, supporting candidates who were for or against more effective royal government, or aristocratic privileges, or greater ecclesiastical authority. Such motives are improbable and are the result of interpreting the wars in the light of later developments, a retrospective approach that has led to the assumption that already in the twelfth century political powerwas shared between King, Church, and Aristocracy, with the latter often supposed to have been a reactionary party, opposed to royal and ecclesiastical policies. Such interpretations, however, have no support in our sources; on the contrary, at that time King and Church were mutually dependant, and most of the higher clergy were drawn from the secular aristocracy.It has often been assumed that medieval societies were

politically hierarchical, with power delegated by the rulers. Power structures have consequently been seen as vertical, withdifferent forms of subordination from top to bottom. Recently,however, more emphasis has been put on the horizontal bonds formed by marriage and other forms of alliance and friendship that created networks linking rulers and other powerful people. The adherents of the different contenders are more likely to have fought not for ideas or ideals but in order to support the leaders they thought could increase their own wealth, status, and political influence.

Lars Hermanson, who has analyzed political developments and conflicts in Denmark 1104-1202, has convincingly shown that the political élite did not form distinct groups or parties.

19


They did not oppose royal power as such, and in their competition for power 'they all tried to use the Church to advance their own causes; churchmen did not constitute a united and politically independent group.'32 Hermanson criticizes the constitutional model of explanation and concludes that in the twelfth century the political fights were due to conflicts between different networks within the élite. In forming these networks women played a very importantrole, and Hermanson emphasizes the mutual advantages rulers and aristocrats gained from strategic marriages:33

For members of the royal family the marriage of their women to leading aristocrats was a way of strengtheningtheir position, by joining networks of different aristocratic families to which they could turn for support. Such marriage alliances benefited both parties; by marrying into the royal family the aristocrats raised their social status. The marriage policy was a way of carefully selecting relatives and of creating a politically rewarding and dynamic kindred.

To this must be added that marriage was not the only way womenwere used to create new alliances; many rulers and magnates also had concubines, whose male relatives became part of theirnetworks.34

Even if no studies along Hermanson's line have yet been madeof the twelfth century in Norway and Sweden, enough has already been done to make it very likely that we are dealing with the same processes as in contemporary Denmark, at least in the period before 1170-80s. Already in 1944 Erik Lönnroth was of the opinion that chronicles and annals were largely correct when they presented the Swedish civil wars of the thirteenth century as an expression of rivalry between kin-

32 Lars Hermanson, Släkt, vänner och makt…, p.260.33 Lars Hermanson, Släkt, vänner och makt…, p. 263.34 Cf. Audur Magnusdottir, Frillor och fruar; politik och samlevnad på Island 1120-1400, Göteborg 2001.

20


groups.35 If this is true of the thirteenth century, there isno doubt about it being true of the twelfth! Knut Helle also stresses the importance of family ties,

friendships and other alliances in the Norwegian conflicts,36 especially before the 1160's. After that groupings that were more politically formed, and developed into firmer and more extensive parties, dominated the scene well into the thirteenth century. Helle does not see a conflict between royal power and aristocracy; on the contrary he explains the outbreak and first phase of the civil wars as due to the lack of resources, making it necessary for landowners to ally with the kings, who during the formation of the kingdom had accumulated large amounts of land by confiscating opponents' property. Since, after Magnus Bareleg, there were several candidates to the Norwegian throne, magnates had to choose between them, and in order to control royal power they naturally supported those who were most likely to look after their interests. In their fights the magnates were supported not only by their personal networks but were also able to recruit adherents among landless and rootless people, a resultof the growth in population, that increased pressure on the available land.In Sweden, the scenario was the same; the several

competitors for kingship in the twelfth century were supportedby different groupings of land-owners and their networks, who had much the same aims as their peers in Norway.

5. Foreign marriage alliancesIt has already been pointed out that loyalties and alliances often crossed regional and national borders, and one factor that complicated the 'civil wars' in all countries was that both magnates and the representatives of different royal branches often allied with people in neighbouring countries. The patterns of alliances within Scandinavia as well as between Scandinavia and Russian, Polish, and German rulers are

35 Erik Lönnroth, ’De äkta folkungarnas program’, pp. 14-15.36 Knut Helle, Under kirke og kongemakt…, p.20.

21


very complicated. In describing the most important networks itis best to begin with the Swedish king Inge I and his marriagepolicy. He had only one son, Ragnvald, but three daughters, Margareta, Kristina, and Katarina. Since Ragnvald was obviously not even considered as his successor, we can deduce that Inge was forced to plan carefully for his daughters' future and find politically advantageous marriage partners forthem. He married Margareta to the Norwegian king Magnus Bareleg; Kristina was married to Mstislav of Kiev, and Katarina to the Danish prince Bjørn Jernside, a descendant of Sven Estridsen. After Magnus Bareleg's death Margareta marriedthe Danish king Niels, and as queen of Denmark she continued her father's policy, arranging strategic marriages between hernieces and her husband's nephews. Thus her brother's daughter Ingrid was married to Henrik Skadelår, and her sister Kristina's daughter Ingeborg to Knud Lavard, giving both nieces parts of her inheritance after Inge I as dowries. Saxo has it that, by creating these kinship ties, she hoped to achieve peace between the three main competitors for Danish royal power, her own son Magnus and his two cousins. The peaceonly lasted during her life-time; after her death (c. 1130) the competition changed into open conflict, the start of the succession wars in Denmark, in which the inheritance after Inge I was an important issue. It was as his descendants that both her son Magnus Nielsen (c. 1128) and later her niece's son Magnus Henriksen (1160) claimed the right to be kings in Sweden.

The consequences of the marriage between Inge's daughter Kristina and Mstislav of Novgorod (at this time under Kiev) were also significant. For more than a century several important marriage alliances had been made between ruling families in Scandinavia and Russia, and in the early twelfth century growing tensions inside Russia strongly affected the marriage strategies of Scandinavian rulers (see table 5).37

37 The following section on Russian and Polish marriage alliances is based on John Lind, ’De russiske ægteskaber;dynasti- og alliancepolitik I 1130’ernes danske

22


Kristina and Mstislav had two daughters; Ingeborg was married to the Danish prince Knud Lavard and Malmfrid to the Norwegian king Sigurd the Crusader. For Knud, being 'jarl' of southern Jutland with interests along the Baltic coast, this alliance with Novgorod was of great economic and commercial importance. It was, however, countered by his cousin and competitor Magnus Nielsen, who, in about 1128, married Rikissa, the daughter of Boleslaw III of Poland. This marriageconfirmed the Danish-Polish alliance directed against Pomerania and resulted in a joint military attack, during which the Pomeranian duke, a friend of Knud Lavard's, was taken prisoner by king Niels. The Danish-Polish alliance seriously interfered with Knud Lavard's plans, disturbing the connections that he was building up in the area. No doubt kingNiels and Magnus were trying to undermine Knud Lavard's position in Nordalbingia, where he was recognized as king of the Obodrites and crowned by Lothar at about the same time. When, on Magnus' instigation, Knud was killed (7/1 1131), his pregnant wife was staying with her father Mstislav, who had bythen succeeded his father Vladimir as prince of Kiev. Here shegave birth to Valdemar, and the fact that the child was given a Russian name (after his great grandfather) supports John Lind's suggestion (based on Knytlinga-saga) that plans were made for his future in Russia, not in Denmark. After Mstislav's death in 1132 Ingeborg probably stayed with her brother Vsevolod of Novgorod.38 Meanwhile in Denmark Erik Emune, who - as his brother Knud's

avenger - led the revolt against King Niels and Magnus, married Sigurd the Crusader's widow Malmfrid in order to widenhis power basis. Malmfrid was Ingeborg's and Vsevolod's sister, and thus connections between Denmark and Kiev-Russia were strengthened. At the same time Sigurd the Crusader's son Magnus married Erik Emune's niece Kristine (Knud's eldest daughter), an arrangement leading to a Danish-Russian-Norwegian double-alliance.

borgerkrig’, (Danish) Historisk Tidsskrift 92 (1992), pp. 225-63.38 According to John Lind in a letter, 2 september 2001.

23


After Magnus Nielsen's death in 1134, his widow Rikissa went back to her father, Boleslaw. Here she was married to the Russian ruler Volodar Glebovich of Minsk. This marriage was obviously arranged by enemies of Erik Emune and the Kiev-dynasty; at the time the Polotsk-dynasty, to which Volodar belonged, was struggling for its existence against the Kiev-dynasty. In c. 970 Polotsk appears as an independent principality,

ruled by a Scandinavian dynasty, competing with the Riurikids in Kiev. In 980, however, the Polotsk-ruler Rogvolod (Ragnvald) was killed by Vladimir Sviatoslavich (Saint Vladimir) of Kiev, who took over Polotsk. The rule of the Riurikids did not last long; already under Vladimir's son Iziaslav, who had been given Polotsk, it ceased to be part of the conglomerate of principalities under Kiev. The cause for this in uncertain, but John Lind suggests that this development was due to the earlier independence of Polotsk. Furthermore, Iziaslav belonged to both the Riurikids and the old Polotsk dynasty; his mother Rogned (Ragnhild?) was the daughter of Rogvolod. Thus John Lind interprets the later conflict as due to one branch of the Riurikid dynasty (Kiev) trying to suppress another (Polotsk).39

At least from the early twelfth century the princes of Kiev (both Vladimir and Mstislav) had tried to incorporate Polotsk with their own state. Under this threat it was natural for thePolotsk-rulers to seek help from other enemies of Kiev-Russia,and the marriage between Rikissa and Volodar confirmed the alliance between Poland and Polotsk against both the rulers ofKiev and Erik Emune in Denmark. With this marriage Rikissa created a power basis for her and Magnus' son Knud to counter Valdemar's, both princes being expected to compete for the Danish throne.Valdemar's future in Russia was threatened by the growing

weakness of Kiev. In 1136 his uncle Vsevolod was driven from Novgorod, and this was probably the reason why Ingeborg and Valdemar returned to Denmark, which was still ruled by her

39 According to John Lind in a letter, 2 september 2001.

24


brother-in-law Erik Emune. Knud's future was also at stake; after the death of his grandfather Boleslaw III (1138/9) the same tendencies of dissolution also set in in Poland. Rikissa's marriage with Volodar no longer served any politicalpurpose, and this was probably why they divorced and Rikissa entered on her third marriage, with Sverker I, an arrangement better suited to forward Knud's interests in the competition for royal power in Denmark.

Thus in the late 1130s two competitors, Valdemar and Knud, were back in Denmark, but there was also a third: Erik Emune'sson Sven, and the different alliances during the future struggle between them had much to do with kinship and other networks; What complicated matters was that, now being king Sverker's stepson and son-in-law, Knud could count on support both in Sweden and from Sverker-friendly circles in Denmark. Valdemar could also count on this support having married Knud's half-sister Sofia (daughter of Rikissa and step-daughter of Sverker I). The ties with the Sverker-family became even closer when Sverker I:s son Karl married Valdemar's niece Kristina. In Norway the inheritance after and kinship with Inge I was

not such an important factor as in Denmark and Sweden; in her marriage with Magnus Bareleg Margareta had no children, so herinheritance after Inge I did not pass into Norwegian hands. Two of Magnus' illegitimate sons, however, married into the Inge-family: Sigurd (d. 1130) had married one of Inge's granddaughters, Malmfrid (daughter of Kristina and Mstislav ofKiev), and his half-brother Harald Gille (d. 1136) married another, Ingrid (Ragnvald's daughter) after she had left her Danish husband, Henrik Skadelår. Harald's own daughter Birgitta married Magnus Henriksen, Ingrid's son with her firsthusband Henrik Skadelår, and (as pointed out above) as a descendant of Inge I, Magnus was accepted as king in Sweden 1160-61. Harald Gille's sister Ragnhild married the Danish prince Harald Kejse (d. 1135), whose son Bjørn (d. 1135) was married to Inge I:s daughter Katarina.

25


After the middle of the century both the new Swedish dynasties, of Sverker and Erik were sufficiently well established to be attractive as allies; especially in Denmark where the descendants of Sverker had strong ties of kinship and friendship, while in Norway, where connections with the Erik-circle seem to have been preferred among king Magnus Erlingsson's opponents. In 1174 Øystein 'Møyla', son of king Øystein (who had shared the royal power with his brothers Ingeand Sigurd), came to Birger Brosa, the Swedish king Knut Eriksson's 'jarl' to ask for help against Magnus Erlingsson. It was given, but after Øystein's fall (1177) Birger supportedSverre and is said to have advised Øystein's followers, the 'birkebeiner', to accept Sverre as their leader. The close ties between Sverre and Knut Eriksson's circle are illustratedpartly by jarl Birger Brosa's son Filip becoming Sverre's jarl, and partly by Sverre's marriage after 1184 to Knut Eriksson's daughter Margareta. These ties of friendship and kinship explain why Knut's son Erik found refuge in Norway during his exile from Sweden (under the rule of Sverker II). Birger Brosa, himself a descendant of the Danish king St Knud,was married to a Norwegian princess, Harald Gille's illegitimate daughter Birgitta, widow of the Danish prince Magnus Henriksen, who was king in Sweden 1160-61.

Men and women in the 'civil wars'Scandinavian intermarriages were not new, but during the twelfth century they had disastrous effects, since they involved so many competitors for royal power, who were also trying to secure valuable inheritances of land in different areas. Here it is argued that a very important factor in the wars that broke out at roughly the same time in all the three kingdoms was the complicated net-work of family- and friendship alliances across the borders. The purpose of most marriage alliances was to increase the power bases of the families involved, securing loyalty and future support when needed. These alliances, however, also led to inheritance claims of the descendants, claims to royal power and/or landedproperty and other kinds of wealth. The complicated patterns

26


of alliances within Scandinavia as well as between Scandinaviaand Russian, Polish and German rulers is illustrated in tables2-6.To emphasize the network of alliances is not to deny that

the causes behind the civil wars in Denmark, Norway and Swedenwere manifold and changing at different times. It is, rather, an attempt to draw attention to the people involved and the strategies planned by and for them, a game where (especially) women were the pawns. Pawns or not, however, many of the womenwere very intent on defending their own and their children's rights, e.g. Margareta working for Magnus, Ingrid for Inge, Ingeborg for Valdemar, and Rikissa for Knud (see table 6). Bymarrying the partners chosen for them, and then, as widows, continuing to work for the benefit of their sons, these women ought to have a pride of place in our history books. Since this is not the case, however, the general perception of medieval Scandinavia's political history (as of most other political history) is still that it belongs to the world of men, where it was only men who planned, acted, and reacted, and whose fates were decided on the battlefields.This, however, is not the whole truth; long before it came

to the battlefield, complicated strategies had been pursued, and many decisions had been made, activities in which women aswell as men played important roles.

ConclusionThe twelfth and thirteenth centuries in Scandinavia were a time of demographic and economic growth, and of important political, ecclesiastical, and cultural developments. The population increased, agriculture was intensified, towns were established, trade flourished, royal and ecclesiastical administration developed rapidly, many religious houses were founded, churches, of wood or stone, with elaborate sculpturedornaments were built, and laws, history, and sagas were written. Nevertheless, in each kingdom the twelfth century istraditionally labelled 'a period of civil wars', directing attention to the conflicts, bloodshed and militarization rather than to peaceful developments. The traditional

27


descriptions of these periods are questionable, so too are thedates they are supposed to have ended.The term 'civil wars' (Danish and Norwegian 'borgerkrig')

causes problems; even if many 'civilians' (borger in Danish and Norwegian, medborgare in Swedish) took part, the wars wereled by military forces.40 In none of the kingdoms did the wars involve all - or even large groups of - the population, nor was there any consistency in alliances among those who fought. Above all, in none of the kingdoms were the wars only internal; the fighting groups included people from other kingdoms. It is also misleading to treat these conflicts as though they lasted for limited periods, giving the impression that before and after relatively peaceful conditions prevailed. That was not so in Scandinavia or anywhere else incontemporary Europe, where political turbulence was the rule, not the exception. The problem with Scandinavia is, however, that we do not know so much about earlier conflicts as those of the twelfth and thirteenth centuries. Thus, it is partly the sources that have shaped the notion that something new anddramatic happened in the 1130s that requires a special explanation. No doubt this notion has been reinforced by medieval historians, such as the Roskilde Chronicler and Theodricus, who both expressed horror at developments at that time.41

40 Cf. Sverre Bagge who stresses the growing military specialization andn professionalization, ’Borgerkrig og statsutvikling…’, pp. 25, 33-6, 56.41 The author of the Roskilde Chronicle describes the conflicts breaking out after the murder of Knud Lavard (in 1131) as creating ’such a big discord among the Danesthat there has not been a greater trial for clergy and people since the Christianization of Denmark.’ (my translation of Danish quotation from Roskildekrøniken, oversat og kommenteret af Michael H. Gelting, Wormianum 1979, p. 25.)Theodricus chose to end his history with the death of king Sigurd the Crusader (in 1130): ’With this we too end our work, because it would be undignified to transmit to posterity the memory of all the crimes, murders, false oaths and kin-killings that happened then.’ (my

28


The main argument of this article is that what shocked twelfth-century authors was not the conflicts themselves but their extent and long duration, and it is this that requires an explanation. A main cause of these conflicts was - as it had been earlier, and continued to be - rivalry for royal power, but, while the number of contenders with claims to the throne had earlier been limited, the situation changed dramatically after c. 1100. In Denmark, Norway, and Sweden many of Sven Estridsen's, Magnus Bareleg's and Inge I:s descendants competed for power, building up networks both inside and outside Scandinavia. The complicated pattern of political alliances was there, ticking away like a time bomb, and it was thus not chance that the wars broke out at the sametime in all the three kingdoms, that were now so closely interconnected.It is too early to give a definitive answer to the question

what triggered the wars but my provisional suggestion is that the death of Queen Margareta was crucial. According to Saxo she had been very successful in preserving the peace between the descendants of all three kings, having achieved many marriage alliances between them. Paradoxically her marriage policy, intended to link the rulings families, had the opposite effect, leading to disastrous competition.

We know the outcome of the 'civil wars'; in all three kingdomsrelative peace was achieved - which in itself would require an explanation! - but not for so very long. None of the kingdoms was very stable.42 In Denmark, the great Valdemarean era came to an end at

Bornhøved in 1227, where Valdemar 'Sejr' lost most of the Baltic conquests, and after his death in 1241, new and

translation of Norwegian quotation from Theodricus munk, Historien om de gamle norske kongene…, oversatt av Astrid Salvesen, Thorleif Dahl’s Kulturbibliotek, Oslo 1969, p. 87 (ch. xxxiv).)42 Cf. Sverre Bagge who refers to the Norwegian kingdom as ’stable’ after 1240, ’Borgerkrig og statsutvikling…’, p. 163.

29


prolonged succession conflicts broke out. The Danish kingdom grew weaker and weaker; by the beginning of the fourteenth century many royal castles had been taken over by German knights, and between 1332 and 1340 there was an interregnum. In Sweden new wars broke out already in the 1270s (between Birger Jarl's sons Valdemar and Magnus), and for a brief period in the early fourteenth century the kingdom was actually divided between three contenders (Birger, Erik, and Valdemar, Birger Jarl's grandsons). After the death of duke Erik (in 1318) a new war broke out, and renewed throne conflicts characterize both the 1350s and the late 1380s. In Norway 'stability' lasted a little longer, partly because there, the bloodshed of the wars had greatly reduced the number of magnates, and those who survived served the king. After Håkon Håkonsson there was no more rivalry for royal power; the successions of his son Magnus and then his grandsons Erik and Håkon seem not to have been questioned. On the other hand, the very fact that Håkon Magnusson lacked maleissue gave rise to other difficulties than the ongoing throne rivalries in Sweden and Denmark; by marrying his daughter Ingebjørg to the Swedish duke Erik he entered on a policy thathad longlasting consequences. The personal unions with Sweden (1319-1355) and later (from 1380) with Denmark are both expressions of Norway's growing dependance on its neighbouringcountries, and during the course of the fourteenth century thekingdom was gradually weakened.43

43 In his ’Borgerkrig og statsutvikling…’ Sverre Bagge chose to start his analysis of the ’civil wars’ in Norwaywith what is known about the situation in c. 1240, i.e. with a strong and ’stable’ state, interpreting this as a result of the wars. What would be the outcome if we started the analysis with what is known about the situation c. 1319 or c. 1380? The reduced aristocracy, unified in royal service and totally dependent on the king, which in the 1240s guaranteed stability, would theninstead help explain the opposite, i.e. the serious weakening of the Norwegian kingdom.

30


How are periods defined? The wars that broke out in the 1130s were only an intensification and extension of conflicts due torivalry for the throne that had started much earlier and went on well into the sixteenth century. The 'civil wars' are considered to have ended, in Denmark in 1157, in Norway at thelatest in 1240, and in Sweden in 1250, because by these years three rulers, Valdemar I, Håkon Håkonsson, and Birger Jarl emerged as the victors. The choice of these end dates is, however, arbitrary, and says more about the influence of contemporary sources, produced to emphasize the importance of these victors. But 'civil wars', competition for royal power, continued. It would - in a Scandinavian perspective - be as appropriate to label the period c. 900-1523 (when Sweden left the Kalmar Union) the 'time of throne rivalries'. This, of course, is not a serious suggestion; for analytical purposes we need periods of shorter duration, but perhaps we should be more careful before we simply take over the patterns constructed by our predecessors and reconsider the bases for their periodization.

In the eleventh and twelfth centuries Scandinavians were not caught in the 'strait-jackets' of their kingdoms; Magnus Olavsson was king of both Norsemen and Danes 1042-47; apart from being king of the Norsemen Harald Hardrade tried to be king also of the English in 1066; the Danish prince Magnus Nielsen was king of the Götar in the 1120s; another Danish prince, Knud Lavard was king of the Obodrites until his death in 1131, and a third Danish prince, Magnus Henriksen, was kingof the Swedes c. 1160. The marriage strategies of Scandinavianrulers and their families show that, in the competition for power, they looked beyond the frontiers of their kingdoms, frontiers that were in fact not firmly settled. In the late eleventh century the Norwegian king Magnus Bareleg invaded Dalsland, and in the first half of the twelfth century the Norwegian king Sigurd the Crusader and, later, the Danish kingSven Grathe invaded southern Sweden, claiming rights over territory. With the establishment of archbishoprics in both Norway and Sweden (in 1152/53 and 1164) the borders were

31


defined by the papacy, but, even so, things were not clear-cut; even if Jämtland was under the Swedish archbishop of Uppsala, politically it came to belong to the Norwegian kingdom. Thus, the boundaries were not settled; as late as in the

early fourteenth century the Swedish duke Erik created a totally new principality in the middle of Scandinavia, consisting of (Norwegian) southern Bohuslän, (Danish) northernHalland and (Swedish) Västergötland, Värmland and Dalsland, and in the 1380s all three kingdoms united in a personal union, made formal in 1397. But that is another story.

27/11 2001

32

Documents

The Civil Wars Revisited